Can the theory of genesis remove the spell of reductionism and return spirituality to nature?
At the beginning of the 17th century, the Italian mathematician Galileo Galilei released a demon into the world when he started swinging pendulums, rolling balls downhill and watching the moons of Jupiter. He did this in order to discover regularities that could be formulated as laws of nature.
This mechanical view of the world was so successful that at the beginning of the 19th century the French mathematician Pierre-Simon Laplace could "imagine an intelligent being that could know at every moment what forces are at work in nature and where all the things that the world contains are located... and then it could cause any result Through one and only equation that will attack the movement of the largest bodies in the universe and the lightest atoms. Nothing will remain uncertain in the eyes of this intelligent being.”
At the beginning of the 20th century, science assumed the role of Laplace's [intellectual] demon. Science has spread a wide "causal network" linking results to causes from the past to the future in order to explain all complex phenomena by breaking them down into their simplest components. The Nobel laureate, physicist Steven Weinberg, formulated this philosophy of reductionism as follows: "All arrows of explanation point downward, from societies to people, to organs, to cells, to biochemistry, to chemistry and ultimately to physics." In such a world that can be encompassed and explained in its entirety, what place is left for God?
Stuart Kaufman has an answer: make divinity part of nature. Kaufman, the director and founder of the Institute for Biological Complexity and Informatics at the University of Calgary in Alberta, and one of the pioneers of complexity theory, in his new book "Reinventing the Sacred" (Basic Publishing, 2008) turns the direction of the axis of causality of reductionism. He does this through a comprehensive theory of emergence and self-organization which, according to him, "do not break the laws of physics," but cannot be explained by them either. God "is the name we have chosen for all the ceaseless creativity in the natural universe, the biosphere and human civilizations," Kaufman declares.
In Kaufman's emerging universe, reductionism isn't wrong, it's just incomplete. Reductionism has done much of the tolerating work throughout the history of science, but it cannot explain many unsolved mysteries, such as the origin of life, the biosphere, consciousness, evolution, ethics and economics. How can a reductionist explain the biosphere, for example? "One approach, in the way of Newton, would be to write the evolution equations of the biosphere and solve them. This cannot be done," Kaufman claims. "We cannot predict in advance what new functions will emerge in the biosphere. We also cannot know what the variables are - lungs, wings, etc. - that we have to put in the equations. The Newtonian scientific framework in which we can determine in advance the variables, the laws acting on them and the initial and final conditions, and then calculate the predicted behavior of the system, does not help us predict the future states of the biosphere."
It's not just a question of human understanding or calculation power, warns Kaufman, it's a fundamental problem of different causes at different levels. Something entirely new emerges at these high levels of complexity.
Similar fundamental differences also exist in the areas where self-organization, recognition, morality and economics are formed. In my last book The Mind of the Market (Times Publishing, 2008), I showed that economics and evolution are complicated and adaptive systems that learn and grow during their development from the simple to the complex, and that they control themselves, that is, they contain self-feedback loops. I was therefore happy to find confirmation of this in Kaufman's detailed explanation of why "these phenomena cannot be deduced through physics - they have their own causal powers and are therefore real emergent entities in the universe." This process of creative becoming, claims Kaufman, "is so amazing, overwhelming, awe-inspiring, grateful and respectful, that for many of us it is enough God, a completely natural God, is in fact the very creativity of the universe."
I spent a period of time in the company of Steve Kaufman in two of the holiest places in the world: Cortona in Italy (under the Tuscan sun) and Aslan in California (above the Pacific Ocean), at conferences that dealt with the meeting between science and religion. Kaufman is one of the most spiritual scientists I know. A warm and infinitely tolerant person. And his God 2.0 is a deity worth worshiping. But I am skeptical about its chances of replacing God 1.0, Jehovah, whose software has been running for 6,000 years, since the Bronze Age, on the computers of our minds and culture.
Michael Shermer is the publisher of the journal Skeptic.
60 תגובות
AB Beaz:
Why, in your opinion, stating a fact should be modesty or arrogance and not - simply - stating a fact?
