Nir Lahav decided to investigate the issue, to answer all those who claim that the search for meaning in life is found in the merchants of religions and sects
Meaninglessness and superficiality are one of the biggest problems of our time. We lost something that would be bigger than us, that would give us perspective. We lost sight of the big picture and got stuck in our little day-to-day lives. Do we need God for meaning and morality? I don't think so, the answer is right under our noses.
An article about the movie the unbelievers
In preparation for the secular-scientific Shavuot correction that I organized on Shavuot evening at the Tel Aviv Cinematheque, I decided to dedicate an article to one of our biggest problems today, the lack of meaning that most of us feel in our lives. This emptiness affects not only our personal lives but also the design of society as a whole, here in Israel and in the entire Western world. The human race has a unique and wonderful quality, self-awareness. We know that we exist, you know and you know that there is an ``I'' that is separate and special from the other bodies around you. Self-awareness gives us the possibility to experience and know that we were born, that there is a world around us and that one day we will die. This feature gives us great power to explore and understand ourselves and the world and gives us the opportunity to be free and make decisions as we see fit. Thanks to this ability we strive to find meaning for ourselves, our lives and the world around us. But it also creates a problem. I like to call this problem the paradox of body and mind (for those familiar with the philosophical expression, the reference here is not to the problem of body and mind known in philosophy). On the one hand, we feel very strong, aware of ourselves and the environment, able to imagine things that don't exist at all, create whole worlds in our thoughts and dreams and feel like the center of creation, with unlimited potential. On the other hand, we are stuck in a temporary body. As soon as something goes wrong in our body or as soon as we reach a slightly more extreme environment we can easily die. It doesn't take much to injure and kill us. We are aware of death waiting for us around the corner and aware of the great fragility of our bodies and our lives. No matter how hard we want and imagine, we cannot prevent our own fragility and death. This is an almost paradoxical situation where on the one hand we feel like we have an almighty soul and on the other we have a fragile body that is marching towards its end and with it the end of our soul. so what am i Infinite or finite? What wins, the feeling of the tremendous ability that we have and the feeling that we are not supposed to die or the feeling of finality and oppressive fragility?
"
The human being is nothing but a piece of sophisticated mud.
How, what is mud?
- Dirt soaked in moisture.
So is the human being.. only what, sophisticated..." - Meir Ariel, the human being is nothing but
What do we do with this paradox? How do you deal with it? I suspect that most of the actions in human history were done in order to answer this paradox and it is the reason why we search for meaning in our lives in the first place (even if we are not aware of the existence of the problem and do not know how to name it, we feel it on an experiential level).
The religions tried to answer this paradox, you have a purpose and there is an intention in the world. There are gods or a single god who created you, loves you and will keep you alive forever in the next world or in some reincarnation. This explanation emphasizes the soul and eliminates death as the end of the verse. He also tells you that you don't have to do much to get meaning. The meaning is already there because there is someone who created you and loves you. You have a purpose and it gives you meaning. In return, you should very well perform certain actions (usually to win that pleasant eternal life in the worlds and incarnations to come).
But this solution is problematic. He looks a little childish. Like a small child who is afraid of the dark and needs comfort from his parents, so too humanity had to find parents to comfort it. Self-awareness invented a purpose for itself and invented a caring creator who created the entire world with intention, to escape the paradox and the feeling of fear, loneliness and meaninglessness. The religious solution may have suited the distant past when the human race was still young, without much knowledge. But as the years passed, and especially after the scientific revolution that brought with it a great deal of knowledge about the world and methods for investigating reality, the religious solution seemed more and more outdated and less and less relevant to reality. Today we know how to show quite well how the different religious ideas developed around the world, when and where the idea of gods and the idea of the monotheistic God appeared and developed, and when the various scriptures were written (such as the Torah, Koran, Indian Vedas, etc.). We also know how to explain various natural phenomena that in ancient times seemed like the acts of the gods (such as lightning, fire, storms, the movement of the stars, etc.). As the human race grows older, the religious idea loses its power and seems to belong to the past when we looked for a protective parent. A parent who does give security, but at the cost of losing freedom (because the parent knows better than the child what he should do).
The various religions dominated in a dominant way for at least 3000 years, but in the last two centuries the development of the ideas of the human race (or at least the culture of the West..) matured to the point where the center of gravity moved from religion to secularism. It was only at the end of the 19th century that the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche dared to say, for the first time, that not only is there no God, but that we have killed God. Nietzsche understood that God is another idea of the human mind and now we have reached the point where we realized that it is only an idea and not a real and existing entity. He also understood the many problems that would now face the human race. After so many years in which the culture believed that morality and meaning must come from God, what would we do now without God? Where will the meaning come from and why should we behave morally?
Nietzsche's analysis was accurate and managed to predict the future. The beginning of the 20th century was characterized by the search for substitutes for God, something else that would be greater than us and dictate what we should do. These are the ideologies, every ideology and its idea. For example, the fascist movements tried to say that the biggest and most important thing is the state and it should dictate to the subjects how to behave. The ideologies collapsed one after the other until we realized that there was no longer a need for substitutes for God to dictate to man how to behave. Like a teenage girl, the human race is currently in a state where it has rebelled against authority and gone to extremes where everything is allowed. There are no important values and no meaning either. Everything is allowed and everything is bland. What is the meaning left for us? God and religion are no longer relevant, the state also does not give much meaning, after all the feeling of power comes from within us, not from an imaginary invention in the name of a people or a state. Like the idea of God, people and country are just ideas that the mind invented for itself. We were left with emptiness. It seems that there is nothing real and stable that will be bigger than us and give us meaning.
So what are we going to do? What will give us meaning? Television, shopping and consumerism empty of content? There must be something beyond that. There must be meaning out there somewhere!
"Mud that dries, crumbles..
And a person who dries up crumbles -
Just what, sophisticated…
Wrapped and enveloped, or bounded and bounded in a closet" Meir Ariel, the human being is nothing but
The first thing to pay attention to is the question why are we sure that for meaning we need something greater than ourselves? The answer is the same body and mind paradox. It is true that we have a feeling that we have great abilities, but when we look around us we discover a weak and fragile body and a gray everyday world, light years away from the infinity that we feel is within us. We are looking for something else, bigger than us and bigger than the simple, everyday world we see around us, where the infinity we feel will be in harmony with reality and can be realized so that we will be infinite and never die. Exactly for the same reason we like to watch magicians. With the help of an action that seems magical and illogical, we experience for a moment that there is something surprising, exciting and bigger than us. The magic reflects the feeling of infinity that we feel and thus the reality fits the moment to our inner feelings.
There are two options for dealing with the paradox, either to look for something greater than ourselves that would be infinite and thus match the feeling of our infinite soul, or to give up this feeling and say that the body and the gray world is all there is. The various religions have tried to propose the idea of God so that there is something greater than us and infinite, but this idea fails to appear serious as our knowledge increases and we understand the development of the ideas of human culture. As an anti-religion movement, Western culture nowadays has chosen the second option, there is nothing mighty and great. All that exists is the life of this world and a fragile body that we try to strengthen with the help of science and medicine. There is no meaning beyond momentary pleasures, accumulating assets, love and good friends. But this is not a good enough answer. It is impossible to ignore our feelings of the laziness of the mind and the tremendous possibilities inherent in our self-awareness.
As a result of this attempt to ignore, we have become zombies, human beings who live in denial, alive but not really. Hiding their feelings, trying to ignore the paradox, suffering and fears, as if that would make them disappear. But they don't disappear, they just gain strength and go out without being able to control them in different ways. Our search for meaning is directed in different directions. A meaning determined by the consumption of the latest products that can be bought, by the work you do and by what others think of you. All these examples are very momentary and one-dimensional. Their momentariness creates a tail-chasing in a vicious circle that cannot give real and stable satisfaction. Like children in kindergarten who are sure that the most important thing in the world is the fact that they lost their scissors in the kindergarten yard and will therefore burst into bitter and heartbreaking tears, so too we in the current culture have lost perspective and are sure that the shoes we have, the cell phone we bought and the opinions of our neighbors about us are the most important thing in the world. We need something bigger than ourselves to give us perspective and an overall picture of our lives and actions. On the one hand, it cannot be that day-to-day life is all there is, and on the other hand, it cannot be that God is the only answer to the greater thing we are looking for.
Even if we didn't think about the things and didn't give them a name, and even if we try to repress, the feeling of paradox still exists in us. The band of the Church of Wisdom express today's feeling of zombies in the song "How does it feel?"
"How does it feel,
There is no future in sight
There is no place there is a good reason to be.
How does it feel,
to always be on the side
never in the middle
never close enough
not take part
How does it feel?
And I don't have a dream
I have no longing for my time
that keeps moving
I don't have a dream" Church of the Mind, "How does it feel"
Because of the current choice of western culture in meaninglessness, in recent years one can see an influx of many following various New Age teachings that will provide them with meaning beyond this world. The New Age, similar to traditional religions, offers a nature with intention and purpose to man. Whether it is a universal god that does not distinguish between religions, or beings from other dimensions, or karma, or creatures of nature (fairies, elves, etc.), or beings of light with an astral energy frequency, man is a special being and has the power to speak with these higher factors . Everything in nature is premeditated and man has a predetermined role in the world. As in religion, here too man does not have to do much to gain meaning, he and the nature around him have a purpose. Something created reality with love and already thought of all the details. The soul, of course, is eternal and death is only a passing point. The purpose of the soul is predetermined in the creator's plan and it is to develop in the various incarnations of life. Thus, those who believe in any New Age teachings get meaning and perspective for their lives from the creation full of love and intention that exists in nature. There is something greater that loves and cares for you and you have a purpose to evolve without any fear of death.
"There is a madman on the road
who plays with stones
Wandering in the wind corridor
talking to god
He is ahead
He is close
Here he comes
Here he will come" -Shuti Naveva, "Infinite"
But this is also not a sufficient answer. This is a backward walk towards religion. Once again the human mind created loving and caring parental figures for it to help the little child deal with his fears. There is an attempt here to take the easy answers and the feeling of security that religion gave but to reject the strict laws of traditional religions. A kind of more liberal lite religion. This is a very emotional response to the resulting meaninglessness. But like the traditional religions, this solution also feels like a childish solution that tries to give a quick answer to our fears, instead of dealing with them in a serious and in-depth way. There is indeed something positive in the influx of New Age teachings, these people realize that something is missing in their lives and are looking for a solution. They are not immersed in denial and apathy towards their situation, but confront the fear and look for a solution to it. Many of these teachings also emphasize important values such as love, unity and compassion, but on the other hand, it is infuriating to see how the various New Age teachings ignore the experimental facts that show time and time again that there is nothing real at the base of the New Age (we of course need to keep an open mind and continue to check "More and more controlled experiments, but from the many results we have so far I am not optimistic.. For details see the blog Sharp Thinking). The New Age really likes to sound accurate and true and therefore uses scientific terms such as energy and frequencies, but these terms are completely different from their scientific meaning and when you examine them in depth they remain torn in the air, empty without any factual or logical basis. It seems that due to the lack of meaning and purposelessness of today, many people are willing to put aside the facts and go blindly after a false sense of security. I see this problem many times, a situation arises in which those who are not willing to live as zombies, but instead give room to feeling their meaninglessness and fear, look for an answer but cannot find a solution in the current culture and therefore in many cases fall backwards towards religion or towards New Age teachings. .
We have reached an impasse again. Is that all there is? Do we have to fall towards the bear hug of religion or the New Age for meaning?
Must live like a zombie? Is there nothing so great, so impressive and awe-inspiring around us that could be a solution?
"It's true and I have no solution
I'm alone now
I'm afraid of death..
Blessed is the man who has God in him
Because I can't find mine for a long time
oh i'm waiting here
How come I'm looking for an answer and can't find it..
And inside a temple without light prays
Black top I ask
How come I'm looking for an answer and can't find it?
And how I always turn black when I cry
IM crying
I'm afraid" - the Jews, "looking for an answer"
Surely there is, and even under our noses, here around us. And not just one solution but two!
One solution is what started this whole discussion, self-awareness. We saw that it really opens up tremendous capabilities for us. As we can understand that we exist and are separate from other objects around us and as we gave it the name `I', so we can name, invent, generalize and understand many concepts and phenomena. We manage to explain in our consciousness the formation of the entire universe, the structure of the atom and even understand properties of infinity. We are able to imagine concepts that do not exist and realize them in reality. We even managed to invent God and kill him in our minds! It seems that the abilities of our awareness are so enormous that it is not certain that they have any limit, and the more we understand, the more we can realize the abilities and develop new abilities that did not exist before. This is how we arrived at the development of cerebral consciousness (or the development of the soul if you will, but not a separate soul that is disconnected from the brain, but a soul that is created and exists by the brain). The development of consciousness not from the existence of God nor from a predetermined natural intention or purpose but from ourselves, from the understanding that although we are alone, there is no God, no intention and no predetermined purpose, but we have tremendous abilities that can grow over time. This is secular spirituality. Our development comes from within us, from our possibility to choose to develop our awareness abilities and our realization abilities. The more abilities we open up and feel that we succeed in realizing them, the more significant we will feel. Thus, if we choose, we can embark throughout our lives on a journey of spiritual development that has nothing to do with the existence of God or other mystical beings beyond man. A spiritual development that begins with a person and ends with a person, a never-ending personal journey of developing our awareness and its realization throughout our lives. At each stage we can look back at the stages we have already passed and experience our great progress. If we manage to experience that our consciousness has infinite capabilities, the paradox of body and mind will be resolved. The side of the soul is given so much power, that the side of the fragile body will be negligible. True, we will still be inside a fragile body marching to its death, but this fact will not bother us so much because we are fully aware of our great power in this moment. This experience will fill us until the experience of fear of death seems small and insignificant.
