It turns out that Dr. Avital is an "expert" in everything, since otherwise it is impossible to understand his treatment of global warming and evolution? * Dr. Assaf Rosenthal as a nature reserve person understands both evolution and global warming and it is difficult for him to understand how our children are forced to be ignorant
In other words, in aerodynamics and flow... I'm a total ignoramus, so I won't be able to express an opinion on the subject, later it turns out that Dr. Avital is an "expert" in everything, since otherwise it's impossible to understand his attitude to global warming and evolution?
An attitude according to which these are actually issues that do not exist, although he does not say this explicitly, but from his words it can be understood that in his opinion, global warming...yoke, evolution...under the auspices of a supreme creator are indeed words of "wisdom".
When similar things are said by a Christian priest or a rabbi wearing a robe, you can listen, shake your head and move on to the agenda, but when the words are said by a "Chief Scientist in the Ministry of Education"... there is room for panic.
It is true, for a long time there have been currents among us that come close to the "thought" of the Ayatollahs, for a long time there have been among us those who kiss stones and trees, for a long time there have been barren, unmarried, sick and poor people who seek balm on "graves of the righteous" or from sorcerers and above , but until today idolatry was a side branch, which added to the general popular ignorance, even when high-profile people visit those sorcerers, it could be treated as "going down to the people" in order to gain "popularity", or even an attempt to hold on to another supporting branch, even if The support is a broken reed support.
When according to the "scientist" who produces pearls, there is reason to fear and panic that we are returning to the Middle Ages, in the first stage the "scientist" is only expressing his opinion, in the next stage, which he has already announced, there will be an inquisition, even though 500 years ago we overcame the mask wearers, there is reason to fear their activities Offensive, the right of expression is a cornerstone of our culture, but when this stone becomes a stoning tool there is a place to neutralize it.
We must not forget that there is a compulsory education law in Israel, and it is enough that there are exemptions for the ultra-Orthodox from the core studies, should the seculars also now be separated from the core of two of the most important sciences?
Therefore, the Minister of Education must neutralize the "scientist" before he causes irreversible damage.
It should be noted that the site of the knowledge contacted the office of the spokesperson of the Ministry of Education with a request, but we have not yet received a response.
88 תגובות
Anonymous delusional:
sweet Dreams.
There is no shortage of professors such as Professor Troup from Yale University (Professor of Science "Emergence and Age of the World") who do not believe in "evolution at all, so why do you just say things that you simply need academic books to discover them, you should read more than an encyclopedia or Wikipedia before you write about something
I don't understand why you claim that according to Judaism, the earth, etc., was created in six days, after all, Adam was expelled from Heaven, which is the place that was created in six days, to Earth, where the form of his creation was not written, and it was only mentioned that Heaven is similar to Earth in that many of the same life forms exist in it, and I still don't understand why you Taking something that is not written in the Torah that God said could be and probably makes more sense that it was written because the story of Genesis was common as a religious story, but a historical story. You understand what I mean. There are stories in religions that have not been experienced by humans, such as stories on Olympus, etc. The person who wrote this thought it was true, but it has nothing to do with the Jewish religion, which believes that prophecies come true regarding things that God says will come true, such as the promise on the edge of the Red Sea that salvation will come to them from a hailstorm, etc., as well as a reward for mitzvot according to Judaism, prophecies, this is not the "scriptures of the religion", of course, prophecies too Passed by word of mouth, but a claim about Christianity and Islam is yes (as you know their attitude is different)
In the original it was written "the righteous shall live by his faith" and not "every man shall live by his faith"
http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/spages/1152752.html
Physicist
I read all your comments - and I am thrilled. really.
Admittedly, there is no shortage of sane people who need any kind of professional accompaniment
But for me -
You deserve to be appointed to the position of Chief Scientist in the Ministry of Education today!
Uncle
I don't understand why you limit oppression and bigotry and vicious stupidity to two thousand years
Why not for five thousand seven hundred and seventy years?
It is said about your words - a man will live by his faith.
Pray well today.
ok guys, everyone has formulated their position in the sharpest way possible. I don't think that another word will increase or decrease, I don't think we can bridge the gaps. A man by his faith shall live...
for a physicist
Of all the words in your comments here, what caught my eye was the statement that you don't like the Holy War of M. Rothschild and probably others too, religious/theism.
If you are indeed a physicist, this is a somewhat strange statement in my opinion because as such you were supposed to be one of the ministers of the army who leads the battle against the religious, religious, theistic nonsense that floods this site, the web and the entire world.
There is really nothing to discuss with a religious person, he is one of those whose faith has stolen their minds, but the reason people's minds can be stolen is, just as Rothschild said, that there are people like you, a physicist, who say that scientific truth has an equal status to religious nonsense.
There is no reason to be stunned, you know that there is nothing from the technological progress to it
Humanity arrived, it did not leave the world of thought, belief, religion.
On the contrary, if tomorrow morning all the Gothic bookshelves, religious beliefs, disappear from the world, not a hair will fall from anyone's head, the world will behave according to its custom. But if scientific knowledge disappears, we will all return to ancient times in terms of our living conditions.
If you feel like living in cedar groves and grazing sheep, you will be disappointed, but your chivalrous defense of the incessant attempts to march humanity back to ancient times, is only possible because you are sitting in the comfortable armchair of technological progress to which all those who thought throughout human history that the highest value that should guide the Humans are curiosity, not faith.
I don't know if you really live in a real dissonance between your education and the world of faith, or if you just have a desire to be a hypocrite like Michael Rothschild, but you have to remember that when you argue with him you are actually arguing with the fruit of the spirit of all those who carry the billions of laymen in this world on their shoulders.