I did not understand certain things and mentioned it so that you would clarify.
Thank you for the clarification.
now I get it!
What I still don't understand is what you think the difference is between "true" and "true".
This is also a fact.
In order to save the psychology step, I will directly state what are the motives.
I think there is no difference and I think your answer is demagogic.
You would probably call it arrogance.
Michael
How - is there something in our world that you don't understand??.
Is this modesty or is it arrogance?
My response is not true but it is correct
No. B Beaz
eternity remembers
A. B. Goat:
It is not clear to me what you are trying to say and against whose words the words are directed, but beyond that I have another question:
Is what you wrote true?
Throughout history, science has changed its mind about truth more than once
And here the question arises as to whether the objective truth is a temporary truth related to knowledge at a given time
Or the truth is truth at all times and is not subject to knowledge at all and its existence is not conditioned on our understanding or not
It and its existence and form depend solely on our best understanding and each person will live in his own understanding - wants to say
that from the moment we understand the objective truth (only the objective truth) there is more than one understanding and hence more than one truth
So how do we know what truth is?
We won't know - luckily for man and science we have to search forever
They said from Zal (from our knowledge, their memory is a blessing)
There is one truth and it is always mine
The one who found the truth simply stopped looking
There is no greater liar than a truth teller
There is truth only in not knowing the truth
I would like to point out that this is only the objective truth
Although there are many holocaust deniers in our world, there is not a single victim who has returned to life
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3609943,00.html
I will give them
You are sometimes right about the snake
Higgs:
I will not leave an email address here because who knows what hands it will fall into and there is no shortage of spam.
I do, however, authorize the science website to send you my email address, which is stored with them.
This is, of course, assuming they also have your email.
If we refer to your martial theory, then my approach says - why bother guessing if at the same time you can step on another snake's head?
Michael
Sorry if I came across as condescending, on the contrary, I fully appreciated you for your honesty and talents. What's more, apparently we have a similar professional background in the past. I am aware that people like you do not always receive the full professional appreciation but I have already learned that it is not important what others will do, it is important what I will do. I invite you to leave an email, I will be happy to chat. Thanks.
And regarding "annoying" in my opinion, I prefer to keep my anger and present my claims cold from the fridge. Each to their own taste of course.
And actually why would a few stray animals from the herd annoy me with their presence.
Filling their claims are not worth a penny and are not equipped with actual knowledge.
Their power is usually in venomous language and the desire to anger.
The graphic comparison between our approach that comes to mind is as follows:
You see a snake... stepping on his head. I curse him with the flute to dance and then step.
Higgs:
I have never hidden my motives. Emotional or not, they are summed up in the sentence "Rise up for your slaying, the brain to kill".
I've said it more than once and I'll say it again.
I think this is the situation and I think that if others realize that this is also their situation, I will be less lonely on the battlefield.
I also understand what the motivation of the blasphemers is and what I said before stems from this understanding.
It is clear to me that their motivation does not allow for persuasion. Period (and sorry for the blasphemy, period 🙂 ). The only reason why they react is the desire to brainwash others.
I adapt my course of action to this reality and as I explained, I believe that presenting them in a ridiculous light, contradicting all their arguments and bringing them - in the end - to the conclusion that they are causing their (despicable) goal more harm than good are exactly the actions I should take.
If you think you should behave differently - you are welcome to behave differently but please don't pretend to know better than me what is necessary and don't waste the energy of both of us in skirmishing against the wrong enemy.
Michael
One truth or not.
You will not be able to deny your emotional involvement in the matter is a central motif for dialogue.
We are not robots and the arguments are not cold logical arguments. I claim that the degree of emotional involvement needs to be revealed and in what outfit and role it covers itself on the stage of the polemic.
Adherence is really one that exists whether you exist or not as a central motif for downloader arguments
It takes the sting out of the arguments and leaves the stage for the show to be more emotional than factual.
I'm not trying to shoot myself or yours, I "love" the self-righteous, self-righteous, hypocritical liars, and the know-it-alls, etc. About like you.