Our consciousness can be described as a vast, boundless ocean. These are the endless possibilities we have thanks to our self-awareness. Every thought, every emotion and every creation are like waves on the surface of the ocean, another realization of one of the possibilities inherent in our consciousness. If we manage to experience ourselves in this way, as a consciousness with enormous capabilities and possibilities, this will fill us with meaning, we will become the infinite thing we were looking for outside of us. Such an experience will also give our lives a perspective, no matter what people think about us, this is just another certain wave that is created in our consciousness, and as it is created, so will your knowledge soon. As part of the magnificent abilities of our self-awareness, we have the ability to choose which possibility we want to strengthen and which to weaken. Someone, for example, can decide to strengthen her thoughts related to the story she is writing and weaken troubling thoughts about what others think of her. It is a great tool and like any other tool it needs to be developed. The more we practice using our tools of awareness, the more we will recognize the great powers we have within us. Nietzsche pointed out that we are the creators of ourselves and our life is the creation we develop throughout our life's journey. We must, obviously, learn how to be the creators of our lives and how to develop the use of our self-consciousness. This is not an easy meaning, it needs to be developed, but it is a real meaning that can lead to a stable feeling of happiness (brain research is just beginning to scratch the surface of these issues. At the moment, to study this, it is better to turn to philosophy. Those who tried to study the development of awareness tools in a more direct and experiential way were the philosophers The Buddhists and they developed impressive tools on how to develop the use of consciousness with the help of meditations).
There is no meaning outside of us. There is no purpose expressed in an orderly master plan. We were not created with souls to evolve. There is no intention in nature. But the fact that there is no purpose and intention and that there is no God does not mean that there is no meaning. The meaning comes from within us. There is no parent, we have complete freedom, but with freedom comes harder work and responsibility. There is no longer an easy solution that gives instant meaning, it is our responsibility to find meaning for ourselves and embark on a journey of development. Our responsibility also applies to morality. We have the freedom to choose to be bad or good and to choose the values by which we want to live (according to these values will determine what is good and what is bad). If we understand that consciousness is our main tool and it is the one that allows us great abilities, our morality should also be derived from this understanding. Not as an absolute law of nature but as a decision we chose for ourselves. For example, following the understanding that every self-aware creature has tremendous abilities, so that we understand that they deserve the same rights, education and freedom so that they too can develop these abilities and realize them as they see fit (note that what is important here is not the products, not the realization but the potential Everyone who has self-awareness has the ability and from the ability they are guaranteed what we call "human rights"). We can also understand that every person has the same body and mind paradox as us. Every person is torn, even if he is aware of it or if only on an unconscious level, between the feeling that he has infinite abilities and the feeling that he is finite and marching towards his death. We all suffer and therefore we all want to receive love. This fact can unite us and emphasize the importance of choosing a moral that elevates the values of love, acceptance, care and compassion.
It is surprising to discover how much the music reflects the philosophical trend of the time. Most of the songs these days deal with the breakup and there are no songs that offer a new and real solution. I went all the way back to the late sixties to find a song that talks about the infinite capabilities of man. Really in that period, the period of the counter culture, the philosophical course of the society was around the great power and capacity of humanity and its desire for freedom. This is a song by the Moody Blues band called "The Best Way to Travel" in which they suggest that the best and fastest way to travel around the universe is with the help of thought.
"And you can fly,
High as a kite, if you will
accelerate into space,
Thought is the best way to travel" - The Moody Blues Band, "The best way to travel"
There may be those who will not be convinced by this solution. It is true that we are an ocean of abilities and we have tremendous strengths that can be developed and realized, but still around us the world is gray and unsatisfactory. Like an adult, full of potential who finds himself stuck in a toddler playground, we can feel the same way. Full of abilities and power that can be realized, but what do you do with all these abilities and realization? Why is it good if everything around you is small and does not suit your great abilities?
But there is something tremendous all around us, something that seems infinite and can certainly match the tremendous abilities within us. This is the second solution. There is a very great and awe-inspiring mystery all around us - nature and those who investigate this mystery with the help of science, physics, philosophy and art, discover very quickly that our day-to-day lives do not represent the real reality at all. The fundamental laws of nature are completely different from what we are used to. Everyday life is a drop in the ocean compared to the real reality. It can be said that, like in the movie The Matrix, we also live in a kind of illusion, the illusion of everyday life. We asked, is that all there is? And the answer is no, it is just an illusion. It's a convenient illusion, because when you look at our immediate surroundings it's hard to see that there's anything beyond it, but when you dig deeper you discover the truth. When you try to understand the laws of nature, the most basic laws that created the universe and us, you discover that nature has a kind of layers. The day-to-day visible layer, and below that a hidden layer, and below that an even deeper and hidden layer, and so on again and again. In order to understand the reality around us and thus to understand ourselves, we need to dig and deepen, scrape the layers and decipher the secrets of nature.
There is a beautiful quote by the biologist and neuroscientist Robert Sapolsky about science and wonder and some people's fear that science takes the wonder and meaning out of our lives:
"I'm not worried about the possibility that scientists will explain everything one day, and for a very simple reason: you can look at an antelope running in the savannah as a problem in biomechanics, and you can think of Bach as an exercise in harmonies, but this view does not detract from the wonder we feel when we see an antelope leap or hear a Bach piece . We only grow and learn with each discovery about the infinitely complex structure that lies at the base of the simple things that bring us to wonder. But there is also a stronger reason why I am not afraid that the scientists will be able to explain everything - it will never happen. There may be areas where science will be able to explain all the details, but science will never be able to explain everything. In the scientific process, for every question to which an answer is found, a dozen new questions immediately appear, and they are usually more complex and challenging than all the questions that preceded them. As a geneticist named Haldane described it at the beginning of the 20th century: "Life is not only stranger than imagination, it is stranger than anything we can ever imagine." The knowledge we will accumulate will never succeed in suffocating the flames of our curiosity - the pursuit of the knowledge of science is not intended to cure us of the wonder and mystery we feel, but to economize and ignite them every time anew."
The more we explore and know more about reality, the more we understand and experience how infinite it is. The investigation and the knowledge not only do not diminish the wonder and mystery but only increase them. I can say that when I studied set theory in mathematics, I became aware that we are able to explore even infinity and understand its properties. And the more I learned about infinity, the more I was exposed to its hidden secrets, the more I was filled with wonder and reverence for it. The knowledge added to my understanding how strange infinity is, and this understanding with the understanding that it can nevertheless be explored and understood filled me with tremendous meaning, an almost religious experience.
In order to get out of the illusion that everyday is all there is, we need to focus and investigate phenomena that seem illogical, but are nevertheless real (the best method we have developed so far to determine what is real and what is not is called the scientific method). Such phenomena that are still unexplained and seem to contradict everything we know are exactly phenomena that link the layer we know in nature to a deeper layer that is waiting to be discovered. Science is full of such phenomena and those who are not afraid of them will be assured of embarking on a magical and mysterious journey towards understanding reality as it is. Each discovery of a new layer arouses more amazement and more curiosity. Like a primordial woman who comes out for the first time from the cave where she lives every animal. At every step she will discover new things the likes of which she has never seen. This is how we also discover layers of increasingly strange laws of nature that challenge everything we have believed until now. We live in a real wonderland, and the more we dig, the more we will experience infinity.
"We are all princes and princesses who spend the days
In the hope of receiving the beauty in infinity" -Shuti Hanova, "Infinite"
Already today we know fascinating insights about the real reality and how different it is from common sense and our everyday life. About the fact that the particles that make up our atoms can be in several places at the same time, time does not tick but is another dimension similar to length, width and height, the most basic thing in nature is not matter and not force but a physical concept called field and so on and so forth. It is no wonder that our physical theories, which try to explain the laws of nature in a better and more accurate way, become strange as the years pass. From Newton's mechanics, through relativity and quantum theory to quantum field theory, you can see how our everyday world is just a small shell of the wonderful reality we live in. The resulting experience is that our march out of the cave is endless. If this experience is true, then we will also expect that in the future every physical theory we discover will be more strange than the previous one. Here again we have reached a journey of development of our consciousness, only this time the journey is to understand the reality in which we live from which awareness was created. In this way, along the journey, we will be exposed to deeper and deeper layers of reality and we will also understand ourselves and our place within the fabric of reality. Even in this case the journey will be endless and at every stage we will discover amazing and surprising insights that will fill us with meaning. Isn't it a noble goal to step outside the cave, to explore where we live, what is the real reality and what is our place in it? What a huge mystery awaits us around the corner to investigate and what a tremendous meaning the investigation itself and the results of the investigation will give us. It excites me to think what else we will understand and prove in the future about the reality around us!
The infinity of nature brings humility and perspective. We have no idea what we will discover along the journey, the layers are too deep for us to even imagine right now. Our journey to understand reality will probably be endless, consisting of new discoveries and new insights that reveal more and more layers of the infinite and thus with each new layer we will open new tools with the help of which we will be able to dig into the next layer in line. We develop tools all the time. When you delve into physics and mathematics, you see what wonderful realms and what insights we have been able to reach to date (and even show in experiments that the insights are correct beyond reasonable doubt) and this despite having biological limitations. For example, with the help of mathematics we were able to understand that we live in four dimensions even though we only see three dimensions and in another area of mathematics we were able to understand unique properties that infinity has even though we are finite. In many cases we manage to get out of our limitations with the help of the language of mathematics that our consciousness has managed to develop. Again and again one can see the amazing ocean of abilities that self-awareness has. Here we were able to find a source external to us so mighty that would match our inner feeling that we are so mighty. We went from being a grown girl in preschool to a grown girl in an endless magic shop. The power of nature can be so strong that sometimes it will frighten us (it is not for nothing that the phrase "fear and awe" was created) and we will forget that we have the enormous ability to understand it. That is why it is so important to experience the vast ocean of our consciousness, to feel our power and to weaken the waves of fear that sometimes arise in the ocean.
Like a baby who enjoys learning all the new things that are placed before him, so the one who chooses to embark on this developmental journey is like a baby of nature who is amazed by the huge mystery of nature and devotes himself to research and the new insights that fill him with happiness and meaning. But even those who choose to exercise their tremendous abilities in a different way and not embark on a journey to understand reality will enjoy its fruits. Just like a religious person who chose not to delve into religion, but still knows and believes in the depth of his religion, so also those who did not choose to delve into the study of reality can recognize that there is a huge mystery and inexhaustible depth in the reality around them. This very understanding is enough to get a perspective on life, not to take everything seriously and to feel that there is something bigger than us.
We found two solutions to the search for something mighty and infinite. Our consciousness and the reality around us. Each of them separately can provide us with enormous meaning, satisfaction and happiness. But together their power is even greater. Not only do we have a self-consciousness with an infinite ocean of possibilities, the reality around us also includes what appears to be an infinite depth of yet more layers that can be explored with the help of our amazing abilities. There is a match between the infinite ocean that is within us and the infinite amount of layers that exist in reality outside of us. It is possible to go on a journey out of the cave of everyday life towards reality as it is, a powerful journey that will resonate with the feeling of our tremendous abilities. This way we can repeatedly increase the experience of our powerful soul until the experience of fear of the finitude of the body becomes negligible and non-threatening. We can choose to embark on the journey of our lives. In this journey we will open up our awareness abilities and the ability to realize our possibilities and in it we will realize our ability to explore the infinite and understand the reality around us. During the journey we will feel how we are progressing, step by step and we will feel the realization of our potential. Thus with each new insight we touch for a moment the feeling of infinity and we continue on the journey.
We have described the development of human culture as the development of a person. From a childhood in which a protective parent is needed, through a youth rebellion without values. Now the time has come for adulthood in which we understand that even if there is no parent and no purpose or intention in nature, it is still our duty to choose a path for ourselves and create for ourselves meaning, values and morals according to which we will try to build our life's journey and the society around us. There are things big enough to give us perspective and take us out of the gray day-to-day life towards real meaning. We just have to choose them.
617 תגובות
There is one wisdom, it is called upon by a thousand calls, it is not accepted neither by the religious nor by the secular.
These claim that it should only be studied after the age of 40 and beyond, who have filled their seat in the Shas and passim, and those claim that the words of philosophy are haram and that it is not a scientific theory that stands up to the test of scientific research.
And so wisdom is placed upon her, she wants to show something new that was not known by the scientists, to show the new paradigm over which generations of good minds have been crushed, she wants to show her opponents, both religious and secular, that the same clarification between the believers and the secular can reach a solution that will be acceptable to Both sides.
To verify that although it is not attainable with the existing senses, it can be built within new patterns previously known only to individuals
But the opposition to it is strong.
Resistance that stems from previous habits, existing thinking and accepted schemes that do not allow it to break through.
And this is what Herc Kook and Baal Haslam wrote:
The great spiritual questions, which used to be solved only for the great and excellent, are obliged to be solved now in different degrees for the whole people. And to bring lofty and lofty things down from a mighty height to the depths of the mass ordinary laity, this requires a great and mighty wealth of spirit, and a regular and accustomed business, only then will the opinion expand and the language become clear, to the point of expressing the deeper things in an easy and popular style, to quench thirsty souls.
Rabbi Kook, The Sheep's Heels, n.d
It's been a long time, and my kidneys have been chasing me every day, to go out of my way and compose some fundamental treatise on the soul of Judaism and religion, and with the knowledge of the originality of the wisdom of Kabbalah, and to spread it among the people, in such a way that they will gain from it an acquaintance and understanding of all the things that stand in the world, properly, in their true character and nature.
Has the ladder, tap detection and tap cover
What did these two Kabbalists mean?
Why are they not heard?
Why does the secular still refuse to direct his gaze towards this wisdom, and why is the religious afraid to open a single page of Kabbalah while he is ready to sit for hours in front of the Gemara?
And these are the clarifications that will become clear over the next two thousand years.
Happy holiday Science 🙂
Nice article...thanks for the enlightenment
Sharon Haim Madar
I agree with you. There is an approach, quite extreme, in philosophy called actualism. The basic idea is that if something is possible it happens. There is no such thing as "possible". If something has not happened then it is not possible. There are all kinds of reasons, but there are always reasons. This is an extreme sense of determinism.