It is also possible that your reference to this conflict between science and faith, stems from insufficient familiarity with the depth of intellectual ignorance and the moral darkness into which faith drags people, the cowardly immaturity of the religious/religious mind and the emptiness of faith/religion itself.
If there was any truth in the faith/religion, it would be possible to laugh at it, (religion) insult it and oppose it without it being tainted in any way. Her truth, if it existed, would shine flawlessly and silence anyone who tries to discredit her.
But of course this is not the case. The belief/religion is prickly and intolerant of its opponents because it is brittle and fragile, it is all a facade, an appearance, behind which there is no real essence. She has had thousands of years to establish and verify her claims to influence the formation of reality, but all she has managed to create is verbal sophistication, violence and rules of morality that make every thinking humanist shudder.
In these days, there is no longer any possibility, at least in my opinion, for any agent of faith/religion, no matter how virtuosic a verbal lullaby he may be, to cover up the obvious fact that there is nothing there (in faith). The only thing that can be accepted about faith/religion, the only thing that is true about it, is that it is fake and empty of real content. No faith/religious claim towards reality has a chance to hold water in an objective judgment free of faith blindness.
The time has come for everyone, you and your fellow physicists in particular, to know the faith/religion as it really is, all in all an emotional fraud that gives certain people hope for the future and a little optimism.
Optimism is something that can be connected to, because even after two thousand years of oppression and bigotry and evil stupidity I am still optimistic and perhaps naive enough to believe that faith and religiosity are so far-fetched and so ridiculous, bland and illogical, that it is impossible for it to last much longer. Soon in our day our intelligence will rise above the fake enough to see the faith/religion as it is in its nakedness, a cruel and manipulative eye-catching, which exists and is fed by the erosion of reason and the breaking of the spirit of human curiosity.
I call on you to shake off this mindset that allows a chief scientist to make a mockery of his entire scientific training and express himself as Dr. Avital expressed himself.
His lawyer:
Indeed - what bothers me is his stubborn refusal to define what he is talking about when he says "God".
I have said this several times so it is not "maybe" that bothers me but the heart of the problem in his evasive arguments.
If he had defined a god in any way he would have had to do one of two things: either choose a "god" of some religion and then it would be easy to disprove the fact of his existence, or choose another definition (such as "stinky socks" that I suggested) and then I would not have any problem with this god But he had a problem explaining how it belongs to a discussion about religion.
hello physicist,
You have an interesting method of discussion, to declare those who express an opinion that does not correspond to your perception that they "do not understand *at all* what it is about". If you called yourself a "theologian", or alternatively, if we were discussing an issue that falls under your professional expertise, then let's go, but when you bring such a statement as an argument to justify your position, it's more than embarrassing, it's pathetic.
What makes you a "general *understander" of the topics we discuss? If you want to argue at that level, then please, show evidence and evidence to support your words, and I will do the same for my counterarguments. If not, then please address the substance of the matter, without disparaging the claimant.
and for the topics discussed:
1. I talked about two types of god: the gods that most of humanity believed in throughout history, with contradictory definitions and attributes as I tried to present, and about the "physical" god, the one who created the universe, established the laws and constants of physics and continued on his way. Please enlighten my eyes, and please answer my original question: Which god exactly in the scientific understanding you have acquired seems more likely to exist?
2. I admit that I could not understand what the story about Pascal has to do with the discussion about the definition of the concept of "worldview". Do you think his approach to a medical problem is somehow superior? A model for imitation that should be taught in school: "Children, if you have a toothache, do not agree to go to the dentist! Take an example from the great Blaise Pascal, smile and immerse yourself in thoughts and spirit, and within two weeks the pain will disappear (or the inflammation will spread to the rest of the body and you will die)."
3. Again confusion on the subject: do you think that the chief scientist should take care of the study of science, or promote the founding myths of our culture, even (and especially) when these are in direct conflict with science. By the way, I doubt if the Honorable Chief Scientist in question would agree with your definition of his beliefs as "myths" - in the eyes of the religious believer (and I assume he is one) they are just as real, correct and valid as the laws of physics. More, even: when there is a contradiction between the myth and the laws of physics (and there aren't any), the believer will choose the former. Always.
I agree with the first point of Physicist.
Believing in God does not mean choosing which religion you want. Although apparently everyone has different definitions (which is also perhaps what often bothers Michael on the subject). For me to believe in God is to believe that a being exists, that was here before everything, that has infinite ability, and that based on its decision everything was created and the laws were established. Maybe if I decided to go deeper into it, I would find another line two that would explain what it is for me.
From my practice of physics, the existence of God does not seem more probable to me than before I was engaged in it. I'm not sure physics has any parts that need or disprove a deity.
In connection with the second clause
After I manage to convince myself to move my ass and go for a light run and despite the pain I usually experience during and after, I will usually finish it with a good feeling of fulfillment. From my level of faith, I am quite convinced that there is nothing between fulfillment and faith. I think faith is needed for depth of thought or thought.
In connection with the third article
The Ministry of Education does believe in education first. But the "Chief Scientist at the Ministry of Education" trusts first of all scientific education. Since the opposition to the scientific theory called evolution is entirely not scientific but religious, he does not need to deal with it. If he wanted, he could have been appointed to the position of "chief cleric of the Ministry of Education" and then take care of teaching the stories of creation in religion classes. There is no reason for him to learn religion in science classes.
Now, I have no problem with the fact that you don't understand it, you don't need to, and unfortunately I don't expect most people to understand too much anymore, but I expect the "chief scientist at the Ministry of Education" to know what corners he shouldn't enter.
Sane
I agree with you 100 percent.