I believe that the way to defeat them is not by brute force, but rather by understanding their emotional motives and admitting and being transparent about my emotional motives.
When you find a way to reflect to them the psychological manipulations they adopted as a panacea for their hysteria and inner confusion, the path is short to more substantive and more interesting arguments.
And I'll explain the rest over a cup of coffee.
Higgs:
You are confused all along.
When I say there is one truth I do not say I know it. I'm just saying she is one.
Contrary to the position you are trying to present - I never try to convince of the correctness of my words by reasoning that they are true but by reasoning from different reasons that come from experiment and from logic.
Rather the other side presents baseless claims (and contrary to the facts) as "truth".
I have already explained why there are people I do not argue with.
A person cannot act on the basis of doubt.
As soon as he takes action he has to evaluate the probabilities running through his mind and act as if the high probability claims are true.
When a person says "I know" - it is clear that he means the same sentence together according to the prefix "as far as my experience teaches me and my logic concludes" and there is no point in adding this disclaimer to every sentence.
Interestingly, you don't demand anything similar from the idiots.
Don't you realize you are shooting yourself in the foot?!
These companies present obvious lies (and yes - as far as my experience teaches me, my father does not make up stories about people forging identity, and as much as my experience shows me, when I read in the Torah that the rabbit and the rabbit rummage, this is really evidence that it is indeed written in the Torah that the rabbit and the rabbit rummage, so I present these things as "news" and I am not inclined to argue about them but to attack those who I think are lying with a determined forehead and claim otherwise) as the truth but you find it appropriate to warn those who comment on the lies and attack the liars.
Avi Blizovsky and Michael
Truth: one or more?
Postmodernism or faith?
When you tell one truth, how does it sound on the other side, you know?
It sounds like you have a strong belief that there is only one truth.
If you have faith, you are in my eyes a debate because you are a priest of a religion that represents one true faith.
In science, on the other hand, there is no point in talking about truths.
but only about solutions.
Replace the word truth with solution and you will sound much better.
For any given matter there are existing solutions and there are future solutions.
A scientist who determines that there is only one solution to a certain problem endangers his future.
Of course it depends on the type of problem, there are many that have remained open for generations.
This is not postmodernism.
parable
Higgs:
And yet there is only one truth and the fact that you crown as "truth" the claim that it is a dogmatic claim does not change that.
There is only one truth even if we do not know it and even if we continue to strive for it for many years to come.
There is only one logic and it is the only logic I intend to use.
I don't ignore the person in front of me, but sometimes the conclusion of not ignoring is to understand that he cannot be convinced at all and all that can be done is to make him stop talking.
To do this, you need to understand why he rambles.
Usually the purpose of the chatter is to convince others.
If he realizes that this goal is damaged by the stupid argument he is having - it's his fault.
Isaiah/Baruch
The truth is that we noticed the fact that you write under two names from the same IP pretty early on, but we debated whether and when to reveal it.
In any case, both you and Higgs are invited to read Prof. Avshalom Elitzur's interesting article explaining the limitations of postmodernism - the same claim that says there is more than one truth. It is good to have an archive containing over ten thousand articles.
https://www.hayadan.org.il/elizurpm-241002/
Yeshaya Abd Hashem - You burned yourself a little...
You should have been smarter than that, this is not YNET or NRG, etc. and you probably think that the users here are a bit .... I think that you need to be a good boy Jerusalem for a while to restore the trust (that I had in the two users that you were)
And yes, I'm also quite like Higgs in the attitude of talking is better than one-sided arguments.
But of course my father is not like that after all if he was not "one sided" the scientist would have looked different. 🙂
We also need the speakers and those who can hold a dialogue, but a dialogue held between two parties who cannot speak requires those too.
Abi and Hidan, keep it up.
Right. I used two nicknames and presented two contrasting approaches. (I should have known that guys like you would upload my IP in a flash...) Anyone who has read "Voice for the Dead" (the sequel to "Ender's Game") knows this technique. All in all I wanted not all the comments here to be in the same confident tone and all on the same side. My direction is to sharpen the need for tolerance and mutual listening. Your return to repentance does not interest me at all. If I even have my own opinion on the matter, it is close to Higgs' opinion.