Lenire Lahav! I disagree with your opinion that we have an infinite soul.. you are probably married with children and you were also successful in the career and that is where your view comes from. What would happen if for example you were not successful in your career?, not getting the girl you want?
And you had no children? Even then would you say we have infinite capacity?
There are people who, despite all their efforts, have not achieved anything in life. They have not been successful at work, in business, or in society.
Or in finding a partner. Even if I wanted to be a scientist now that researches things, it would not be possible for me, no money and other reasons.
The nonsense is that we have free choice, this is not true. We are born with certain genes, with certain parents, and certain social laws. In many cases, we are not responsible for the results of things.
1) Nice article. I really enjoyed reading it.
2) I do not believe that human thought is infinite. She is only human. Animalistic and robotic and basically structured.
You can move forward. In fact, it is almost inevitable that we will move forward. You can't go back. you can forget
And it is also inevitable.
Humanity will become extinct, and be forgotten.
One by one, then all together.
3) The important point that the article brought up in me the literal wording is that it is stupid to live in illusions and beliefs.
I can live my whole life as a believer, and believe in some whole faith, whatever it may be. But actually I don't have full control over my beliefs. An accidental scientific discovery you read about in an article, or a car accident or a conversation with a friend can shake your whole faith and change you. And hence there is no point in referring to your beliefs at all, because they are not really yours and under your control and dependent on you.
4) I don't think you should jump over the navel.
There are things that cannot be understood/captured/discovered about infinity, beyond the fact that it seems to become more and more difficult to progress as time passes. It is better to give up, the animal urge to live is strong enough anyway so that you will find something to do with your life. If it's important to you that they be interesting then take care of that and if not then there are plenty of TV shows for that.
5) If you want not everyone to watch TV like zombies, then it is better to change the TV programs than to write articles on the Internet, it is more influential in my opinion.
* One point that bothered me a bit, is the treatment of poetry (very beautiful songs by the way) and music as if the things were interchangeable.
If you're talking about words and not a melody/sound, don't call them music.
Respect each of them individually and respect the wonderful combination between them.
My meaning is with me everywhere I am, in every experience I go through and in everything I do.
safkan - I like it, very interesting response.
Itzik:
I hope you noticed that you didn't answer anything I said.
For example - you did not give a definition for free will in the world of thought.
For example - you did not explain why free will is necessary to decide if there is free will.
For example - you ignored the success of natural selection.
For example (as a private case to the above) you ignored the fact that people whose senses are limited are exposed to dangers that materialize (soon you will tell me that death is also "only a phenomenon perceived by the fake senses and not a real phenomenon").
You also ignore the fact that the input of our senses is consistent and for some reason when we "feel" the pain caused by a blow we took we also see the wound it caused and for some reason when we hear Yossi talking to us from behind we also see him when we turn around.
To think that this is all random you really have to get rid of the brain.
The consistency of your words doesn't bother you either. According to you, we cannot test the existence of logic through logic, but to test the existence of free will we actually need free will. Absolutely ridiculous.
I read Sam Harris's words and I think his words are much more profound than his but I didn't see any signs that you could understand it so I will stop the discussion here.
I will also point out regarding religion - for you and for a skeptic - that this is not just a social convention - it is a social convention based on faith that eliminates logic.
Compare my belief in the correctness of the input of the senses which, as mentioned, receives countless confirmations to the religious belief which in fact receives countless refutations - whether in the form of a rabbit that raises a rumen, whether in the form of a claim that the individual and the Tigris come from a common source, whether in the inconsistency of the stories of creation or the stories of the flood, or in the refutation of most of its claims The history by the findings.
Beyond the fact that religion neutralizes logic - it also struggles despite our natural sense of morality and causes great suffering both to the people who are forced to adopt its "moral" laws and to their victims.
It is also behind the vast majority of wars.
And one social contract!
Itzik Heyman.
Have you ever heard of the syntactical mark called a period? Such a tiny graphic mark that you put at the end of a sentence to know where it ends. Your words are interesting, but a little care in wording, for God's sake (or for the Matrix's sake).
My opinion about religion is that its significance should not be overstated, because it is not the main thing but one of the tentative optional manifestations of what I call "social contract". I elaborated on this somewhat after about the first 50 comments.
in brief. The purpose of any social contract is to maintain the cohesion of a community of people by creating a set of social rules to which they are bound, and the same set of rules also serves the needs of a shared social experience (tribal bonfire, holidays, party games, sports games, etc.).
When circumstances change - the social contract changes to better meet the needs of the new circumstances. Religion is one of the options of a social contract, therefore tentative in nature. Since every social contract is forced (more or less) on the members of the community, enforcement agents must be recruited to enforce it. In the case of religion, humans invented imaginary enforcers they called gods. In order to give the gods enforcement power, they claimed to have superhuman powers with which they identify sinners and punish them.
It is not necessary to have one social contract, it is possible to have several social contracts that complement each other (or somewhat conflict with each other) at the same time. Why "art number"? Because each individual can belong to several sub-communities contained in a larger community.
How do you test the validity of a scientific theory? Using tools from the same scientific discipline!
I am also familiar with this lecture, this is exactly what I am saying - we have *models*, and the limitations of their use are *really theoretical*, that is, insoluble, as mentioned even models in much simpler fields are recognized as chaotic and therefore do not allow prediction beyond a limited threshold. In the case of the brain - simple actions immediately, no more. Since the limitation is not linear, it is not a matter of time until a solution is found, the improvement you describe is not linear.
Regarding free will: we will return to the question of how one can decide that reality does exist and is not "brain in a jar". You claim that "you believe that your senses represent reality because you have a lot of information that confirms it", but this information itself is the fruit of the senses, meaning that you assume it to be true. "Those whose senses do not function properly are in danger" - again, this is your judgment, in particular, for example, you assume that "danger" is defined objectively, and I say even more than that, our assessment of certain people as "insane" is not objective, we *set* *value indicators * For sanity, and the evidence that in the world of psychiatry there are no such objective measures (you are invited to check the interesting case of homosexuality - in response to the lawsuit to cancel the definition of homosexuality as a disorder, it was canceled without any additional research reasons, but only because of political pressure! Does this mean that it is a disorder or not disorder? means that the definition of a mental disorder is subject to decision, and is value-based and not objective).
D.A. If there is an attempt at an objective discussion of questions of morality and meaning, I definitely recommend (and here you will surely say you know) Sam Harris, who in my opinion is a little more interesting than the examples you have given so far and much more challenging for me and the positions I represent (and I do not reject his positions at all, on the contrary , we only disagree on certain points).
The expression "free will" has no meaning even in the world of rational thought and I have explained this.
Are you ready to define (in the world of thought) what the phrase "free will" means?
One and another are really two. It is indeed a matter of definition but that is how it is defined. Modulo connection is not a normal connection - it is another operation that is defined differently.
If you don't want anything related to the definition, you are welcome to explain to me how a person can, through free will, decide that night is now day or decide that the match rubbed in the lid of the matchbox does not light.
I repeat - although there is no consistent definition of free will, but even if there was, no one would include in it the ability to choose the answer to factual questions.
You do not "accept" the fact that your senses are giving you reliable information about reality just because there is no contradictory information.
You also have no contradictory information for the claim that there is a flying teapot in orbit around the earth, but I allow myself to believe (and not only because I have no contradictory information) that you do not believe in the existence of such a teapot.
You believe that your senses represent reality because you have a lot of information that confirms this (partly as a result of the fact that those whose senses do not work properly are in danger that often comes true. This is a private case of my argument about evolution as a confirmation of the existence of laws in reality).
The same goes for logic and the same goes for all rational beliefs, and all of this does not make them a religion, but actually separates them distinctly from religious beliefs.
Since I have already said that I do not claim that our theories fully represent reality, I consider myself exempt from defending them against your attack on them, which for me is nothing more than bursting into an open door.
You probably don't know that the human mind is actually predictable. Not for a long time, due to lack of data (and maybe also due to quantum effects) but it is certainly both predictable and impactful.
You are welcome to listen, for example, to this conversation (precisely with a religious person "who doesn't accept this attitude":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d35nFvb1Wh4&feature=channel_page
If you want to hear more, you are welcome to listen to that person's lecture:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfKRuhHXcDk
Our ability to predict the weather is also getting better and better and it's a miracle - it's happening through science and through the collection of more data.
And regarding Feynman, I repeat and remind you of the joke about the one who decides all the important issues when the one who decides what is important is his wife.
I repeat Feynman's words, the expectation from science to give answers to questions of meaning, or in general to questions that go beyond its context (any discipline and context), is likely to disappoint, and it is no wonder that religious people do not accept this approach, and it is not necessarily for reasons of blindness as you describe.
The link you provided is interesting but a bit superficial. The question "Do electrons really exist" does not distinguish the realist from the instrumentalist, and it is not true that the instrumentalist *ignores* this question, he only says that he has no way of knowing more than what he has in hand. Note that scientific theories are measured and tested in the world of concepts defined for them, they depend on the context and are not absolute - has anyone ever determined what energy is and how it is measured, *defined*, and similar concepts respectively, within this world of concepts the physical theories live. Try to use the same world of concepts in order to analyze a person's personality or to predict the behavior of a person or a group of people - it has no meaning at all, there is no such physical model, but moreover, it is well known that we do not have the *theoretical* ability to reach a prediction based on models even in cases in which all the information is seemingly at our disposal (the weather, a very simple physical question compared to biological systems, not to mention the human brain, cannot be predicted beyond a few days and no matter how much information you collect, because the models themselves are chaotic).
It has no meaning outside the world of thought, in reality it does not.
Of course I haven't read them all, I do read quickly but I also do other things...
One and another are not *really* two, these are concepts in the world of thought only, dependent on definition - there is nothing less natural than the "natural" numbers, the operation of the stock requires an observer to recognize the objects he counts as belonging to one group he counts, without which they have no existence. Here, the numbers are meaningless *in reality* just like the free choice, these are concepts in the mind only.
The most trivial example is 2+2=1, when calculating modulo 3.
The "brain in a jar" question is not new either, in its modern version it is called "matrix" (same idea) - why do I "believe" that the information my senses are conveying to me (already "conveying" implies a belief that there is indeed a reality external to me and there are senses that convey information from this reality) Does it in some way represent reality? Just because I don't have conflicting information, it doesn't guarantee that it's true, it's just that I have no way to test this claim because all the information I have is this.
Itzik:
You try verbal sleight of hand to get away but to no avail.
Let's go with you: let's say that you really don't believe in logic, but only that it is the tool at your disposal when you come to try to understand reality. Let's say, but even in the above sentence you couldn't escape the fact that you believe in something. Is this a religious belief?
Many of the articles have things you won't find anywhere else. Not only about free choice, what you say about free choice is completely unacceptable to me. Do you need free choice to find out if the choice is free or not? What separates this question from the question of whether one and another are really two - does one also need free choice to decide it? Free choice does not pretend to allow us to give wrong answers to factual questions.
I really claim, among other things, that the question has no real meaning and that it follows that the term free choice has no meaning.
http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2012/08/17/realism-vs-anti-realism-in-the-philosophy-of-science/
Of course, he "stopped really acting" only as a joke, if it was not understood... In practice, the questions will continue to be asked even when an answer is given that claims to be such a decision.
I do not "believe" in logic, but only that it is the tool at my disposal when I come to try to understand reality.
I don't know what you mean by "some of them are news even to experts in the fields in which they are engaged", I am guessing that you mean the issue of free choice, first of all - the questions are the same questions for all generations, the answers that science provides only move the questions one step further, if there really was one absolute and decisive answer For all the questions (42?), as Feynman suggests as a possibility, the brain would have stopped working the moment it received it, after all the entire act of thinking is the question. And secondly, in the matter of free choice as an example, science *in principle* cannot fully answer this question, because if there really is no free choice at all as claimed, it cannot be decided that this is indeed the case, because the very act of deciding between right and wrong requires free choice, if You can't find out and *decide, decide* true, completely true, if you yourself are a deterministic process, you cannot know anything about reality because the knowledge itself is a product of processes that you cannot manage and control, they happen to you. An example of what this is similar to - a computer performs a calculation and produces an output, it cannot know if the output is correct or not, the question has no meaning at all.
And I say again:
Without lawfulness in nature it was impossible to predict his behavior. It is possible to claim that it is governed by other laws than the ones we have discovered, but to claim that it is not governed by laws is, in my opinion, simply delusional. It is not a matter of our experience as humans. Evolution is built on the existence of laws because natural selection actually applies in the next generation the lessons of the previous generation and if there were no laws it would not have succeeded in doing so.
The chaos does not arise from the absence of laws. It arises on the one hand from the lack of data and on the other hand from the randomness (subject to laws) of quantum theory. that's it. Not the understanding that there are laws but rather the perception of reality as chaotic is an expression of our limitations.
What Feynman says is a tautology but the question still arises as to what the scientific questions are and you have decided that you can decide the matter without examination.
You remind me of the joke about the husband who says that he makes all the important decisions at home, but when asked who makes the important decisions, he answers "my wife".
That science is instrumental is true, but I have not the slightest doubt that the vast majority of scientists are realists and not instrumentalists. You may say that logic does not work, but I repeat and emphasize that there is no chance for instrumentalist science to fulfill its role and produce instrumental results if the world did not exist and was governed by laws (and as I said, the question about science would not have been asked either because there was no science because there was no life).
It cannot be that all the claims are not new to you because some of them are also new to experts in the fields they deal with.
Your statement on this matter only reinforces my belief that you have not read the articles.
The "broader" definition of religion does not define anything and no one uses it.
The need to believe in something is necessary and most people (and all animals, even if they are not aware of it) believe that their senses provide them with reliable information about what is happening in the world around them.
Most people also believe in the validity of logic and those who do not believe in it at all do not argue because the argument - like any conversation and the ability to decipher a sentence - is based on logic.
Therefore - since you argue - I can tell that you also believe in logic. Is this a religious belief? nonsense! And is the belief that the world does not obey laws less religious? More bullshit!