There are indeed physicists who don't understand everything and are even wrong about a thing or two.
This. So no one will tell me anymore that being a physicist is being smart! There's a counterexample here that you've all seen!
Dan Shamir,
The religious appropriate the god (yes, I know, this is a common weakness among them) and the secular appropriate the 'enlightenment' (this is the same lady, with a change of dress).
I didn't just say what I said, as a physicist dealing with the most basic physics I can say with a full mouth that a physicist has no reason to deny the existence of God. no reason However, it is well understood by me that it is not easy to accept its existence, and this for various reasons. Because of this, many physicists do not bother with this question at all and leave it to others.
Regarding Michael, indeed he does a faithful job in exposing distortions and targeted elimination of pseudo-scientific arguments. However, his holy war on faith and its followers is very reminiscent of Sabdarmish's war on scientists. She is pathetic.
I'm just a question,
I'm sorry for your comment. Are you embarrassed by my answers? I am completely unembarrassed and convinced that if there is confusion, then it is on your side and there is a lot of it. I will explain briefly in order of your points:
1) The concept of God you present is so primitive that many theologians would condescendingly call it 'pagan'. Is this how you really perceive God? Jew or Christian? What is this folly? If this is the case, then you are completely confusing the religious canon and the object of its reference and between the spiritual thought in the various cultures and the founding myths of those cultures. In one sentence: you do not understand *at all* what this is about. Not even a hint. For example, you were deaf from birth who is outraged that people enjoy listening to Bach.
2) These points raise your misunderstanding of what this is all about. Obviously, if I want to get to the US I will get on a flight. But if I want to contemplate the purpose of my life, the eternity of the spirit, the realities beyond place and time... what good will flying in a plane do for me? If you already mentioned a toothache, it is interesting to note the case of Blaise Pascal, who was a scientist with grace and a man of faith unique in his kind: the incident happened and his molar tooth rotted while he began to investigate the properties of the cycloid. It was suggested that he go to the dentist to have the recalcitrant tooth extracted. Blaze considered the offer of his benefactors and chose to dedicate his pain to God: for two consecutive weeks he labored on the cycloid with intense root pain and a wide smile on his lips... At the end of the two weeks, the pain disappeared and the joy of fulfillment filled his heart (according to his testimony). Are you able to understand any of this?
3) The Ministry of Education believes first and foremost in education. Then also science. I personally have nothing against the theory of evolution (sounds reasonable and well-founded to non-professional listeners like me). But I definitely think that the biblical story is no less important since it is a founding myth of the culture from which we grew and that its main strength lies in the Gothic depth in which, unfortunately, it has completely disappeared from Michael's eyes and from your eyes. The question of global warming is deeply disputed (there is no dispute about the facts but a dispute about the causes). That's why I have no problem with scientists whose opinion does not agree with the consensus.
As I said reducing pollution is always important. There are many reasons.
If by "all means" you mean by scaring the public and making them believe that science has proven guilt, then I'm sorry but these are means I cannot, and will not be able to support for the reasons I have already said.
If all the effort and money invested in getting governments to enact laws were invested in making the friendly technologies more economical, the change would happen by itself and not in such an artificial way, and in addition science would flourish and advance the world while these are important directions.
But this is already a personal opinion, which of course I cannot prove.
Attorney, you are right, my level of articulation is that of a 12 year old. Sorry.
In any case, if my opinion is so important to you, then I will summarize it like this:
I think man is responsible for warming. I used to think that human activity was negligible in regards to global warming, since the sun and other celestial factors are much stronger than all human activity.
My opinion has changed from some news and findings.
I know that there is still no unequivocal decision among the scientists (although the majority thinks like me). Of course the truth is important. But when the truth is still not unequivocal, I think that all possible means should be used in order to reduce the warming. It is not relevant if it turns out that it is not our fault. We need to do the maximum according to the data we have. And now it turns out that we are the ones responsible. I am not saying to stop researching but I am saying not to imitate the unambiguous results and try to reduce the emission of carbon dioxide as much as possible And at any cost that the worst happens.
An unsatisfied skeptic
I did not understand. You once thought that the warming might not be our fault, and now you think it is our fault, because even if we are not sure if it is or not it is better not to pollute because maybe it is after all??? (kind of hard to follow, I know).
I don't quite understand. I don't know any scientist who thinks that the warming is not our fault (and I've heard quite a few of them) who thinks that because it's not our fault we should continue to pollute. These scientists want the truth.
Be convinced by science. Not from "what if". by the way,
If you want the what-ifs of the other side, then if blaming us turns out to be wrong, after countries have spent hundreds of billions of dollars on it, and imposed fines, and scared the public and explained to everyone that this is what all the scientists say, if then it suddenly turns out that it was a rule It's not our fault and the scientists were wrong, what do you think will happen?
Do you think anyone will listen to the scientists anymore?
Do you think anyone will agree to give science money to continue the research?
Do you think a child will wake up in the morning and want to be a scientist?
Or do you understand that the scenario could also be that science will instill fear in people, that the scientists will be persecuted and that all scientific knowledge may go down the drain and bring us back to the Middle Ages when religion persecuted science.
That's how important scientific truth is.
and stop polluting? There are enough reasons to stop polluting even without blaming us for global warming, and any scientist (I'll cover myself, almost all) of the scientists who don't think it's our fault will tell you that.
Sniff = last
for a physicist,
Thought and faith——->to religion.
Your answer #1 to me a question cannot be considered legitimate if in any case already
You either believed in God or you didn't and then you changed your mind due to the scientific understanding you acquired.
You are already infected with the arrogant custom of the religious to appropriate everything "spiritual" in our world.