If I offended any of you, I apologize, that was not the intention. I know that Michael is not a communist (and it's not a bad word anyway) and I don't think this is a site for intellectuals. I only respect religious people. There are excellent religious scientists and it is impossible to ignore them and their achievements. Galileo, Copernicus, Newton all believed in God and that didn't stop them from being excellent scientists.
Religion and science are here to stay for many years and they need to learn to live together without adversely affecting each other. So that's it, at least the discussion was a bit stormy and interesting for a few days. That's it, sorry to those who were offended.
I will continue to read with great pleasure in "Yaden", which is a brilliant site in my opinion. I may send talkbacks, but I promise they will be non-provocative and non-manipulative and without hiding behind double nicknames, etc.
Come on, admit it was interesting, at least.
Yours, Isaiah Abd Hashem and Baruch Ya'akov.
Michael and Avi Blizovsky
The point is to reach a dialogue. To break through the barrier of dogmatism, lack of listening and narrowness of view.
No Yes?
The common starting point for both of you is…. "There is only one truth"
It's a dogmatic approach that ignores the existence of the person in front of you. And this is exactly their method of canceling your existence, canceling your right to freedom of thought.
Arguing in this situation is completely futile. Because there is no listening mode at all between the parties.
It is not possible to separate truth and justice as long as it is clean and proven and irrefutable from the person in front of you and the person in you. The debate is about the style and not the principle.
If you want to convince you must understand your limitations in your ability to present the plain truth to the other side and the limitations of the other side to absorb.
The path must pass through a common path to create a situation of even minimal listening. If you opened a small opening you can continue from here otherwise you won't get anything.
The starting point is that the other side thinks you are narrow-minded and have no idea how the world really works. You have to understand why he thinks that way and what his starting point is.
Science is not pure truth but an endless path of searching for perfection that has progressed by thumb and consistency. What is known today becomes obsolete tomorrow. There is no absolute truth because there are endless solutions for every situation. The seemingly absolute truth is a partial collection out of the infinite yet to be discovered.
The picture of the physical world of the last 100 years, the theory of relativity and the quantum theory are going to be replaced as long as man lives and progresses. These are not truths but passing episodes. The culture is not so ancient to see all this space but it is clear that this is what will happen eventually.
The main claim of the preachers of the religion is that scientific truth is not able to control the paths of life that are conducted according to luck. That is to say that the majority of reality is controlled by luck and not according to some specific consistent logic. Therefore, in their opinion, it is possible to ignore and generalize all reality within it.
From here the path is short to a narrow-minded interpretation of control over reality according to their own eyes and according to their personal interpretation.
The root of the evil in this approach is the generalization and deliberate ignoring of all scientific achievement and rational scientific understanding. Everything is painted the same colors.
You must understand all this and more to see how to create a dialogue of listening and not of pointless arguing.
Higgs, I don't understand why there is another side at all, who exactly is withdrawn and autistic? After all, there is only one truth? Or are you one of the neo-modernists who think that truth is relative.
The other side has one particular motive - to control us and dictate to us every second of our lives how we will live, what we will do, etc. (A. Asher in the Big Brother). The truth is only a secondary means, and it is very flexible (see for example the impersonation attempt and the argument between the clones).
What next step will you require us to balance in the debate about evolution, or in the debate about the cause of global warming? Should we open the head to such an extent that the brain will spill out? Why should I think about others? Since when does anyone from the Chabatites think how a father of children who were kidnapped and cut off contact with him feels, and then they console themselves that it is at least due to religion and not to drugs....
The difficulty of seeing is all in what you call the other side. If the truth bothers them, then they first try to attack it, and then to convince editors not to publish it, and if that doesn't work - to balance it. As I have already mentioned before, the Broadcasting Authority rules do not bind me.
Higgs:
I don't understand what you are saying.