As I have already said several times - there is and is evidence that the world obeys the laws and to a large extent even the laws we have found. There is evidence but you just don't accept the laws of evidence.
I clarify - there are two independent claims that I make:
* Lawfulness is not in nature, lawfulness is in our perception of nature. To claim that nature really obeys the laws - to me this is a somewhat religious claim (*). Reality is more chaotic than orderly, many of the models we build for reality are partial and unsatisfactory, it is not at all certain that the legality we find in each moment represents an eternal and universal situation or a local momentary picture - we are collecting information in the blink of an eye in the history of the universe and even only about this small grain - to argue Based on the fact that reality really obeys the laws and they are universal and eternal sounds a little pretentious to me, you have no evidence for this at all (and it is not even possible to confirm or refute such a claim, therefore it is not a scientific theory).
* But much more importantly, the claim that reality can be dealt with using logic alone is not acceptable to me at all. Feynman also alludes to this in his words, people who expect science to give answers to non-scientific questions are likely to be disappointed.
(*) I have read, these claims are not new to me, I myself conduct such discussions with believers *when they come up in this way*, that is - when these are the questions that are asked and the discussion is about the perception of reality and its understanding, but logical answers cannot satisfy an emotional need (at least for the most part) . I alluded here, for example, to the columnist "Is science just another religion?", the broader definition of religion - not the one you gave - is belief in God, as a being who runs the world and sets its laws (the definition in the Jewish religion - and also the Muslim ("din") - as law", stems from being orthopraxic in contrast to Christianity, for example, which focuses on the faith itself - they also add to the faith a law derived from it). To claim that the world actually obeys some set of laws, in my view, is indeed a belief equivalent to a belief in a divine being who does so - and in both cases it has no evidence and is not a scientific claim (theory) because it cannot be tested with scientific tools.
The term that represents my view on the relationship between science and reality is instrumentalism. In a way that may be surprising, an instrumentalist can - if he wants - be religious, because he does not replace God with a system of rules as you do. I do not feel the need for any such anchor in reality, I have no difficulty seeing reality as chaotic and lawless at all *in its essence*, the laws I recognize serve me and I do not see them as binding for anyone but me, certainly not binding on nature.
I still recommend you to listen to Feynman's words precisely because he is not a philosopher and his words are spoken in a much more popular and simple language, and on the other hand you can trust him that he knows science...
Without the laws of nature we (we or any other living being) could not exist at all.
Without lawfulness in nature we would also not be able to create a system of laws predicting its behavior.
I don't think you've read the articles in the link, so I don't think there's much point in arguing.
My goal is not to argue with religion but to present sane alternatives to the lies with which it washes the minds of mankind.
And the question of whether we have answers (courtesy of science) to questions about reality or not for the purpose of arguing with religion is irrelevant, as Feynman explains - even ignorance does not justify turning to religion.
Such laws, whether they exist or not, are irrelevant to the question of meaning. What good will such laws do when you come to deal with the meaninglessness of life?
Even when it comes to scientific thinking, there is no assumption that reality is indeed governed by any laws, but only that such legality serves us as far as we can find it. It turns out that reality is more chaotic than order...
Itzik:
In the blog I try to do much more than education for critical thinking.
I try to give reasonable humanistic answers to all kinds of questions that people repent of because religion is the only factor on the ground that claims to give them answers.
The answers I give - unlike the answers given by religion - are in line with the findings of science and to the extent that they are not final, then again - unlike religion - they are built to adapt themselves to the developing knowledge.
Apart from that - and here is the point where I think we disagree - I also talk there about the relationship between science and reality (which I think exists and does exist, and the entire scientific enterprise is actually based on the assumption of its existence and the assumption that it is governed by some laws that may not be known to us but they do exist) .
And for our matter, I do not see science as an answer to religion at all, as I began to explain regarding the status of science in my eyes. It is also not relevant in my opinion at all to the question of meaning, except at most as one of our many ways of experiencing the world and our existence within it
(I owe a considerable part of my basic knowledge of the philosophy of science to a religious lecturer, Prof. Menachem Fish).
I understand from the blog you referred me to your concern - perhaps somewhat revolutionary (and it is unfortunate that it is indeed revolutionary) - to educate people for critical thinking and thinking in general. I am less interested in opposing the religious dogma from a scientific point of view, the question of meaning in my opinion is more about the emotional world than reality, and therefore a religious person's confrontation with reality, in my opinion, will not lead him to disillusionment.
The scientific argument against religion is summarized by a wonderful and wise man quite briefly and in my opinion it is exhaustive
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YltEym9H0x4
First, this is indeed a bit OFF TOPIC, in order to sharpen my comment about music, because it bothers me the most, every time I hear mentions of "music" that have nothing to do with music.
Here are examples of music for its periods in different styles. Without a single word in any language except for one language - music:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjSD12OQbFA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdGgoR37EzI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=63oyKi6fyD8#t=1424s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-EzYg9Nm-0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0zVy1dvbcs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cC4kJiTHTtQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWotpIy0uTg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30FTr6G53VU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NByhKoNBgdY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXpSL20IvRM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXPnmYzAKqI
Itzik:
You didn't go into detail enough for me to know if I agree with you or not but I guess you'll find interest in itBlog "The Wheel of a Secular" which I write on the websiteOne against all religion"
I stopped here
"It is surprising to discover how much the music reflects the philosophical course of the period. Most of the songs these days deal with the breakup and there are no songs that offer a new and real solution"
Are you Brutus too? You don't describe music, the music is the *melody*, the song is not related to the music, it is a text.
And regarding the post, a few comments:
* Spirituality is a particularly empty word that different people fill in different and strange ways, it often has mumbo jumbo meanings, religious or not ("just" being amazed by the beauty of nature or a work of art is not considered "spiritual" enough in the eyes of many people). If you mean meaning, say meaning.
* To say that the answer is simple and under our nose is a little exaggerated, many thinkers try to answer the question of meaning, the general answer is quite vague. At most you describe *where and how* you think an answer can be found.
* Science does not provide real answers, every scientific theory is only relevant in its context, that is, in its discipline, I would not say that quantum mechanics exists in reality and not only in consciousness - we produce scientific theories based on concepts and definitions that we have created, the models only *describe* reality in these concepts, therefore their validity is not Absolute but temporary, until another model appears.
Machel
Hard life? :)))) Whose? your? 🙂
Yes, we live in different times.
Today if you don't deliver the goods yesterday, the owners of the money and power go to the other patentee.
Nowadays, everyone (well, not everyone) thinks of their own personal benefit, and if your patent won't help their child then it doesn't matter to them if your patent will save other children. Today it's more "not for me - not for anyone!"
I agree with you that life is hard. But everything is relative. And that too can be overcome. And in the end good wins. =)
And you actually answered my question. Thanks.
sympathetic,
Assuming that you do support democratic values, and assuming that it is important to you to preserve them, then during your odyssey, pose the following question:
Will you preserve democracy in the modern sense (preserving minority rights, prohibition of coercion, the rule of law and not the rule of the rabbis)? Will you enact laws that will completely prohibit traveling on Shabbat, requiring prayer in schools, studying evolution as much as you can?
If the answers you get are yes to the first question and no to the next question, that will be progress.
Successfully
Shmulik
Yes, I see that we will never agree. You are talking about principles, declarations
And I'm talking about people. I try to understand how people live, what they are
think and not their ideological umbrella. The religious live austerely
Lovers of opinion abhor violence although their ideological umbrella
It is outrageous, but the same rule applies to the Arabs. It is important to look
About the person beyond the announcements. It's easy to make generalizations and call a group
People are backward or retarded, but in my opinion it is important to see the trees
And not just the forest. It is important to me to see what we have in common as human beings
And not the difference, it's important for me to understand how to create coexistence between
People and not just how to see the difference. For us as we speak
In separate languages as far as I'm concerned (although I tried to find the common ground
between us) the discussion is over.
Shmulik
Yes, I see that we will never agree. You are talking about principles, declarations
And I'm talking about people. I try to understand how people live, what they are
think and not their ideological umbrella. The religious live austerely
Lovers of opinion abhor violence although their ideological umbrella
It is outrageous, but the same rule applies to the Arabs. It is important to look
About the person beyond the announcements. It's easy to make generalizations and call a group
People are backward or retarded, but in my opinion it is important to see the trees
And not just the forest. Because we speak different languages as far as I'm concerned
The discussion is over.
Ghosts:
Your question is very general and your wording is also not completely clear.
What is "investing in knowledge"? Are you talking about investing in the acquisition of knowledge? In imparting knowledge? In implementing the solutions that this knowledge enables? what?
In general, to bring an idea to fruition you have to work a lot and there are no magic solutions - especially not when it comes to ideas that are meant to improve the general well-being without having a clear "buyer".
I have tons of such ideas and I can tell you what I do about it but unfortunately I can't report any impressive successes.
I am trying to meet with members of the Knesset and mobilize them to implement the initiative.
I have already discussed these ideas with Fuad, with Zehava Galon, with Motz Matlon (when he was still MK), with Adi Kol, and a tip with Omer Bar Lev.
In the meantime - the only one who managed to try to promote something was Motz Matlon, but then the elections came and he is no longer in the Knesset.
Others didn't have time to touch almost anything - maybe it's because simply staying in the Knesset requires so much effort that there is no time for anything else (this is what I learn from the case of Motz Matlon who sinned at work and found himself out).
Some of the ideas I have belong to the field of road safety and especially the safety of children.
On these issues, I also contacted other bodies such as the traffic police, "Betarem" and "Or Yerok" and it turns out that they are also mainly busy with the police and do not dare to promote new initiatives.
In short: life is hard.
that's what I'm talking about:
As of today, I am involved in real estate. Here, there is nothing to do with new ideas.
It (the ideas) are good for politics and history.
How do I translate the logistical insights into improving the lives of all citizens?
If I know how to present an idea that has no immediate financial gain (but only in a more distant time domain), how do I make it come to fruition immediately? In other words: how to translate the knowledge towards success in a better way? Should I invest in knowledge, or
In explaining to the 'citizen' the ways of success that arise from the knowledge I have accumulated?
Ghosts:
If you have an idea that you can show someone that will help them make money they won't dismiss it just because you are who you are.
This is not the same as spreading an idea that has no immediate commercial use.
Machel
I agree with every word you wrote. but,
If I, like you, am not from the barangay, how can useful idea(s) be spread among the barangay?
I mean (in this specific case), I'm good at logistics. How can I help others in the field of logistics if I am not from the barangay?
Shamlik
You just broke all the rules of the jungle.
Maybe bring your grandma and beat her up!?
Look, you're either tolerant of those who are different from you, or you'll get the nod from anyone who disagrees with you. The ball is in your hands.
Ehud, I agree with you that one should be careful of sweeping generalizations.
sympathetic,
What you wrote is somewhat reminiscent of the question/statement: When did you stop beating your wife?
You forced an agreement on me that did not stem from my words and contradicts the spirit of your words. While I am in favor of non-coercion, I clearly wrote that I do not see how coexistence and mutual understanding is possible. Find me a religious public that would be willing to put the principles of liberal democracy in line with Halacha and maybe there will be such a possibility. As soon as there is such a public in the country, we will talk, but the truth is that there is no such public and the only understanding that really exists is only ever on the side of the secular public who always understand and accept the religious public and are ready to give up their principles for them (because of their weak leaders). Hence coexistence is not really possible.
By the way, I advocate a lack of coercion only against those who accept the rules of the democratic game, that is, I have no tolerance for those who advocate a lack of tolerance. how is it called? mutuality
Ghosts:
You don't get jobs like this because no one can ask you to invent something, for two reasons:
1. Sometimes the very idea of "what to invent?" He is the invention
2. When there is something that is clear to everyone that it is necessary and no one has yet been able to develop it - it is unlikely that they will contact you to solve a problem that no one before you has been able to (although it still happened to me once and I was up to the challenge).
Therefore, usually - this is a task you have to initiate yourself.
Although even when you work in a workplace where tasks are assigned to you, you can - by yourself or in collaboration with others - come up with an idea for a patent, but then the profit belongs to the workplace and not to you.
Yes, and the numbers are bigger too 🙂
How do you get such "jobs"?
Ghosts:
Thanks for the compliments.
I have already written in one of the comments in the past that I went through a long path trying to bring my insights to the attention of the expert community.
The fact that I do not belong to that community has so far meant that I cannot publish in the relevant press.
I have received quite a few compliments from people within the community but the press that allows for wide distribution seems blocked to me because I cannot even specify basic details such as which research institution I belong to.
Just for example - Avi Blizovsky suggested that the Hebrew Wikipedia create an external link to my article and they did not agree with the (allegedly justified) claim that they do not publish original opinions but only those that they can base on expert articles.
I do not belong to the community and therefore, from their point of view, I am not defined as an "expert".
I attached the word "allegedly" to the word "justified" because Wikipedia has a lot of delusional entries that have no experts at all (there are only charlatans) such as the subject of reincarnation and the question arises on the words of which experts do they rely on the positive description of the matter (they also present the claims that deny all The subject and name actually linked to my article but they also present the opinion of those who support it and I do not understand on what basis they are defined as experts).
As I hinted - this is an issue that is even broader than altruism and I even pointed out in this context my articles on the development of language.
I haven't said desperate yet and I'm still trying to break the ego shell of the professional community but I don't know if I'll succeed.
In the meantime, I register patents on various technological topics. Here you are not required to have any degree and all that matters is that the business is innovative and works.
Here the return on investment is also much higher 🙂
Machel
You're just a genius.
Do you intend to go further with this knowledge or are you satisfied with what is there?
(Advice from me: you can succeed in this too if you invest =))
ארי
In my opinion, people should be treated as individuals, not large groups and announcements
theirs. The religious are a different collection of people as well as the Arabs or the secular.
The inclusion of the public is the danger
Shmulik
We finally came to an agreement. I am also against coercion and in favor of coexistence and mutual understanding.
Ghosts:
So you came to the wrong conclusion.