Baside that,
For all patients with social relativism,
Evolution is neither a religion nor a belief and trying to define it as such is dangerous, because if it is a religion then in the next step the requirement will be to give a platform equal to the studies of the "alternative"
The creationist is not in Torah classes for children but in biology in high schools.
And in addition to this crazy attack on Michael, he is the defender of sanity on this site.
hello physicist,
Thanks for the answers. They present quite a bit of confusion, to the point of embarrassment:
1. Which god exactly from the scientific understanding you have acquired seems more likely to exist? The Jewish God, who is really angry with you if you eat a cheeseburger, the Christian God, who can't decide if he is one or three, the Muslim God, who decided to reveal himself to an illiterate shepherd? Or maybe even Zeus, or Wotan, or one of the thousands of gods that humanity has invented throughout history? Or is your God the one who determined the values of the speed of light, the gravitational constant, etc., and then went on his way?
2. It is not clear to me how you managed to include "thoughts/prayer/observation/religious canons" as examples of a "worldview" equivalent to the scientific worldview. What is, in your opinion, a "worldview"? When you have a toothache, do you pray or go to the dentist? Would you like to fly in a plane built based on religious canons, or according to the principles of the scientific "dictatorship"?
3. Your evasion here is really amazing. We are talking about the theory of evolution and the scientific consensus on global warming. What is the difference between expressing anti-scientific opinions on these issues and education "for values such as honesty, freedom, love, courage, etc."?? Isn't it possible to accept the correctness of the theory of evolution or the scientific consensus on global warming and educate for such values? WTF?
Michael:
I agree one hundred percent, such a person should not be the chief scientist of the Ministry of Education.
I assume he voiced them for political reasons (before some kind of conference or election), and even he doesn't really believe in them.
His words are not worth a comment, but sometimes the comments lead to other places... The unsatisfied skeptic in one of his comments asked for an example of an article with a different opinion on the subject of global warming....
Eitan, I agree with you that there are other opinions on the topic of warming (although they are not in consensus, it has not yet been proven that man is responsible for warming. It has only been proven that there is warming), my intention was the topic of evolution.
The truth is that my acquaintance on the science website came exactly on this topic - the warming, and I claimed exactly what you are claiming now. But I have changed my mind since then. Michael then gave me a nice argument saying that although we are not sure that we are responsible for the warming, it is still a witness not to pollute, because in the end it turned out that we did and then we ate it. Of course he put things better than me...
https://www.hayadan.org.il/scientists-refute-argument-of-climate-skeptics-1401099/
If you have time, check out the comments, very interesting in my opinion
Strong:
The discussion here is not about global warming, regarding which there can be a legitimate scientific debate.
The question we are discussing here is whether a "scientist" who determines his position in this discussion based on religious considerations ("it will be fine because God promised") deserves to hold the position of chief scientist of the Ministry of Education while he proves in his above claim that he is not a scientist at all.
To remind you - the same argument already led many of the European Jews to the gas chambers after their rabbis used it on the eve of World War II.
Physicist:
Although Michael's responses are harsh, I have never seen a response to a person's body, but rather to the substance of the matter, and if you don't have good answers to his arguments...
He didn't prevent or try to prevent anyone from voicing his opinion, but when people write things that are incorrect "to say the least" it is necessary to put them on the spot, and Michael does it the best of anyone I've seen here.
For the unsatisfied skeptic - you can find an example of a different opinion on global warming in the following link:
There are respected scientists out there who offer other options.
http://www.ranlevi.co.il/2009/12/66.html
I'm not claiming that we don't affect global warming, but it's worth listening to other opinions from time to time...
I don't know how much physics he knows, but he sure doesn't know how to read
Dan Shamir, what does "faith to religion" mean?
I'm just a question,
I would be happy to answer you.
1) The existence of God certainly seems more probable to me from the scientific understanding I have acquired. At the same time, the question of the existence of God is apparently a question that is not trivial from the scientific point of view, and the answer to it will forever remain the property of the individual, according to his personal circumstances, his desires, the values he advocates, etc.
2) A non-scientific worldview is a subjective worldview through subjective means of cognition. This does not mean that a group of people will not find a common denominator in such a concept. Such a worldview does not need to be discussed in a scientific framework but (for example) in the framework of thought/prayer/observation/religious canons, etc. Some of the Indian tribes in North America had an unscientific and even illogical worldview, but their integration into nature and their understanding of nature impresses me greatly every time.
3) Absolutely yes. Because before dealing with science, the Ministry of Education deals with education. And before we want good scientists, we want our children to grow up to be human beings, we want to give them values such as honesty, freedom, love, courage, etc. Then, we will also be happy if some of them develop to be excellent in science.
Physicist
Could you explain the connection between thought and belief and religion because I do not find a binding connection other than the attempts of the religions to appropriate the above concepts.
Hello physicist,
I try to follow your arguments, filtering out the personal attacks between you and M. Rothschild, and tries to understand:
1. Do you claim that the existence of God (a) seems more likely to you than his non-existence from your scientific knowledge (b) seems to you a clearly undecidable question or (c) none of the above.
2. You wrote "therefore the attempt to rule out non-scientific worldviews is at best childish and at worst - an ideological dictatorship".
Could you point to one example of a non-scientific worldview that deserves consideration and a balanced reference to an empiricist neutralist scientific worldview, with a brief explanation of why?
3. Returning to the original topic: Do you think it is appropriate for someone who holds the title of chief *scientist* of the Ministry of Education to promote non-scientific worldviews?
Thanks,
??
Many people in Israel went to the beach in the middle of February and claimed that the world was cooling down. Without paying attention to the heat wave that caused the need to bring snow by helicopter to the Winter Olympics
What a crap!