I see the opposite side and see that the truth is a provocation for him.
I also see all the damage he is causing around the world and the religious coercion he is trying to put on me.
I see, as I said, that the other side is not using any measures at all.
The least I would expect from a reasonable person, in this situation, is to stand his ground.
Your description of isolation in autism and my inner logic - he has nothing to trust. He is just insulting.
The logic I use is not mine but universal.
There is only one truth - there are not many truths. The postmodernist claim about "the truth of X and the truth of Y" is a proven recipe for the lie to take over our entire being because it does not give any advantage to the real truth.
What motivates the other side is brainwashing and what this brainwashing motivates them to is a war against science and against individual freedom.
I have no intention of turning the other cheek.
Michael and Yehuda
Criticism is not anger but an attempt to see other sides.
Is this not your goal as well? Contrary to opinions that limit freedom of thought and narrow the field of vision.
That is why it is required of you to get out of the private sphere and look at what is happening on the other side, how the other side looks and feels and what motivates them.
When you want to explain science you have to get out of autism and the isolation within your inner logic and finding out the only rational truth.
You have to admit that you have the same hidden emotions and motives acting on you as on the other side.
And to stick to your truth you must be consistent and honest also in these parts of the beliefs in scientific truth, etc. You cannot claim certainty (like a geometric proof) in most of your claims. But mostly for common sense and consistency and consideration in the face of opinions that are not like that.
for one man one vote
You said something very dangerous, which gives a tool in the hands of dictators to control their people.
Higgs:
I don't think you have the right to make claims about publishing articles that contain true words.
The claims should be addressed to those for whom the truth is a provocation!
Religion is a bitter enemy of reason and is also the main cause of killing and oppressing people.
Every sane person must defend against her takeover of society.
You have here a living example of what the spreaders of religion are willing to do. They don't care about anything - lies, impersonations, baseless personal attacks - what not?
So you only find my father to take care of him?!
Higgs
Why are you angry?, they love the Middle Ages!, the Rambam, to die for Kiddush Hashem, to speak in Yiddish, you don't need math and English, there is no television, no computers, no Internet, with the rabbis who know everything, and no one argues with the rabbit that makes rum, and more
So what to do, the science site prevents them from returning there!
Yes, they have a problem
So it's time to rejoice
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Avi Blizovsky
It is perfectly clear that this is your opinion. But please try switching sides. Understand what the other party's feelings are.
How does he perceive you according to your style and the content of your words. For him you are the priest of the opposing religion.
You must understand the motives and feelings of those whose opinion you oppose.
In my opinion, preaching is, for example, using the following slogan
quotation:
"As soon as I don't address this important aspect, I too am guilty of the deterioration of the human race back to the Middle Ages"
Extremism and taking the initiative of total responsibility for the ills of the world brings you within walking distance of other preachers at the gate.
To my father
A. Cheers!
B. What about my article?
Holidays for joy and happiness
Sabdarmish Yehuda
I have never hidden my position. I'm not a preacher, you can't be a priest of something that has neither priests nor god.
I don't understand what typeface passwords you are referring to.
Your first visitor should be the man who pretended to be two people, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, with the intention of creating a debate between him and his clone, in which he will pour religious sermons on the site's users.
Avi Blizovsky
In my opinion, the first priority is to maintain honesty. Admit that you are involved emotionally not just rationally. And that you represent the belief in sanity by walking a path free of manipulations and preventing the use of the weapons of the ignorant.
Don't get dragged into slogans and extreme extremism because then you become the priest of the opposing religion.
Stand up for everyone's right to express their own opinion. And on the other hand, no one has the right to appropriate his responsibility for the supposedly "wrong" opinions of another. The fake religious priests allow themselves to breach fences between them and the others. Taking responsibility for the opinions of others. denying the right of others to think differently from their own. and consistently use the opinions of others as a weapon against them.
The root of evil is such immoral behavior that must be uprooted.