Inextricable complexity is only in the eye of the beholder.
This is a logical fallacy of an argument from ignorance.
What I did not crack in your eyes may be a crack in the eyes of others who are simply different from you in that they have found how to crack.
For example - if you try to explain altruism by means of group selection - you end up with a discontinuity.
If you try to explain it as a by-product of empathy and understand that empathy is an empathic way of saying "reading minds" then the problem of not being able to discharge disappears like never before.
That's why I brought the link to the article I wrote about it about a million comments ago.
Listen to me, I have come to the conclusion that if there is an inextricable complexity like the true tyranny, then it can only exist in the inextricable absurdity of the soul that is just coming so that the true tyranny can manifest itself.
And you can argue about it as much as you want. =)
Ehud, do you need sources on the justification of the compulsion to observe mitzvot according to the Halacha?
sympathetic,
Please, let's establish that we are talking about the religion and not the religious. If you take a religious person who believes that there is a Creator, that God is 6000 years old, etc., but does not try to impose his opinion on me, does not try to prevent evolution studies and does not try to stop progress in general, fine, I have no problem with him though, he probably He will pass on this "knowledge" to the next generation, and in my eyes this is abuse of minors, but, on a point-by-point basis, I have no problem with him. The problem is in the religion itself and the absolute idea that stands behind it, the one that puts the religious public in the head that, for some reason, they must, but must impose their opinion on me. They should be happy, since they have found the solution to all the problems in the world, but unfortunately, it is not enough for them and they need me to accept their opinion as well: I will marry as they want me to marry, I will divorce as they want me to divorce, I will close places on Shabbat, I will forbid Jews to work on Shabbat And countless other things that should not be done under compulsion (by the way, of course there is a two-day rest period, not necessarily on Shabbat)
So religion is dangerous throughout my life and dangerous for the future of the country and the reason for this is that there is no natural brake in religion that stops it from rioting and the facts are that they are going to be the majority, autotuto, so we are going to feel in the flesh whether there is any good in Dataf and I return you to your original question, where do I prefer to live: in society the secular
You didn't say what is good about religion. Everything you wrote about chastity and learning are not the property of the religious and learning there, even if it was not based on lies, is no better than science, literature, art, etc.
Shmulik
Once again, my comment is awaiting approval, apparently it's not allowed to write
Good things about religion on the site…
Shamlik
It seems that I am not able to convey to you the feeling that I feel from your words.
You are entrenched in your position and refuse to try to understand religious people and religion, for sure it is
in a war of existence and rely on trending quotes. Again to show you how much
You are fixed and refuse to see the other side (religious in this case) I will give you an example
Although I'm not sure of your political views.
Let's say that I would claim that I know the Arabs, they must not be trusted, they all want to
to destroy the State of Israel. They are fighting against the Jews in Israel and we will never reach them
Bye, that's why it's forbidden to talk to them and it's forbidden to listen to their words, just try to expel them
hence. After all, Arabs only understand power. What would you say about such a position? This position reminds
I have your words on a religious subject. A kibbutz of people under one flag and they are treated uniformly
It is a narrow perception of a complex reality. Just as there are all kinds of Arabs with different opinions, so there are religious ones
Different. Reality is complex and one should try to fully understand it before determining a position
determined
clarification:
I say that this is an inextricable complexity - not based on this or that sentence of Dawkins but based on my own thoughts - the same thoughts that I presented here in the first place.
Inextricable complexity is a reduced combination of several mutations that together give an advantage but individually do not.
Usually it's about several mutations that should apply in the same detail, but in the current case it's about several similar mutations that should apply simultaneously in different details.
Shmulik and ghosts:
Indeed - in most cases concerning the matter it is a private case of inextricable complexity.
I didn't want to use the term because it's too loaded but that's exactly what it's about.
On the other hand - this does not support the religious and creationist claims in this regard because in some cases (such as bacteria) the complexity is not inextricable and separate colonies are formed and broken up alternately - which allows for group selection - and in other cases (such as true altruism) - this is simply not the correct explanation
Not that I have the strength to argue with ghosts about anything, but in no way does the sentence he came up with support inextricable complexity
on second reading,
"Dawkins suggests that group selection fails to make an appropriate distinction between replicators and vehicles"
I found Dawkins' argument to strengthen the religious side of the argument about inextricable complexity. 🙂
OK. Tell me if I understood correctly: he claims that the idea is bad because there is no evidence that selection actually occurs?
Ghosts:
This is not about it.
Read about the subject of choosing the groups in the link I already gave (twice).
It is not about an event, but about the claim that groups, like individuals, also undergo natural selection.
Natural selection is natural selection - it is not an event but a process consisting of many events over time.
In any case - that's not what Pinker is talking about.
He starts from the assumption that all his readers understand what natural selection and group selection are and does not try to define these terms at all, he just explains why in his opinion the idea of group selection is a bad idea.
Machel
Thanks.
After reading part of the link you provided, I read your second comment.
What I understood is that the professor's interpretation is as follows: natural selection that acts on groups (just as it acts on individuals).
From here I conclude that the selection carried out on groups or individuals is a kind of "event" in itself. If I understood it correctly - what does the "event" itself stem from? I mean, what makes it possible to select them?
(I have a feeling that the question is a bit vague, but that's because I lack knowledge on the subject. I didn't fully understand the meaning of the phrase group selection. I would appreciate it if you explained in detail the meaning of the word and how it is interpreted in the professor's article).
By the way, ghosts:
Re-reading your question, I think I should explain another matter that seems to me to be a problem in the Hebrew interpretation you give to the English text.
The English phrase " Group selection ” in the context in which it was said, it was not intended to express “choose a group” (as it seems to have been interpreted) but “group selection” (which is a professional term in the field of evolution that speaks of natural selection of groups of individuals and not only of natural selection of individuals or genes).
Ghosts:
The psychologist is Steven Pinker - a very well-known psychologist who, among other things, wrote the book "How the Brain Works" which was translated into Hebrew.
The quote I gave was taken from Wikipedia, and if you open it there you will also find you The link where he explains his conclusions.
Machel
Why does the psychologist claim that choosing a group (in a certain setting) does not play an effective role in a company's decision? I didn't understand the psychologist's words, I would appreciate it if you could explain and elaborate.
Wow!
The debate is still going on?!
I see that I did wisely when I realized that there are arguments that have no point (not because of the subject but because of the debaters).
I found another interesting reference to altruism in Wikipedia.
בA chapter on choosing groups Write:
The use of the Price equation to support group selection has recently been challenged by van Veelen et al. (2012).[28] They suggested that the Price equation is based on certain invalid mathematical assumptions.
The evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne noted:[29]
Group selection is not widely accepted by evolutionists for several reasons. First, it's not an efficient way to select for traits, like altruistic behavior, that are supposed to be detrimental to the individual but good for the group. Groups divide to form other groups much less often than organisms reproduce to form other organisms, so group selection for altruism would be unlikely to override the tendency of each group to quickly lose its altruists through natural selection favoring cheaters. Further, little evidence exists that selection on groups has promoted the evolution of any trait. Finally, other, more plausible evolutionary forces, like direct selection on individuals for reciprocal support, could have made humans prosocial. These reasons explain why only a few biologists, like [David Sloan] Wilson and EO Wilson (no relation), advocate group selection as the evolutionary source of cooperation.
Richard Dawkins and fellow advocates of the gene-centered view of evolution remain unconvinced about group selection.[30][31][32] In particular, Dawkins suggests that group selection fails to make an appropriate distinction between replicators and vehicles.[33] Psychologist Steven Pinker concluded that "Group Selection has no useful role to play in psychology or social science." [34]
sympathetic,
I don't understand what you want me to do with the first part of your statement. I know enough and I do not intend to compromise on the issues that are at the heart of secularism and liberalism: democracy, equality (also between the sexes), freedom of speech, etc. and I do not intend to learn lies, no matter how ancient they are or how my family and people believed them. Read Aaron's response at https://www.hayadan.org.il/science-commity-member-promote-creationism08061/comment-page-1/#comment-437845 And look at the terrible poison that religion produces, under the guise of science. No matter what the facts will be, there will always be reverse engineering of the facts to fit the world view of the religious, and that is terrible. I cannot understand why they are not satisfied with faith and need reinforcement from the rationale. If you believe, believe, what do you care what science says?
I really take issue with the second part of your statement. Show me something anti-Semitic I said. Anti-religion is not anti-Semitism and my criticism is against all religions!
sympathetic
Regarding the matter of religion and democracy, which is really not for people's bodies. Do you have something important to say?
Shmulik,
It's always easy to see the devil on the other side when you don't know him. I think
that before going against something or something to learn about it and try to understand it.
By the way, many of the arguments heard here against Judaism remind me
Anti-Semitic claims that have been heard for years. The Jews want to destroy
Our society, the Jews are not producers, Jews have no morals, etc... It's ironic
Or even worse that Jews in a Jewish state make anti-Semitic claims,
Do we really want to liken anti-Semitism to the nations of the world?
Do we want to adopt from them?
sympathetic,
In fun, I don't dig hard or try to get irrelevant victories.
In any case, living in Oahu with religious people is only possible if we give them up on all the principles that are important to us: equality, democracy, lack of coercion. There is no other way.
I presented the following question to a religious friend: when you will be the majority, which will happen very soon (over fifty percent of first graders are religious or Arab and there are already about 40 religious MKs in the Knesset), will you preserve democracy in the modern sense ( Preservation of minority rights, prohibition of coercion, the rule of law and not the rule of the rabbis)? Will you enact laws that will completely prohibit traveling on Shabbat, requiring prayer in schools, studying evolution, etc.? At first he gave an evasive answer saying that there is nothing to be afraid of religious pluralism, because for decades we have been warning about religious pluralism and it hasn't happened, so it won't happen either, and when I made it difficult, he admitted that he had to think about the answer (we didn't follow up on that) it was clear that I wouldn't get the The reassuring answer is that - obviously yes, it is clear that it is maintained that democracy is not a value in the Jewish religion, it is only a value for the secular and in fact democracy is essentially the opposite of the theocracy of the rabbis.
It must be clear to everyone that a religious majority in Israel will destroy democracy, and destroy the amazing secular-liberal culture we have built here. The longing for coexistence of the kind you write about belongs only to the parts of the secular side (for example, I don't want religion at all, but I probably don't represent too large a public) but never to the religious side, this is because in religion there is no natural brake on religious strengthening, but on the contrary, there will always be someone extreme More, who sanctifies the "name of the name" (every morning he puts on his right shoe before his left (not an invention)) and sweeps in his extremes an entire public and forever, when a critical mass of religious people accumulates in some area, the demands for a travel ban, a ban on opening shops, the exclusion of women will begin etc'.
So, since this is the case, we do not have the privilege of being moderate or calm and noble in our war on religious longevity, because, it is an addicting game. The other side is not really interested or interested in the secular side because they call us babies who sat down and when they grow up with this motto from the age of zero, why do you expect them to respect the secular side?
skeptic
Not that I'm not ready - I just don't have the desire or time.
I have a list of 20 books marked "important to read". But there is the issue of urgency, and even more than that the issue of laziness.
By the way, he answered that I am a selfish puzzle lover, where did I fail in the questions and answers? Do you not agree that the weighted escape velocity is the sum of the escape velocities of the two escaping masses?
And those who have no ears cannot see. The hat falls and covers the eyes.
Israel
The problem with not paying attention to the answers is:
If you are not ready to hear another opinion (besides your own opinion) the questions you are asking are not the right questions.
Don't worry, you're not the only one who failed Q&A. Already after 50 comments I said that this whole discussion is water-milling and worthless. All the discussions about atheism versus religion on this site (and in most other places) are a dialogue of the deaf, as the Bible defined the situation "eyes for them and they will not see ears" (I also know the exact wording of the verse).
SAFKAN
Thanks for the link, sounds interesting.
The bitter truth is that my interest in religion is quite limited. I also believe that if there is a God, he is quite pleased with his servant Israel who fulfills commandments 6-10 and does not bother him with requests for prayers and sacrifices. My problem with him - and I have told him this many times - is the lack of any convincing evidence for his existence, which makes us pathological skeptics feel that belief in a virtual god is simply blasphemy.
Israel
If you want to know an approach to a less accepted religion (a type of pantheism) read the book "Mr Al, here is Anna" author Finn. The book is translated from English and its original name is:
Mister God, This Is Anna
BY FYNN
The book is apparently a children's book in the style of "The Little Prince", but in reality it is a difficult theological book. The book should be read slowly, certainly not a summary of it, because only reading conveys the experience well. And in general, the abstracts smell like canned goods.
sympathetic
In a democratic country everyone can believe what they want, but why the hell is there no separation of religion from state like in reformed countries? How many religious people from our countries believe in the ideal of a Halacha state?
point:
In the secular society there is everything - both those who adore Big Brother and (many) those who do not watch this program at all.
In the religious society there are only those who thought that Abraham our father acted correctly when he listened to the voice in his mind that told him to raise his son to the Ulah.
sympathetic.
Both in the sense of duality. Zen, guitar, ballo - for the heart. Science, computer in Ghira - for the brain.
The mythical Professor Chase was a tousled, long-haired flower boy who came to lectures on a dirty old Harley-Davidson. He instilled in us an everlasting love for calculus, physics and King Crimson. Feynman was also a mischievous yoke breaker, who in his free time from physics would draw a mangan philosophizing and scheming.
You're probably right, I'm a follower of both... aren't you? Wouldn't you take some nice physics books with you to a monastery in Burma?
sympathetic
I think blind faith is a bad thing. There are very positive religious people, no doubt about it. But it still bothers me through the thought that there is something we are committed to, or something that is committed to us.
Shmulik
In chess, if the board returns three times to the exact same position,
The game is declared a draw. I do not wish to announce the debate
Between us as a draw because it's not about winners and losers, but
The discussion is stuck. In the bottom line, I believe that the contempt, the contempt
And hatred against groups in society is dangerous. It is necessary
Think about how you can consider each other and live in brotherhood.