It was not meant for me but for those whose lives you descend on. I feel great with or without your comments... many religious people make cynical use of religion just as many secular people make cynical use of science, and vice versa - religious in science and secular in religion. What's new here?
There is nothing wrong with the story of creation in six days... I am beginning to think that you can serve as a world standard for the perfect square. And your logic accordingly - logic of a square. There is no point in talking to you about circles. (The last sentence is said in allegorical language, the purpose of foreignness is foreign to you).
Indeed you have no power over me. Praise the Lord.
I'm not doing anything to you.
You attack me wildly while saying things that have nothing to do with reality.
It is clear to me that it is impossible that you do not understand that religion is not thought and belief but rather the rules of behavior. If you had read my words in the past as you claim - you would know this. Religion is a Persian word that means law and as I said - it was even integrated into the laws of the State of Israel.
Beyond that - I know that it is clear to you that there is no logic in the claim that the rabbit rummages and there is no logic in the story of creation in six days. Faith really is there - faith in lies. The point is that this faith does not depend on the empty space, but its entire function is to establish the authority of the legislator of those terrible laws that the religious are trying to impose on us.
Since it is clear to me that all these things must be clear to you and since I see that your words are nevertheless being ignored - it is clear to me that you have no intention of conducting an honest and logical discussion.
Therefore I have no power over you.
You already said it before. So don't do to your friend what you hate.
Physicist:
I have no power over you.
There is no connection between your words and reality.
Michael Rothschild,
"what? Am I blind to someone's inner world?”
- Yes, absolutely yes.
"Where are you winking that from?!"
- from the content of your comments.
"The point is that religion makes claims about the outside world and I deal with these claims."
Sorry, you have no idea what you're talking about. I repeat: you are confusing myths of peoples and cultures with thought and faith.
The modesty guards are a sick evil just as the 'science guards' are a sick evil. Onward the shifts to Manyan!
"These are all things that don't stay in the inner world of idiots..." So it's not imbeciles but idiots... The religious world is at least as diverse as the secular world. The chastity guards are only a small part of the religious Jewish civilization as the drugged-whores are only a small part of the secular Jewish civilization. You are being dragged into racist generalizations.
"Who are you to deny my right to argue?! what? Are you trying to put thought police on me or limit my freedom of speech?!"
Hand on heart, do you really think I'm trying to limit your freedom of speech? I am simply condemning the freedom of judgment you take upon yourself.
Physicist:
bullshit!
what? Am I blind to someone's inner world?
Where are you winking that from?!
The point is that religion makes claims about the external world and I deal with these claims.
These claims are especially important when they concern behavior. They stand behind the demonstrations in Jerusalem (after all, no one asked to park a car in the inner world of the ultra-Orthodox!) They stand behind the modesty watches, they stand behind many of the country's worst laws, and on and on.
All these things do not remain in the inner world of the idiots but penetrate the outer world and my inner world.
I don't think you can find the idea of an ideological dictatorship in anything I say and if I argue with someone about what I consider to be an illness they have that endangers me - who are you to deny my right to argue?! what? Are you trying to put thought police on me or limit my freedom of speech?!
The problem with Gabi is also the claims that the Greens and climate scientists are connected to the forces of darkness, haters of Israel in particular and humanity in general and lie for the sake of money,
And also his amazing ignorance and lack of interest in the facts.
http://the-black-butterfly-effect.blogspot.com/2010/02/minister-of-edu.html
Of course everything said about his lack of understanding of science is justified
Michael Rothschild,
Your whole approach is wrong. It's not that the Gemara isn't ridiculous at times, it's not that the biblical story of creation is scientifically correct, it's not that the worship of the 'righteous' is not the worship of idols. It is the complete blindness - which is entirely your free choice - to the inner worlds of man, to his desires, to his needs, and also to the reality that is revealed to him in his actions, a reality that is beyond any scientific aspect. As a physicist it is clear to me (and I think it should be clear to you too) that man is much more than the sum of his parts, consciousness is much more than a collection of biochemical actions, recognition and perception are beyond anything science knows today, and in my humble opinion beyond anything it will ever know. Therefore, the attempt to rule out non-scientific worldviews is at best childish and at worst - an ideological dictatorship. Holy wars of any kind have always been pure evil. That's why I really don't like your holy war in religions and/or theism.
Physicist:
I don't remember describing anyone as an imbecile.
Two senior scientists in Israel do not change the statistics - not even in Israel.
If you can point out one thing I said wrong about religion feel free to do so.
Just giving grades is just not fair.
You came down on me in this discussion as if I was trying to convince someone that there is no God.
This is not true.
Nor can it be true of any undefined God because as I explained to you I am not talking about things that are not defined.
That's why - at least in this discussion - it doesn't seem to me that I got down on myself, but only shared an action with you in getting down on yourself while I pushed your down on me.
To "his lawyer..."
I don't follow what's going on here too much, but it seems to me that in scientific matters Mr. Rothschild is doing quite a good job here. From this aspect - his presence is blessed.
Michael Rothschild,
"Whoever decides to enter such a route does receive from me the descent he deserves." - It seems to me that when it comes to theological issues, you are mainly down on yourself. Quite similar to how Sabdarmish gets down on himself about scientific matters.
I learned that "honest and sane" people are people who have the same mental structure as you have... but what can you do, not everyone was born in the image and likeness of Michael Rothschild...
By the way, you provided a link to statistics on believing and non-believing scientists... Let me remind you that at least two of Israel's elite scientists are quite religious (Israel Omen and Jacob Beckenstein). I know at least a few more of these, but they are a little less famous... so what? Are they also imbeciles in your eyes?