Higgs, beyond criticism - what do you suggest, what would you do if you were the editor of a website in the field of science. Would you give up the most important element of scientific thinking - rationalization just to please a violent public that has already succeeded in reducing scientific coverage in almost all media?
As soon as I do not address this important aspect, I too am guilty of the degeneration of the human race back to the Middle Ages.
Avi Blizovsky
Science is not called in Africa and the other countries you mentioned.
And regarding the target audience, what you wrote corresponds to my understanding of the site's trend for religion and science polemics.
The debates here are the main attraction of the site. Most of the responses will testify to this
dealing with these clashes.
I can't believe the content partners are not on your mind.
And I don't believe that third-party damage as a result of the prevention of the science float is the goal, not as it is shouted.
I also don't believe that hypocrisy is a policy to sway the opinion of regular commenters.
Although it is necessary to control the height of the flame, you certainly do not want to extinguish the fire.
I wish people would also be light……
Laighs First, check how it is on websites around the world and then get back to me, what's more, a large part of the articles you are talking about were from content partners, and not my initiative.
Second, what to do, all over the world, both Nature and Science, are trying to help advance science, not only among the convinced, but also, for example, to fight the war of studying evolution without interruptions, or the demand to research the field of embryonic stem cells as a first priority.
To remind you, many positions of the main religions in the world cause not only the halting of science but also death, such as the ban on the use of condoms among Catholics, under the false claim that they do not prevent AIDS infection, makes a name for believers in Africa, the opposition to stem cell research prevents progress in a safe way to treat diseases such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's and even diabetes.
The scientists are united in their position against pseudo-science and pseudo-religion (there are probably also those who are not opposed to religion but do not like its assertions in matters of science). The policy everywhere is zero tolerance towards any argument that causes harm, even if its origin is religious.
Even at our local level - the stupid decision of the minister of education not to oblige the ultra-Orthodox to teach their children math and English causes damage because it will cause the next generation to be even more ignorant than the current generation that gave birth to a creature like Yeshaya Abed Hashem/Baruch.
There is no trend against religion. The only trend on this site is in favor of correct and accurate science and not the false, whether the origin of the lie is religious or otherwise (Astrology & Co.).
In an era where stupidity is celebrated and no other media outlet even thinks to confront (for reasons of cynicism or ignorance of the editors), science is the only point of light.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Come on????!!!!!
At least a third of the articles tend to create a debate on these issues.
And in my opinion, about 70 percent of the responses deal with these debates.
This is precisely the niche of science.
Avi Blizovsky
These debates are the core of the scientist's energy. Your response above is puzzling.
To Isaiah, you write that you don't want to impose religion, but in that you also pretend to be a second person Baruch Jacob who says the opposite, what exactly am I supposed to understand? And how should I interpret this behavior, is this how religion protects itself, through inflation?
Let's make a deal - once you are closed about yourself and also reveal your real name, you will be allowed to continue commenting.
To all my respondents, the scientist and my father
A problem arises here, and all kinds of fanatics and fanatics take over the order of the scientist's responses and make people think that what is important is religion. They divert every issue towards religion. Is this what we are striving for? Instead of an objective debate on scientific issues, there is an endless grinding of God's commandments and opinion. We need to find solution to the issue.
Shouldn't it be better to immediately move every discussion about religion under one article that will flow, then there is no connection between the subject of the article and the religious debate that is going on in the comments
Father, think about it.
Happy Holidays
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Jesus worked
Why would you hide behind the beards of rabbis
Declare yourself in your name Jesus and in your mission do not be ashamed
to a gray cell,
I don't pretend to teach, little one. If you are willing to learn, there are wonderful and great rabbis who can teach you. I just want to answer you instead of Jacob who would just get angry and tease you for no purpose.
From my personal experience, faith and trust in God give the believer happiness and strength. I believe that the human race is endowed with an innate quality (in your language - it has such "genes") to "make order" in the reality around it. The human eye looks for patterns and symmetry, the human ear looks for recurring motifs and harmony, the human mind strives for rationalization and the human soul strives for an explanation for everything.