The thought that we are better than others is dangerous
And you can always learn something from others. In my opinion I concluded
the subject.
Israel
So you are a follower of both... My kids also believe in the approach
This one, both sweets and ice cream. Zen and science approach your question
To the world in opposite ways. Science breaks the world down into components
and examines the relationship between them. The species seeks unity, it does not separate
the object from the subject. The separation of the world into its components is
The one that creates noise (clapping a palm) the unity of one hand does not
Noise. From a technological point of view, it is good to separate the world into its components,
From a human point of view it is dangerous to separate the world into us and them, good
And bad, according to the variety. So both and not in our school.
Miracles
I look at the religious community from the outside and pay less attention to their statements
And I see a company that values knowledge that has concern and mutual guarantee for my friends
Community. I do not claim that the religious world is better, I just think that hatred
Blindness towards him, disdain and contempt towards him are unjustified and can be destructive.
As far as I'm concerned, this concludes the discussion on the subject (whatever, I won't be eating in the next few days
to leave comments).
point
Why do you think the secular percentage of Big Brother viewers is greater than the religious percentage??
I agree with you that the program is the juice of the garbage…..
Shmulik, in the secular society the creatures that are in the Big Brother are valued, and this is the furthest thing from information.
So stop fooling around.
sympathetic.
Why not both? Zen and science? Guitar and computer? Balo the bear and Bagheera the panther?
sympathetic
It is not clear to me which religious community you are describing. The fact that there are religious scientists does not mean that there is science in religion. To remind you Ehud, the original sin was eating from the tree of knowledge and not from the tree of life. Sometimes one's curiosity outweighs the will to live.
You will surely agree with me that a positive trait of a person is to examine his every assumption. A religious scientist, however talented he may be, will not put his religious beliefs to the test. There were indeed philosophers who did this, such as Descartes and Maimonides, and they failed miserably.
To say that a religious community is egalitarian? This is not true in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and several other religions. The Jewish religion is terrible about equality. Is it also equality outside the community, or is it conditional equality? I would love to understand where I am wrong.
Concern for the weak? Only within the community. The rest can rot. Even in Christianity, where there is concern for the weak outside the community, this "concern" has a stated purpose.
drugs? alcohol? How do you determine that there is a correlation between these problems and religious belief?
Listen Ehud, the essential difference between religious and secular is that religious believes in things without evidence. This is the meaning of religious faith. I'm sorry but I don't see anything positive about it.
sympathetic,
The secular society is the only society that comes close to what you are looking for. In the religious society knowledge is not valued but a set of absolute concepts are imposed which are not knowledge in any form whatsoever. I assume you disagree with this point of mine and we can ramble endlessly on this point.
Regarding Beit Shemesh, this is exactly the terrible poison I'm talking about. What does it mean to tease? Since when did we decide that it is okay to accept any violent expression on their part just because it comes from hurting "religious feelings". Why would I forgive this unbearable situation? If they want to be hurt, that's their problem but it becomes ours because we accept without argument their "right" to resort to violence as a result.
Now, you will tell me again about black and white and that a compromise is necessary on the subject and I am ready for all kinds of compromises. I wasn't talking about traveling on the Sabbath, naked, while eating pork, but about something that should pass without a problem: walking in a city in Israel, without suspenders. You talked about black and white, the black and white is with them, not with us and we give up every time, but there is a limit. Equality and respect for all members of the human race are the basic values of the humanist and for that I am ready to fight to the death.
Israel
The Zen Monks company is a company that has not given up on rationality but understands that its strength
of rationality is limited and its use must be limited to specific issues.
Zen monks understand that true enlightenment does not come from deep thought but from within
Release from the shackles of thought. Rational thinking is what creates the self and the ego
And a big ego does not allow you to reach enlightenment.
Miracles
I understand that in science you realized that you don't understand. As for my point is that the reality is not
Black and white there are many things in the religious society that are also found in the secular society such as
In religion there is also science (for example there are leading religious scientists). In the religious society there is
Things I would like to see more of in secular society and I have already written about them
times but I will repeat some of them for you. This is a community, an almost egalitarian society,
which has an appreciation for knowledge and wisdom, concern for the weak, almost no pursuit of greed
and does not suffer from deterioration to drugs and alcohol. I could go on and on,
Is it better than the secular society, I am not busy with ratings and distinctions
I think the human reality is more complex than that. We have nothing to chase you
the religious, but we must accept them and even try to adopt some of their customs.
Shmulik
The answer should not be this or that (although I am secular) the tendency to segregate black or
A bad or good white is childish and dangerous. It is a spectrum of behaviors and generalizations
dangerous. I would like to live in a society that values knowledge, that cares about details in society (guarantee
mutual), a tolerant non-missionary society. Indeed, in some religious societies there are missionaries
On this site I recognize secular missionaryism which is no less serious. the negation of the other
And the negative of his belief system is not a basis on which I would want to base the company. the mother
There is a society like the one I want to live in, not really, but we will get closer to such a society if we understand
Because human reality is a spectrum and should not always be classified into us and them (when of course
We are the best).
By the way, it's really terrible that my wife can't walk around Beit Shemesh without suspenders... people
They live in Beit Shemesh as they chose to live and they should not be provoked, their will should be respected,
My freedom (a distinctly secular concept) is not affected that much.
Dawn:
The things for which you are willing to forgive religion for lying are exactly the same things for which people take drugs and it is not for nothing that it is claimed that religion is an opium for the masses.
Turn off the brain with one or another type of drug and suddenly you will no longer need an answer to anything because you will become the one who does not know how to ask.
Science is not a language. Science is a method for studying reality - a method for which we know of no substitute.
Religion is not a method for exploring reality.
It replaces the research method with a collection of claims about reality, many of which we know to be baseless, and in any case, by fabricating answers to our questions, it suppresses the study of reality.
The point is that to questions to which religion gives false answers, it is possible, through science and critical thinking, to find correct answers as well, so there is no reason to compromise.
And of course up to this point I have only dealt with the subject of religious belief. The story with the religious "morality" is much more serious and is in general a phenomenon that may lead to the end of the human race.
You might find something of interest In a blog called "The Wheel of a Secular" which I publish in"One Against All Religion" website.
Nir, thank you for the interesting article, it bothers me that you define religion as a fall, this is the claim of someone who is too fanatical in his commitment to the truth - and perhaps also too one-dimensional in his view of the truth. That is, the evidence is that of science as having the exclusive right to the truth, a view of a certain language [the language of science in this case] as the correct language... However, personally I do agree that religion cannot be a solution to emptiness for everyone, not because it is a 'fall', but because that people like me are not able to do things that are not 'rational' for long. And I would be very happy if I could be religious and not be bothered by questions about 'truth' which usually do not lead to a successful solution. On the same weight, if the religion creates a good, valuable and meaningful life for those who follow it, this alone is a sufficient right of existence for the religion. Although the writing is a bit associative, but I hope you understand, I would appreciate a response. Shabbat Shalom! :] And by the way, of course - awareness of our existence still does not solve the embarrassing question - for what? Or worse - and if I don't feel like it?.. I mean, this is a game that, as soon as I have no motivation to play it, it looks completely ridiculous
sympathetic
I don't understand what your point is. I understood from your words that you think there are good things in religion that would be missing in a world without religion.
In the meantime, you gave one example that is not good.
So shall we leave it at that?
sounds interesting. Can you give a specific example of a company that has given up rationality or is it an ambition?
sympathetic,
I remind you of the question you asked: Is the secular or religious society better, and to that I answered that I prefer the secular society, and I gave reasons why.
Here are the automatic comments again: I agree with you that there are situations where lies can help. I agree with you that life is not black and white. I agree with you that secular society will not survive if everyone only thinks about themselves and I agree with you that there are some noble things in religion, which secular society has adopted (without entering into an argument, it is quite clear to me that religious society did not invent those noble principles but drew them from what existed when it was founded)
But, sometimes the issue is clear and sometimes there is such a simple rule that can be applied, and the issue becomes black and white: when the very foundation, the essence, the "I believe" of religion is based on lies, toxic, racist, separatist lies that prohibit and stop any scientific progress, Culturally and personally and because thanks to those lies, religious people think they have the right to tell me how to lead my life under the threat of violence and death (it's built in religion, not just the Jewish one, of course) I prefer the secular society.
There are some fundamental issues that are not negotiated and are not open to discussion due to cost/benefit considerations. Equality is such a value. Basing an entire life on a lie just because in how many subjects do I make money? I'm not ready to live my life like this and for me it rules out religion completely because what are you asking me to do? believe in god based on what? I also don't understand what you want me to answer regarding the disqualification of a believer? I wouldn't want my children to marry religious people because I'm not ready to accept their lifestyle, but I'm not going to hurt religious people (although it's not at all clear that they don't want to hurt me, physically. Try telling them you don't believe what they believe and we'll see How much they will love you. Would you advise your wife to walk around Beit Shemesh, on Shabbat, without suspenders called "Heaven"?) but hope they stop being believers. You will probably answer yes, really, but know that the fastest growing group in the US are the atheists and those who do not feel committed to an established religion (I will gladly accept any small victory).
By the way, I bring the value of equality as an example for a reason. In Israel, the value of equality is not anchored in the basic laws, because of the opposition of the religious parties, apropos traditions of thousands of years.
http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%95%D7%99%D7%95%D7%9F#.D7.A9.D7.95.D7.95.D7.99.D7.95.D7.9F_.D7.9E.D7.95.D7.A1.D7.A8.D7.99
http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%97%D7%95%D7%A7_%D7%99%D7%A1%D7%95%D7%93:_%D7%9B%D7%91%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%94%D7%90%D7%93%D7%9D_%D7%95%D7%97%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%AA%D7%95
You have asked and received an answer from me, several times and now the question is addressed to you, hoping that I will not receive a weak amorphous answer, one that does not commit to anything. Which company do you prefer?
sympathetic
It seems you have disrupted the Zen paradox in one hand. The question being asked is: what is the sound of one hand clapping.
Israel
I don't share your theory of the responsible adult, or the car and the driver.
In my opinion our rational coverage is only the tip of the iceberg or the charging tail
Because I am everything. There are magnificent cultures in the Far East that are not
are based on rationality, although they did not develop amazing technology
But they did reach very high spiritual levels. I think the company
The West tries to base itself too much on rationality and this is an anomaly.
By the way, in Zen Buddhism, the role of the kwans (questions such as "What is the voice of
The one hand?") is to show that only by renouncing rationality
will be able to understand the essence.
Miracles
You write "You say that there are unknown things in physics. You have an opinion on the subject
And I have an opinion - that's how it is in science. But... all this and you didn't say anything good about religion."
Say do you understand anything at all in science or are you just interested? That's not how it is in science!
In science backed opinions, calculations, facts and reasons. Surprisingly indeed
The first part of your statement fits the second part. It is about the benefits of religion
In opinion you can hold your opinion and I am mine and there is no contradiction here because it is
With preferences and personal taste, that's how it is in the secular world.
Shmulik
I did not claim that science is based on a lie, read my words carefully, I apologize
If they were not properly understood but could it be that your hatred of religion is blind
you. I will try to explain again. You claim that religion is invalid because it is based on
a lie. I said that such a claim is true in science and mathematics. in mathematics (intentionally
I'm using math this time and not science so as not to create confusion), anyway
In mathematics it is correct to claim that a sentence based on a lie is false. My claim
is that life is more complex than mathematical claims and also scientific claims. alive
Not everything based on a lie is wrong. I also brought you an example of communism
Based on a lie yet it has true truths. Looking at the world again
In a dialectical way, lie, truth, good and bad is childish and dangerous. therefore from
If you don't believe, you think the religion is based on a lie, but this is not necessarily the case
Disqualifies the religion or those who believe in it. Life is not a mathematical or scientific proof.
Please read my words carefully before you accuse me of things I did not say.
good
Shmulik,
I feel much better now that the matter is under treatment. Let's hope that the Dilbor issue will be successful for them.
By the way, many people I know usually read comments to the end and try to understand them before they respond. That way they don't come off as embarrassed in front of everyone. Not that I'm implying anything about you, just telling about customs and lifestyles of distant cultures. Why is it forbidden to tell stories on this site anymore?
Mikey, there is no such thing as no rules. There is always a reason for everything. And if you don't have religious laws then you have other laws that govern in the dome, such as those used by the marketing and advertising experts.
And here is the fact that Big Brother has record-breaking ratings, and if there were no rules this would not have happened. Which proves that there are laws even if they are not written (see psychology).
And regarding the definition of God, where did you see that God is not defined.
The first thing that is written is the definition of God: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the surface of the earth"...
That is, God is the same thing that caused the world to be, that is, he is the cause of the world, this is the classic definition of God. And I don't understand how you don't know that, or choose to ignore it.
Israel,
The good experts are working on it. We will try to devise a technological solution.
maybe help with
https://www.hayadan.org.il/beyond-silicon-transistors-without-semiconductors-260613/
You are welcome to tell them that there is no evidence for quantum mechanics and you will save them money and valuable time
Shmulik
Of course the sentence I wrote is wrong. This is also why I took the trouble to put it in quotation marks.
And of course the universe doesn't owe me anything. In fact I am the one who owes the universe. Because I am God Almighty. I also have evidence: thousands of believers always tell me: listen, Israel - you are the Lord our God, one God!
Anyway, thanks for the escape option. Do you also understand perhaps the escape speed? I have an argument with Meir in the article about Galileo and his mistakes. He claims it does not depend on the escaping mass, I say it does. Do you have any suggestion? Maybe something with a tunnel, some tunnel through which she could escape under the gate of the base without going through the S.G.?
Israel,
I wanted to give you an escape option. Don't take her. The strangest thing is that you copied a sentence and bothered to write it in quotation marks that exactly says there is evidence, overwhelming. In addition, the sentence is incorrect. If the facts point to a theory that seems irrational to you, change your rationale. The universe doesn't owe you anything. If so, there is a lot of evidence and even your quote yourself says so. An understanding of what the hell is going on there exactly and whether there is a deeper explanation, there is not yet. There is a huge difference between the two.