There are lies that can be refuted:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/how-bats-trackes-targets-0502102/#comment-261002
Physicist:
Fix:
I don't go down on anyone who hasn't gone down on me or someone else without a good reason.
Those who decide to enter such a route do receive from me the descent they deserve.
I only discuss claims with honest and sane people.
Well done, attorney, I see that you have not yet given up the desire to defame.
Physicist:
I don't go down on anyone.
I argue with claims.
I'm not asking you what to do.
Michael Rothschild,
I will gladly leave you in peace. You too leave in rest all those you come down on.
Physicist
I actually like the Nick. But I wouldn't take it too hard.
Note that I did not claim that you were trying to convince him to believe in God. All I said was that you were trying to convince him,
It doesn't matter what, my argument holds, at least empirically.
Physicist:
Again - I don't know what you want.
Did I try to convince someone that there is no God?
After all, I myself said that there is no point in talking about an indefinite thing because every sentence discussing it becomes indefinite.
Do you insist on talking about him?
Talk to your heart's content and leave me alone.
devil's advocate
I must admit that your support of my words does me no favors, if only because of the nick you chose to use... I'm not trying to convince Michael (or anyone else) to believe in God, but to mobilize the intellectual integrity he has so that he will stop his holy war on those who do not align with his concept .
Michael Rothschild,
There are definitely things I can say whether you know them or not. And in particular, I know that you do not know how to decide the question of the existence or non-existence of God.
Knowing the truth is not necessarily a meaningless expression. For example, if it is known that x=y then we both know that in fact, 2x=2y.
Definitions are something that I particularly like (as someone who deals with mathematics and physics for a large part of his time).
Indeed, God cannot be defined. Either you accept its existence (and your considerations with you) or you don't. No matter what, you will always have to believe in something. For example, you must believe in the truth of your existence in order to be able to say something about the world or yourself. You will never be able to prove to yourself the truth of your existence because any such proof must in any case come from the assumption that you exist.
I agree that until your last comment you still did not understand anything. Otherwise you wouldn't be ridiculed for being a nonsense about socks and God. By the way, I get the impression that you are completely confusing myths of different peoples and different cultures with theism.
In my humble opinion, the zeal with which you 'persecut' the believers would not shame the great religious fanatics.
And more for the physicist and his lawyer.
His lawyer is not the only one who disagrees with a physicist's conclusions.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
Physicist and his lawyer:
I assume that his lawyer was reacting to Physicist's first reaction and not the insults he made after it.
If you read the words of that main "scientist" you will see that all his opposition - both to evolution and to claims about global warming is based on religion and not on any scientific consideration.
Therefore, his defense is out of place - what's more, he is the one who mixes science with faith.
Physicist
Again I tend to agree with you.
Except that to me some kind of God is not visible more and more it turns out with physics.
I don't find any reason at all to mix physics and faith, so I'm not really busy looking for it, I don't need it. If he existed I guess he would feel the same way about me.
Take advice.
Give up the argument. You won't "win", he won't "win" and in the end, in any case, each will think a lot of negative thoughts about the other.
Physicist:
"One of the things you don't know is if God exists"
One of the things you don't know is what I know and what I don't.
There is no such thing as "knowing the truth" in general. It's just a meaningless phrase.
All that can be known is the degree of truth of certain claims.
As I said - there are claims that I know the extent of their truth and there are those that I don't.
In the question about the holocaust, I wanted to show you that this is also the case with you - there are things that you know the extent of their truth and some that you don't, and therefore you too (yes! even you!!!) cannot be defined as someone who "knows the truth" or as someone who does not "know The truth".
As mentioned - since the phrase "knows the truth" is meaningless - I agree with the fact that I also do not meet its definition (which is not possible).
In general - definitions are what you and your ilk avoid all the time.
You also avoid defining the word "God" and therefore it is impossible to answer at all the question of whether I know whether or not there is a God because the answer depends on what you answer to the question of what God is.
If God is an unwashed sock then - yes - there is a God - even I have a few of them.
If God is something that knows everything but nevertheless does not know that the rabbit does not raise rumen, then this God includes a logical contradiction in its definition and therefore does not exist.
By the way, I'm sorry but I still don't understand what you're talking about.
You said you were willing to tell me what you were talking about so please do.
Michael Rothschild,
- Will you tell me what you're talking about?
- Yes;
- There are things I know and there are things I don't know.
- very true. One of the things you don't know is if God exists.
- I do not pretend to know the truth on any subject. I guess you don't either.
- Of course not. I know very well that there are many things that I do not know. I also know very well that there are things that cannot be decided scientifically. One of them is the question of God's existence. Is it likely that God does not exist in light of everything we have learned in 400 years of physics? Answer: Absolutely not. On the contrary, it seems more and more evident to me. (Full disclosure: I am not religious and have no intentions of becoming religious).
- And yet - would you demand that, at the same time as learning about the Holocaust, there would also be a series of lessons on denying the Holocaust?
-Sorry? What is the connection? The question of God's existence does not contradict any scientific fact. Any answer that may be given to this question is not the opposite of some scientific truth.
- If not - then there are things you claim to know the truth about.
- I know physics well...
- Do you know what is true and what is false?
- I know what is scientific and what is not, and that too - only in my rather limited areas of expertise. Are the scientific glasses the only way to observe reality? I think definitely not.
a dwarf
you did not understand.
I have no interest in spreading accusations of who donates and who receives (probably if there was such a thing, it would also be secret enough that I wouldn't know).
I believe (or at least want to believe), that most scientists do not publish false studies just for money.
Note that my father also does not say exactly which companies are paying and to whom, but throws in "oil companies" as having a clear interest.