For many people, not all, religious faith provides considerable parts of this need and the form is excellent. It equips them with a scale of values, security and peace of mind. It gives them a reason to gather together and sharpens their sense of group identity.
Even in religion, as in science, bad people did, are doing and will abuse it, to promote interests that are not related to religion. This does not mean that religion as both a personal and social need is obscene in itself.
I personally advocate "a man will live by his faith." I don't want to interfere with your beliefs or non-beliefs. I don't want to interfere with your menu and your palate. Part of the scale of values I advocate requires academic freedom and any independence between science and religion and vice versa.
On the other hand, I also believe that apostasy is mainly harmful to humanity in general and the Jewish people in particular and I would be very happy, happy in fact, if all the heretics (at least among our people) would come by themselves and without any coercion, to true faith and observance of Torah and mitzvot. I pray that it does happen. As long as this does not happen, I believe with all my heart that we must live together, with mutual respect. Not to impose religion and not to trample on religion. Just respect and coexist. You can talk, even argue - you must not be dragged into violence in any way. We need to help each other and protect each other.
I do not blame the seculars for what they are and I do not consider myself superior to them. On the contrary - they have a chance to be converted, and then they will stand in a place where even perfect righteous people cannot stand. On the other hand - I only expect the secularists to show patience, tolerance and respect towards me and my faith.
This. I guess I haven't changed anything for you, except maybe to convince you that I don't have horns and that I'm human just like you.
Isaiah Abed Hashem. (Oops - I spelled it wrong because of a gut feeling? - sorry).
Ready and ready for your answer.
Man is not born good. He has to become good - by learning that there is another beside him and an Other above him
Hahaha, if that's what we're falling for, Michael, then you choose a word 🙂
I just don't have a better word.
But cool that we agree 😀
age:
Okay - but why call it God?
Isaiah:
You're right. I knew this, but I find it appropriate - in light of your words - to reiterate it.
I have no doubt that Baruch Notam the poison is extraordinary.
now I get it.
You are right about the god obsolescence of religion.
But my "modern" God is based on him and the foundation of goodness.
And a little different from how you phrased it - the countries where the law is the most moral are the most logical countries.
The basis of logic comes from the same good old God with an upgrade for the 2000s 🙂
Baruch does not represent all religious people. He only represents himself and that's a good thing.
For those who have not yet understood:
Of course I'm not a communist - far from it - but those who lied are welcome to continue using this accusation because it's still much worse than accusing me of being like them.
age:
When I asked "good?" I meant the word "good" in Scheller's phrase - "the good old God".
I argued that the same God who does sleep (and slept even during the Holocaust) is not good at all and that his commandments also include the death penalty for people who have done nothing wrong.
The fact that Israel does not use the death penalty does not stem from the Torah or from God.
The countries where the law is the most moral are also the most atheistic countries.
Gray cell - can I try to reply to you instead of Jacob?
Baruch Jacob,
"Your intention is desirable, but your actions are undesirable." You can talk to these people. "The sin of Israel, even though it is a sin - Israel is." I ask you to stop making provocations here. It doesn't help the conversation. get out of here please
Bless Jacob - and his like.
Indeed - only with signs and wonders will you be able to prove that Michael is wrong.
A moment - a moment: signs and wonders are reserved only for God to give them to men. No Yes ???
(Sorry. I was wrong. The prophets also used them once).
And how will you prove to him, yes you, that there is a God - who also watches over communists like him (...)?
Take initiative - try. Maybe you can also convince a non-communist like me.
Another wordless summary of the "divinity" and science:
? –> !!
Michael:
Do not understand….
Did you write "good?"
Now you get into the intricacies of our interpretation as human beings. I kind of take the matter as not allowing a person to end the life of another. That's why there is no death penalty in the State of Israel, but for a second that's not the topic of conversation.
And it is not against the good.
Are you expressing opposition for the sake of opposition itself?
What's the problem with the good, I didn't understand...