In addition, why you want a boring Newtonian world is beyond me. How cool it is to have a tunnel and how cool it is to have frightening actions in the distance. Why would you want to give it all up?
Shmulik.
Of course I claim that quantum mechanics has no evidence, and of course that is my intention from the logical structure I created.
What, it's not clear from what I wrote in:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/secular-spirituality-240513/comment-page-19/#comment-436733
"But the evidence for the strange and irrational quantum world is overwhelming. It's hard to argue with facts."
It's not me, it's Einstein Feynman and Schrödinger dozing off. They are the ones that dig and eat thrash.
If [quantum theory] is correct, it means the end of physics as a science. Albert Einstein.
I do not like [quantum mechanics], and I am sorry I ever had anything to do with it. Erwin Schrödinger.
It is safe to say that nobody understands quantum mechanics. Richard Feynman.
Ehud - waiting. (Why really?).
Israel,
Did you mean to claim that quantum mechanics has no evidence? From the logical structure you created, surely this was your intention and if so, I suggest further study of the countless evidences we have collected demonstrating that quantum mechanics is the most tested theory in the world, and all with success.
Did the world get along well without her? What exactly does this mean and what does it matter? You want to go back to a time without computers and modern medicine, please. Be a pioneer, break your computer and your GPS device and swear never to use waze (you will win three times, because apart from quantum mechanics, the GPS system uses both private and general relativity, and give up on them too)
Quantum mechanics annoying? It is wonderful and demonstrates how nature is not boring for a moment and is complex to the eye compared to Newtonian-Aristotelian reality which is the one that is boring to death.
sympathetic
You say there are unknowns in physics. You have an opinion on the subject and I have an opinion - that's how it is in science.
But ….all this and you didn't say anything good about religion.
sympathetic.
I agree with you. My starting point was that we need duality - realism for the realistic mind, and romance for the playful and silly mind.
The reason is that we humans have two separate systems: like all animals we have an emotional system, so there is almost no difference between a puppy and a baby or a young child in terms of behavior and emotion, and a cognitive system that develops and exists only in adult humans.
The role of the adult in our son is to hold the steering wheel, and this is so that the children in our son can play safely in the back seat.
We can also let them watch Disney movies on video, but we have a duty to distinguish between imagination and reality.
As a kibbutznik, I first visited a synagogue at the age of 24. But in the last 30 years I have rubbed shoulders with believers of all genders, most of them good, happy and productive people. We also hold a Shabbat reception every week and celebrate all the holidays as usual and even fast on Yom Kippur. I am definitely able to see and feel the special atmosphere characteristic of religious life, which was brought up so beautifully in the play "Fiddler on the Roof" which I have seen at least 10 times.
So far - soul.
But there is a big difference between Tovia's TRADITION and the belief that there really is a father in heaven to whom it is our duty to pray and to keep his laws. It is simply placing responsibility on someone else for our actions. Our irrational mind is built to absorb many other things besides religion, of which drugs and alcohol are a prominent example.
It is the duty of the adult in our son to lead that irrational soul, and this despite the fact that, like any decent father of a family, in the bottom line he is the servant of the cute children, the irrational soul.
Shmulik,
!
Science is not based on a lie but on exposing the lie and removing it from what we call knowledge. Science knows that there is no proof of correctness but a refutation of what is not true, but hence to claim that science is based on a lie is... a lie. Science has no problem, through its arm called technology, to produce products based on theories that are later replaced by others, but that does not mean that technology is also based on a lie.
Moreover, science prides itself on the fact that as soon as there is a new theory, which disproves the old theory, the old one is thrown in the trash and is no longer used as an explanation and the technological arm is invited to use the old one if there is no advantage to the new theory.
Do you really believe that science is based on a lie? Did you try to refute my argument with this argument? Please don't degenerate the discussion into claims that you yourself don't believe in and even if science is based on lies, it doesn't say anything about religion so that "entering me" won't change anything.
Regarding taking the wisdom of thousands of years, I have already written and referred to this. In secular society we have already taken the good things (and here I am not even asking whether the religion is the one that invented the good things or whether it took these customs from what was already customary in the environment) and eliminated the bad things and there is a vast and very many bad things that religion has done
Israel
I regret my late response. Unlike you, I do not believe that it is possible
Regarding life to state that what is based on a lie is completely wrong. Life
They are not a mathematical proof and in life sometimes you can find truths that are not
The "truth" but they are important. Therefore even if God is dead in the Yesh religion
Still a lot of important knowledge.
As for quantum theory, you know the story about Bohr and the horseshoe
that was hanging over his door? The story is told as an analogy to quantum theory
But I've already heard people who didn't understand the analogy and used the story
To argue that even Bohr believed in superstitions.
Shmulik
You write that religion is based on lies and is therefore evil. This claim holds true in science
A scientific theory based on a lie is not valid but life is much more
consist of science. In life there is not only lies and truth, there are also partial truths.
For example, communism was based on a lie, but there are many truths in it
that they are correct and important. The disqualification of people's ways of life and choices
Gorev is dangerous and naive. In the knowledge accumulated over thousands of years you can always find
Important truths that can be learned from and when I look at secular society
Around me I see that she still has a lot to learn...
miracles,
As someone who claims to be interested in science I thought you would know
that there are recurring problems. Leonard Susskind was honored in his place
term, but science examines things anew and makes new calculations
In science, unlike other fields of knowledge, it is not enough to throw out a name of
A person to justify a claim. Einstein said so (because Einstein was also wrong)
Or even Newton said so and so. This is how it is used in science
And sometimes old problems resurface. in science to be updated….
Read an article from April 3 this year in which the problem of
Falling into a black hole
In Nature News Feature
Astrophysics: Fire in the hole!
Will an astronaut who falls into a black hole be crushed or burned to a crisp?
speaks with a claim backed by Polchinsky's calculations that material
Passing through the event horizon will be completely destroyed.
By the way, as someone who is interested in science, I will explain to you that the solution to the old riddle is what is happening
The information that falls into a black hole is that its event horizon grows but
Polczynski asks what happens to the information in the hole when the hole
The black reaches the end of its life and evaporates...
You write "I do not agree with your distinction between Ohm's law and theory
The relationship. Both provide equations to describe nature. Both are models.
And there is no problem for a model to depend on scale." Well in physics there are two types
of laws so you know it, there are basic laws related to symmetries
Basicity in nature, for example conservation of momentum and energy related to inertia
To moves in space and time or a private relation that is related to inorinity to transformation
Lorenz. Nature's symmetries are scale independent. In addition there is physics
Phenomenological laws such as Ohm's law (which does depend on scale but is
not a basic theory about nature) which they try to explain using laws
The foundation, quantum mechanics, conservation of momentum and energy, etc... to be honest
To develop Ohm's law it is enough to assume the Drode model in which Drode assumed
Because electrons are hard balls. So miracles you believe in science
Because you claim to be interested and understand it, but it turns out that you lack the basics
To understand what science is and how it works.
The project of many scientists is to build physics from below,
Go out and explain the world of phenomena using the basic physical laws,
This is how the laws of chemistry will be obtained from the basic theories of physics and so on
The laws of physics will explain why the ants walk in a column.
"The boss" did not disappear.
He is on tour around the world. :))))
Michael, you are wrong.
The office of the Prime Minister of Israel is behind the statement, and the office is headed by its prime minister whose IQ is 180 - more than yours and mine combined (don't be offended, my IQ is negative). So who are we to argue?
But I accept your logical assertion. If the religion is built on the assumption that there is a God, then if there is not, it loses the basis for its existence, even though it may be useful. In the Wild West on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, counterfeit dollars are considered legitimate currency. Everyone knows they are fake, but you can't live without them.
But you are not an example, you are a captive baby. I am looking for a real Amnon Yitzchak, who will explain to me where God is instead of showing that in the book of creation all the names of the planets appear, including those that have not yet been discovered, and that in the gematria science is equal to the remaining 873 wicked evil.
Period, maybe you, where did the boss go?
sympathetic
Regarding what you said about falling into a black hole - this is an old debate that was resolved a long time ago. As for the astronaut - he will not feel at all that he has passed the Schwarzchild radius. What's more, his clock will slow down a lot and he can live a long life....for an outside observer - the spaceship will shatter into pieces on the border of the black hole.
The one who says this is Leonard Susskind. I hope you don't think he's an idiot too…….
I disagree with your distinction between Ohm's law and relativity. Both provide equations to describe nature. Both are models. And there is no problem for a model to depend on scale.
Think about it - an electron is not an object. This is a concept that describes a phenomenon. Just like electric current is not a real thing.
I am still waiting for something good in religion, which does not exist in the secular world. I mean that I don't think there is anything positive about religion that doesn't exist without it.
Israel:
There are also many "sources" that say that what is written in the Torah is true.
The point is that everyone is basing themselves on the Torah to support their claim and the Torah is not based on anything.
That's probably the case with the sources you're talking about.
A religion based on the existence of God loses its justification if that God does not exist.
The fabricators of Judaism knew this and therefore made sure not to define God so that it would be difficult to disprove his existence (because it is difficult to disprove the existence of an undefined thing. Try, for example, disproving the existence of the Speerholzkebenbench).
This is the shelter that religious people constantly use to defend themselves from criticism.
The problem is that the inventors of the religion did not do a complete job here and when they stated all kinds of wrong facts about what God created and claimed that these were the words of a living God - they exposed the religion to criticism and even to the refutation of the existence of that Creator.
But people don't easily give up on the reasons of the brainwashed, so they started inventing for us the story that the Torah is not a book of science or history.
Of course, by doing this they are throwing the baby out with the bath water because the whole source of their god's authority is based on the fact that he created the world and knew how he did it. This is the role of the creation story in the Torah and if it is not true then what is left to establish the authority - but there are enough idiots who do not understand this and that is what the religion is built on.
point:
There is no such thing as "secular society".
There are endless ways to be secular because secularism has no laws - it is simply defined by the absence of laws attributed to an entity that does not exist.
The advantage of secularism is that it allows - for those who are not lazy - to explore the world honestly and get closer to a true understanding of reality.
Not everyone takes advantage of this option, but it is clear that the percentage of those who take advantage of it among the secular is higher than their percentage among the believers of the spaghetti monster.
The one who understands understands.
The problem is that there are all kinds of Yossi and Moshe and Nisim and Shmulik and Ephraim and Ezekiel who "understand" and try to spread their "understanding" to the masses. And it's dangerous. After all, this is what humanity is trying to avoid. Whether in religious ways or in secular ways.
Contrary to what they are trying to claim here, the secular society is not related to science more than the religious ones.
It can be said, as I wrote in one of the first comments here, that the "big brother" pretty much contains everything that the common secular aspires to, sees it as noble, as the meaning of life, as a purpose, the peak of human creation.
Tell me who you admire and tell you who you are. And the one who understands will understand.
sympathetic,
It's not a bad rule but sometimes you have to be able to cut: religion is based on lies and indeed, maybe in the past, people truly believed the story wholeheartedly but that's not the case today. A culture based on lies is a bad culture and we see this evil and poison, every day that passes and therefore the secular society is better.
Just a tiny (really tiny) example of the poison inherent in religion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bu06sIpRCw0
Shmulik
I automatically disapprove of people who see the world in a one-dimensional way.
Good and bad, lie and truth, us and them. Deep thinking teaches us
that the world is much more complex than this simplistic description. Easy to catalog
Others as inferior, racist... and us as enlightened and righteous good people. Comfortable though
Dangerous and also wrong.
Michael.
Next I will diagnose it myself. Don't trust any link, even though it appears in several places.
And to the point: even though you are a secularist with a wagon, from a purely logical point of view: do you accept the assumption that a religion based on the existence of God loses its justification if God does not exist? Or, like Leibovitz, you would argue that faith is secondary and the main thing is keeping the commandments.
What amazes me the most in this whole long discussion is that not all those haters who always shout Allah is a mouse in every discussion of every topic have joined it yet. I would like to ask them. Could it be that my father is doing too good a filtering job?
And also Ehud who claims that religion has advantages regardless of whether or not there is a God, I would like to ask if he would be willing to rely on any scientific theory whose premises lack any foundation or evidence just because it has advantages. Because if that's the case, the first thing I would get rid of is annoying and unnecessary quantum mechanics, much to the delight of many scientists. Because it's a fact: the world managed very well for thousands of years without it, and established magnificent science and technology. So just because there is no proper explanation for black body radiation to go and destroy everything?
sympathetic,
You asked what I prefer, and I answered, with a detailed explanation: the secular society. I completely disagree with you that the secular view ignores society and only puts the person in the center. This is simply not true.
You see, I seriously think that it is religion that prevents the development of a more just society. Religion is always there, to remind us who the other is, who is male and female, who is inferior and against whom war should be waged and when it disappears, good things will happen to the human race. You can ignore the lies at the base of religious society as much as you want, but they are there, pimping and twisting the minds of children who grow up to be the biggest racists the world has ever seen and pimping and binding the minds of girls, who grow up to be subhumans who are allowed and should be abused and only the secular law, read again , the secular, in the last hundred years, rescued them from captivity (and this is just one example out of many) so I am happy that this horrible tradition, which was established and rooted for thousands of years, has been stopped (partially and only in the western world).
In my book, it is impossible to establish a society based on lies, not when we already know too much, but this knowledge does not prevent the creation of an egalitarian society based on achievement (I don't want to give it up) and also on compassion even without religion and in my opinion, especially without religion.
Miracles
As usual you are confused about the science and blame me, you are confusing between
Laws such as Ohm's law, Ampere's law... and scientific theories. scientific theories
Basics are general and should not change. The electromagnetic Torah
The one based on Maxwell's laws should not change, private relativity
and general as well as quantum theory. Regarding the standard model there were indeed
Expectations that he would change, but those were probably dashed with the experiments at Zern.