If this is what you were trying to ask, i.e. who are the stakeholders in a public panic on the topic of warming, and who are the companies that will benefit from it, then to me it is clear. Open any economic newspaper, look at the deals that are signed for any green matter, and there you go.
If you still have trouble with this, then take for example manufacturers of solar panels, wind turbines, electric and hybrid cars, these are the most immediate examples.
Try to think how much money is going to jump between countries because of the taxation that should be on the Fed.
If you're looking for the scientists' point, then it's about research funding, which is pretty easy to get funding for any research and it doesn't matter what it's about if it's just written that it's indirectly related to global warming.
Incidentally, this is one of the advantages of public intimidation and this trend. There is much more money for research into the nature and behavior of the ball. (in addition of course to reducing pollution which is always positive)
@devil's advocate
Which companies contribute to the supporters of global warming?
K. perpetual:
I don't know how you measure the effectiveness of a review.
From personal conversations with Yoel, I know that on this issue, which is in our hearts, he has no intention of showing kindness (and in general, you just read a few quotes from a conversation that Avi Blizovsky had with him on the phone. Does the phrase "terrible and terrible" sound so kind to you?)
More about music and lyrics (and how much more effective "kind and to the point" criticism is):
http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/spages/1151650.html
I agree with Avner. The clash between science and religion is problematic for the religious scientist.
However, there are religious scientists, and some of them are even good.
Since I do not think that any religious person should be disqualified from holding government positions, only those among them who understand that this conflict exists, and do not decide to deal with it, should be chosen.
And even if he has quotes here and there, but no expression of the issue in his policy, I don't see it as a problem.
Banning any religion is a less pleasant problem and certainly not legal, moral, and democratic.
Avi,
Regarding your response 4. Maybe the problem is that you think that everyone who doesn't think like you about global warming is doing so because of a single winter, and you don't even consider that the reason might be completely scientific.
If you look at the third paragraph in this response:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/particle-may-be-leading-candidate-for-mysterious-dark-matter-1802102/#comment-261954
You will see that it is claimed there that when there is a scientific theory, and the community discusses it, there is no reason not to display it on the website, and it would be strange if not.
So for your attention, the theory of warming is correct or not one of the most talked about topics in the scientific community today. And also, the side of its incorrectness is also presented by a large part of the scientific community.
As a student at a recognized academic institution in Israel, I had the opportunity to attend at least 4 different lectures on its incorrectness (and also several on its correctness, all lectures by professors who serve in the institution or in other institutions from Israel and the world), so I have no doubt that the theory is under debate Serious, despite ignoring the site.
Your well-worn argument about the fuel companies' money is also nothing more than cheap and unnecessary demagoguery, since we both know that a lot of money (and even Nobel prizes) flows on both sides of the argument, and whichever side doesn't prove its correctness, someone will make sure to get rich from it.
I think this demagoguery really does not respect you, and it is better that you leave it to people who cannot argue with these demagogic accusations accompanied by a lack of understanding of themselves and their listeners.
"The Chief Scientist of the Ministry of Education" 2010 - read and not believe!!!
In a dark country somewhere (you can surely guess...) the Economic Council gathered to discuss in our eyes a man named Galileo who claims that the earth created by God revolves around the sun!! Therefore it was decided that the issue will be transferred to the Equisitor's office... undersigned... 1632. PS: And maybe the uproar over non-union?? In total, the 'Minister of Education' is giving a job to a friend!! (20 years at the Likud center do not walk!!) - and besides, this is the best proof that 'there is evolution'
Physicist:
Would you tell me what you're talking about?
There are things I know and there are things I don't know.
I do not pretend to know the truth on any subject. I guess you don't either.
And yet - would you demand that at the same time as learning about the Holocaust, there would also be a series of lessons on denying the Holocaust?
If not - then there are things you claim to know the truth about.
Do you know what is true and what is false?
To 18
Interesting approach!
What you are actually saying is that God is lazy, went out for a few days of work a few billion years ago (if there is no contradiction of course) and rested until today.
I have always been amazed at how many inventions and twists and turns religious people will come up with to justify their faith, apparently there is no limit.
Michael R.
Do you know what is true and what is false? You know some physics. It's really beautiful but very far from "knowing the truth".
Ben Ner
Rest assured you have no idea what you are talking about.
Fanaticism in science is worse than fanaticism in religion. Because science is much more sensitive to fancies than religion. The damage is also greater.
L - 18:
When you say that science does not contradict religion, what do you mean? Do you think there is an overlap between them? Do you think they are complementary? If so, then what are the "cut boundaries" between the two?
Contrary to what you wrote, science actually does not contradict religion. The theory of evolution does not contradict creation - it is possible that creation existed through evolution - is this not divine creation? Is God's oversight of the evolution process not divine? As for the time of the Sages, they clearly said that "God builds worlds and destroys them" - our world is not the first! were before us, and therefore, the process of evolution could take place. Science does not contradict religion and vice versa - in the religious community there is an encouragement to go there, to get educated, to know. It is always an aspiration. The religious world is not primitive and ignorant. And of course - that when a person goes to engage in science, he does not suffer from social isolation - at least not because he is a scientist! His rabbi does not go against science - if you check and learn, you will find that the Torah complements what scientists have discovered, and does not contradict it. The rabbi lived in our world, and did not go against scientific theories.
Michael, you are right, the appointment of Dr. Avital is much more shameful 🙂
learned gentlemen.
Please recognize that the life of a religious scientist is extremely difficult and full of contradictions. It is also possible that he suffers from social isolation, especially from his religious friends. In addition, as an educated person, he should often hear the words of the sermon and wisdom of his rabbi who may fall short of him in his wisdom and education. What does a religious scientist do in such a situation?