Gil, it's a shame you're ruining words for nothing about DIE HARD COMMUNIST. The man is an ardent communist and will not give up his idolatrous belief in atheism even if you prove to him with signs and miracles that he is wrong. His belief in atheism is not a rational thing. He simply underwent Pavlovian conditioning on the subject. It's a waste of your time.
age:
I'm not going far.
The acts of murder I mentioned are included in the laws given by the old and "good" God to his people (not in reality, of course, but according to the children's fairy tale in which God invented it in the first place). All the wisdom is in the difference between the word "murder" and the phrase "punish with the death penalty".
The physical act is the same act but people feel that the second can be given the appearance of morality.
Michael... I understand what you're saying but as someone who doesn't see the whole picture I don't have an exact answer for you.
I think we live in a world that is ours and authority is given so that doesn't mean things like what you mentioned can't happen. And you go far. He said "Thou shalt not kill" and it happens...
Because we control our world.
Like the unified theory that everyone aspires to and is still far from achieving, so is the unification of "God" with science.
I am optimistic. 🙂
Spring.
The fact that a complete separation from religion is not in sight does not mean that such a separation is not a good thing.
If I could, with a magic wand, convince all people to abandon their superstitions in favor of science, I would do so without hesitation and I have no doubt that no harm would have been done, but on the contrary - everyone would have benefited.
to Uriah and his cubs
I agree with you that science will do better in a world free from the shackles of religion and the "divine providence" that accompanies it, but your assertion that we no longer need God is incorrect.
Most of the world's populations cling to one form or another of belief in a higher power, which helps them justify the meaning of their existence. The "murder" of God will surely lead to the end of humanity as we know it. Will the change be positive?? It's hard to say, but I agree with Dan Brown who discussed this question a lot in "The Da Vinci Code" - in my opinion humanity depends on the framework of faith too strongly to separate them.
However, science must continue its work and try to penetrate the hearts of believers, wherever they may be, and thus perhaps reduce the effects of religion on our lives, but a complete separation from religion is not in sight for Davoni.
Gil Dotan:
the good?
The one who tells us Bobe Maisas as the truth?
The one who orders us to kill gays and Shabbat violators?
The one who actively (if not passively) drew six million Jews through the chimneys?
God is depicted as quite passive from the above idea
Compared to God who gives purpose and purpose to our lives.
I think I'll stick to the good old first one.
The feeling is much better that way….
It seems to me that the only existing "God" can be expressed in the sign -? .
"Divinity" of the lack of answer - temporary or permanent.
He is with us from the beginning. It is quick enough to change its position every time and in a specific case after the humans managed to get close to it to the extent that they could align it to - ! – and then moved to another place.
And so it will be in the future forever.
Should we worship God?
No. on the contrary.
Chase until Horma to align !!!
And this is the essence of science in one short sentence.
Kaufman started dealing with the subject of "complexity" (I don't understand why they had to use a name that had already been given a different meaning) to find the commonality of all the phenomena of "bringing order out of disorder".
In advance, I thought that there was no chance and crowning the matter with the title "God" is nothing more than an admission of failure. You don't find (because there probably isn't) a causal common denominator, so you invent the "cause of everything".
It is true that we are not talking about the gods of religions and it is true that there is no denial of science here, and yet there is inappropriate behavior here.
The word "God" now has another meaning that the religious preachers can, in their dishonesty, also zigzag to it at the time of meeting.
Other people may find a reason here - similar to the ordinary God - to stop thinking.
I somewhat disagree with the phrase "the interest of science" that was mentioned in the previous response because science, which is nothing more than a doctrine of thinking, has no interests, but of course I agree with the author's intention.
Why do we even have to push "God" anywhere?! I agree with Dawkins on this matter, introducing "God", in any way, into science, and even into the popular discourse about it, seriously harms the interest of science.
There is no doubt that humanity benefited a lot *in the past* from monotheistic religions and their "God" (for example, by social organization around him, institutionalized morality, etc.). The emphasis is on the past. Today we no longer need "God" to establish an orderly society And to give explanations to the world. That is why the interest of science in general is to abandon this concept until it disappears from everyday life and remains a historical matter and nothing else.