One of two: either he suppresses his knowledge and wisdom in his meetings with the religious community and assumes the supremacy of religious wisdom over science, or he becomes a conversationalist and even a conversationalist with the religious sages and then arouses the Rebbe's anger and anger of the Rebbe's believers.
In any case, a religiously educated person is in the status of a permanent suspect among the wearers of the synagogue pews.
That is why he has to prove to them in a special and striking way and frequently his absolute loyalty to the religion.
How do you do this?
They publish an article or an interview against the theory of evolution which, for about 170 years, is the red flag in the eyes of monotheistic religions.
Now he will be quiet in the synagogue for several more months.
About music and words:
Indeed, Avital's statement is jarring, no less than his very appointment, (after all, what does he have for the position of chief scientist of the Ministry of Education?)
However, it is appropriate for all of us to use as an example the careful and decisive words of Prof. Rek. I believe that they are more convincing than the hysterical cries presented in this article.
Don't ask for too much.
The chief scientist of the Ministry of Education may yet return to education the high stoning.
There is no need to remind you that according to the laws of his religion - your law is, indeed, stoning.
Oish, every time I find a mistake like this I want to be stoned... unpleasant. Sorry
The skeptic:
I know it's just a typo but it's a nice one.
In my opinion, the place of creationist studies is really in high school and not in higher education 🙂
Dawkins would be rolling with laughter now,
Especially Dr. Avital's delusional statement "All the signs of a fanatical religion are there (in green organizations, AK) - bigotry and a lot of evil..." Ha..ha It is clear that Judaism, Christianity and Islam are innocent of any such description....
I forgot that in these religions they did not murder/banish/stone anyone in the name of religion..
Lisa,
I agree that we need to be critical and teach all aspects of each subject. And that is also what happens.
But not at school. There they teach the basics of every subject, otherwise there wouldn't be enough time and resources to teach all the things in the world. Besides, even if it were impossible, the children would suffer from it too much...
That's why they teach the proven things, and if there are major differences of opinion on a certain subject, then either they don't teach it in school (but only in high school) or then both aspects are emphasized. In evolution, there are no disagreements between scientists, so only those who expand on the subject will learn the other aspects (and why do you know which are wrong).That's how it should be in my opinion...
To 7: You are wrong. It is forbidden to teach false things, because then the students may learn the lie instead of understanding that it comes to emphasize the truth.
For this reason in martial arts it is never allowed to show an exercise that is not performed correctly.
Children in any case are surrounded by different opinions - they call it ignorance. Some children think there are monsters in the dark. Would you be interested in teaching it in class? Most kids don't know how the world works or why it's important to take it away from them in a rational way.
And in the end, religion is a zero sum game - the more you teach someone about different religions, the less religious he will become.
as I said:
The ones who will ultimately bring us the disaster are not the liars but those who demand to give truth and lies equal status.
Panic again?!
I have not heard from the chief scientist any comparison between evolution and religion. His claim was that there are people who treat evolution as a religion. From the comments on this website it can be understood that his words are not so exaggerated.
As an atheist who advocates science as the only way to understand the world around us, I do not see anything wrong with the words of the chief scientist.
Critical presentation of different opinions should be encouraged.
I am confident that most of the children who grow up on the knees of the theory of evolution, without being exposed to different views (even if they are completely wrong) will not be able to develop independent thinking skills (and a true understanding of what evolution is). They will accept what they have learned without reservations and without criticism - in this sense everything they will learn (even if it is the theory of evolution) is no different from a religious view.
A person who grows up with a certain religious view without being exposed to other religious views will also not be able to develop critical thinking towards his religion. All he can do is criticize other religions.
Physicist, could you provide an example of a well-reasoned article?
Thanks.
Unfortunately you and Mr. Blizovsky are wrong. A biologist may not understand anything about flow and aerodynamics even if he wanted to because he does not have the tools to understand the relevant literature on the subject. On the other hand, those who understand the flow can read and understand the articles on global warming if they wish to do so. The same is true for the theory of evolution. That is why I would not rush to crucify him for his opinions which may well be based on sound reasoning and not on a passing fad.
Sorry to hear that one cold winter affected you too, and erased a whole decade of warming. Obviously there are ups and downs but there is a clear direction, that the oil companies are spending millions to obfuscate just as the cigarette companies have been doing for decades.
Father, I personally have no problem with the theory of evolution, I have a problem with the theory of warming, the catastrophic consequences of warming, and man's responsibility for it.
Climate is a complex phenomenon, climate science is new, and I have an unpleasant feeling that climate scientists are being pressured to provide more goods than they really have. The green movement is a political and social movement, and as such gives its members an identity and an ideological mission to which they are mentally and socially committed. I suspect that most climate scientists identify with the green movement, and this has an effect on their professional integrity.
The reaction of the green organizations against the chief scientist is to me a religious reaction to everything. I see it as evidence of the atmosphere in this field of research. How is it possible to conduct unbiased scientific research in an atmosphere where anyone who does not agree with the accepted theory is mainly considered an infidel, and should be fired?
I admit that Dr. Avital's words regarding evolution are embarrassing.
Yaron, it has already been proven a million times that evolution is not a religion. It is based on facts and is updated according to the facts. She has no rituals and she doesn't force anything but work.
Therefore comparing evolution to religion is like comparing a live actor to a cartoon character. If you have a problem with the position of science, it's not just your problem, it's our problem. The country is deteriorating.
The use of the term Inquisition is probably a Freudian slip. You propose to "neutralize" a person because his views do not fit the orthodoxy in which you believe. You are an inquisitor yourself. Disgusting post.