I don't decide what is science and what is not, just
I asked you your opinion on string theory and supersymmetry as well
on black holes. Regarding black holes, I explained to you why they exist in my opinion
Flimsy evidence of their existence but the concept has caught on with the public
the wide I also explained to you that there are problems with the singularity at the base of holes
blacks and also current questions about the event horizon. As someone who pretends to understand
In science you must understand that scientific theories are independent of a scale. private and general relationship
They are general theories as well as quantum theory. The examples you gave are of
Laws, Ohm's law, Ampere's law are not scientific theories but their results.
Physics is not biology, it relies on fundamental theories of all matter
The world should follow them. The development of theories is not a refinement but a mother
Scientific revolutions (read Cohen's book). Physicists do not believe
Because their theories are temporary, quantum theories are meant to be a theory
A completeness of reality and the discussions regarding theories of hidden variables (the assumption
that the wave function does not contain all the information about the world) continued for
decades.
Regarding religion, it has many other beautiful and important sides. The concept of science = good
Religion=evil is childish and harmful. Religion is related to tradition, community and concepts
that exist even without her but for her they are essential. Religion is about questions
Spirituality and understanding that a person has a spiritual side.
deer
Polchanski's work created a storm in a glass of water and many researchers
In this small area they responded to her, there are articles by Verlinde that came out
Recently also in this question. Unfortunately I didn't have time to read and be impressed
from what we do I would love to hear your opinion (if you have one and so do I).
Certainly not, time). I hope later to try to go through some of the articles.
Shmulik
I see that we go around in circles or are in restrictive lines. My claims are
Simplicity. Of course you can enjoy philosophy, art, sports without being religious
maybe even more. I claim that the concept of religion=bad, science=good is a simplistic concept
of the world and harmful. Religion has advantages and disadvantages and I am not discussing whether or not there is a God and what
He is God. The secular view also has advantages and disadvantages. The secular concept
Puts the person and his desires in the center and does not refer to the community or the spiritual side of its nature
of the person sufficiently, as a result I see a company that speaks highly highly
But is busy chasing greed, trampling the other, brainwashing the masses through advertisements
And the scientific thought that everything can be understood by breaking it down into its parts. the technology
Of course it saves millions, but it gives a boost to my life if it saves, I think
not much On the other hand there is a religious world with bigotry, racism but in practice its society
She is humble, studious, egalitarian and appreciates people based on their knowledge and not their appearance
or the amount of money in the bank. So in my opinion there are also very beautiful sides in religion
Understanding that the community and not the person is at the center (not in the totalitarian sense), tradition and perception
of man as part of the continuum. Spiritual counseling for people based on thousands of years of experience.
In short, a religion-evil war of sorts in the world is stupid as far as I'm concerned. Can be made
Both romanticize secular society and science, but life is not that simple.
As thinking people I think we should look at all sides in life and try to explore
them without casually dismissing opinions held by about 90% of humanity.
Israel:
So what if you brought another quote from the same source that relied on a source that does not say so?
You really don't see that there is the same reference here (according to townhall.com ) and when you go to the link you don't find any such claim?
Shmulik:
We are in a lot of trouble with nothing to do with the discussion.
If we started discussing spirituality, altruism and morality and got to Bibi, we are in a lot of trouble
What is this, finding the Prime Minister of Israel guilty of technicality?
Here is from the missing link:
Benjamin Netanyahu was listed as number 11 on The World's 50 Most Influential Figures 2010, by The New Statesman and according to townhall.com, has an IQ of 180.
Netanyahu left MIT in 1973 to fight in the Yom Kippur War, when hostilities concluded he returned and earned a BS in Architecture.
Age: 62
Nationality: Israeli
Job: Politician
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/smartest-person-in-the-world-2011-12?op=1#ixzz2XAdM1pv3
Israel:
Read what I wrote again.
I quote: "The link you provided cites a link that relies on another link where the matter does not appear."
So you brought the link that the first link cites, but it, as mentioned, is based on Another link where it does not appear
sympathetic
1 - Please do not decide what is science and what is not science. You are quite confused. In your eyes, scientific theory is an explanation of reality. Once they really thought like that. Today the approach is different. I don't think this is the place to go into it, but I do want to say that there is no problem with scientific theory being valid within certain limitations. I'll give you some laws that you think are unacceptable: Ohm's Law, Hooke's Law, Boyle's Law, Charles' Law, Henry's Law…..do I really need to go on?
And now - finally, finally you gave something in which religion - community. But - community comes before religion. Need to explain why?
Do you have anything else (good) that comes from religion?
sympathetic,
Thanks, I learned something new.
In the meantime I skimmed.
The main problem is that this theory contradicts the principle of equivalence (not my statement, this is the main criticism of his model). This means that either his quantum calculations are incorrect, or the principle of equivalence is incorrect.
If you ask me (and you don't), I would bet on the equivalence, simply because we understand relativity much better than quantum field theory in strong gravitational fields.
I will read more seriously later and update if I learn anything
How dare you?! Call the prime minister's office an unreliable source? Nothing was said to you.
Here is the original:
http://www.businessinsider.com/smartest-person-in-the-world-2011-12#benjamin-netanyahu-is-alleged-to-have-an-iq-of-180-7
So is there or is there no God? Soulmate or imaginary friend? Is there gold behind the money or is it monopoly money?
Isn't there some real believer here who can answer the question instead of explaining the benefits of the religious society? Where are all the Hezis and Ezekiels who always burst into every discussion about quantum gravity, maybe this is the time and place to find out once and for all what the counter argument is and whether it holds water instead of discussing the compatibility of the soul with the idea of religion. We experience our irrationality every night in our dreams, but the steering wheel is best held by the responsible adult.
Israel:
This seems to me to be an unfounded rumor that someone bothered to spread because I find it hard to believe that such a smart person would act in such a stupid way.
Besides, the link you provided cites a link that relies on another link where the matter does not appear.
Regarding Bibi:
http://www.kr8.co.il/BRPortal/br/P102.jsp?arc=259029
sympathetic,
Thanks for agreeing with me that scientists don't kill other scientists because a certain theory has been proven wrong. The public also does not kill another public because one theory has changed but you cannot say that about religion and regarding your continued argument regarding the use of inventions, the states are the ones who used inventions and often for religious motives so I do not understand what you were trying to say.
My claim is not unfounded but comes to point out that it is possible to live without religion, and I hope that in the coming years this will happen. Indeed, a great many people may be a little confused for a while, but very quickly they will realize that it is possible to distinguish between good and evil even without the priest/rabbi ever lying to them about who the bad guy is. On the other hand, without science, we will not be able to survive even one day, at the same level of life that we live in today. Everything will collapse and a huge percentage of people will die. Which comes to emphasize why science will always be more important than religion or in other words, as Mark Twain said: "to find out the forecast before praying for rain".
Surely religion has a role, who can deny that? Her role is to give power to her superiors by selling lies to her addicts, and to her addicts, a reason to give power to her superiors. Religion is like all those digital accessories that amateur runners use to improve their results. Many amateur runners become dependent on these devices to tell them when they are exerting themselves (high heart rate) and slowly lose the ability to understand this, through their bodies (with professional runners, the equipment actually helps) and in a similar way, religion has degenerated in all those masochistic addicts the ability to differentiate between For better or for worse, without the help of the rabbi, who always went above and beyond to classify the other as other, as different, as inferior and created the distorted idea that only through religion can one touch "irrational" (whatever that means) and this is of course complete nonsense. I am an atheist and I enjoy a lot of pursuits that are not related to "rational" and I do not understand why you repeatedly return to this point and what else do I need to do to explain that religion does not have a monopoly on this? Do you really not understand that it is possible to enjoy music/art/philosophy/sports even without being religious? Do you really not see how it is possible to argue about the essence of life and its origin even without thinking that there is a creator (thus closing the discussion)? Of course it is only possible without the need to lie and use those lies to control the masses. I also don't understand why you think that secularism only treats society as a collection of individuals? The golden rule, which most people think is a good rule for living together, contradicts this claim and when religion disappears, there is no reason for this rule to disappear.
There is an article in April's Physics Today written by Steven Giddings that discusses at a popular level what happens to information that falls into a hole. The argument is that in order to give an answer to this question we have to give up one of the basic laws of nature: ontology, locality or general relativity.
Regarding the topic of what will happen to the viewer passing through the event horizon in a short search I came across the following title that appeared
In Nature News Feature
Astrophysics: Fire in the hole
Will an astronaut who falls into a black hole be crushed or burned to a crisp
which was written on April 3 of this year and deals (I skimmed part of it) with a claim backed by Polchinsky's calculations that material
Passing through the event horizon will be completely destroyed.
Thanks for the correction regarding the Chandrasekhar block.
Miracles
The examples you gave to confirm the existence of black holes are: "NGC4261 is a galaxy
in the center of which there is a body the size of the solar system and weighing a billion times more than the sun. It's probably a black hole.
In M87 (another galaxy) there is a body in the center that is 3 times heavier than the body I mentioned earlier. It is inevitable
black hole. And there are another 10-15 of them….”
I already explained to you once that a non-radiative mass is not a sufficient criterion to prove their existence
of black holes, an event horizon is required. Therefore your examples are at best testimonials
Circumstances prove nothing.
You write "But - Galileo's model was not disproved, nor were Newton's models. They just
have been refined.”
I thought you said you were interested in science. First you claim that the laws of science depend on a scale???
And now that scientific revolutions are simply refinement??? Einstein did not simply extend Newton's laws
for high speeds. Einstein completely changed our perception of space-time. The perception of reality
Newton's was refuted by Einstein's special and general relativity. Each transition from one set of rules
The second is a scientific revolution, not refinement! I recommend that you read "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions"
of Thomas Cone.
I also suggest that you learn from religion, for example, the concept of "community" the individual person in religion
He is part of a community and this is just one example that pops into my head. Secularism refers to society
as a collection of details.
Another side note scientists don't just claim that quantum theory is perfect they actually do it
For decades now. Einstein tried to argue that quantum theory is not the complete theory
And there may be theories of hidden variables and scientists think he was wrong. So miracles do
Know a little about how science works, what happens in science and what science is before blindly believing
Why do scientists say and not to jump every time they say that Newton was wrong (because he did
a lot of mistakes ).
Shmulik
really? First of all, your claim about the disappearance of religion is arduous, maybe your world won't change if
Religion will disappear but the world of billions of people will change beyond recognition. The claim in itself is
Strange if all the art in museums disappeared how many people would suffer? Does this mean that art is
Not an important part of human culture? Just because you don't believe doesn't mean religion has no role
for most of humanity.
Scientists do not kill each other, but their theories produce technologies
which destroyed hundreds of thousands if not millions of people. So go the company sitter
Relatively convenient and technologically easy to pour on the achievements of science...
Regarding spirituality that I keep talking about, for me it is the recognition that human life is not
boil down to a rationale
Israel:
And about Leibovich, you are welcome to read About him on Wikipedia and see that:
"Contrary to the conventional view of faith, the one that emphasizes the importance of accepting metaphysical assumptions about reality (such as the creation of the world by God and the law of retribution) and sees the observance of mitzvot as a derivative of these assumptions, Leibovitz identifies faith in Judaism with what he likes to call "accepting the burden of Torah and mitzvot"; God's instructions and revelations have no religious importance: "God is not an object of religious thinking." Religious thinking is concerned with man's status before God in the practical aspect embodied in keeping mitzvot."
Israel:
I didn't say that Bekenstein is a foolish prattle, but in my opinion he believes in one thing that is nonsense (and that the vast majority of scientists, andEinstein among them, thinks he's nonsense), and that's even before taking into account the grandmother's stories in the Torah.
Regarding Bibi (Lagabibi) - I didn't know he had an IQ of 180, but that's because I don't usually know things are wrong.
All that IQ, wow!
No wonder our political, military, cultural and economic situation is so good and we are racing towards a prosperous democracy...
180? can not be. After all, everyone calls him a fool! Well, maybe he will grow up and be like the Rothschild.. ))
Tefdel, Michael, Prof. Yaakov David Bekenstein is a foolish brat.
Still, I would be happy to hear from him or Leibowitz, or any other intelligent religious person from the source of faith without evidence.
Did you know that Bibi has an IQ of 180?
sympathetic,
I agree with you that a singularity is a strange thing and that it would not be surprising if it turns out that quantum gravity "spreads" it.
But in the event horizon there is no singularity... Therefore, although it is very possible that we do not understand what happens inside the innermost Planck size of a black hole, there does not seem to be any problem to say something about everything that happens outside the event horizon (and that is where we live) based on the relativistic model of holes blacks
When you say that most of the judges "believe" black guys, it's because they talk about everything that happens outside the horizon, and there general relativity works great. If there are any problems inside the black hole that require quantum gravity, it doesn't really matter to a physicist who lives beyond the event horizon and is not his specific concern.
Beyond that, as far as I know (and I don't know much) the matter of black holes actually fits well with thermodynamics when the irreducible mass of the black hole is taken to be proportional to the entropy. I would be happy if you could direct me to sources that simply explain which paradoxes in this context are still unresolved (again, that the horizon is their problem - regarding the singularity in the center I agree with you that it is probably problematic).
Offhand remark:
For neutron stars not spoken at the Chandraskar limit, this is the limit for white dwarfs although in neutron stars it is the same idea. In neutron stars the limit is called the Tolman Oppenheimer Volkov limit and is unknown since their equation of state (which involves nuclear forces) is unknown.
Miracles:
To say that Newton's equations are a mistake is indeed irrelevant and that's why I didn't say it either.
It seems to me that the comments can be more successful when you read the thing you are commenting on.
Michael Rothschild
To say that Newton's equations are a mistake is a bit beside the point. Do you expect anyone who calculates the trajectory of a weapon dropped from an airplane to use the equations of general relativity? The computer in Apollo 11 would not have gotten very far if the programmers had used Einstein's laws - are you saying that NASA engineers made a mistake?
Israel:
I actually prefer my wording.
Newton and his contemporaries were indeed wrong, but those who accept these false claims nowadays are fools.
This is me…
sympathetic
There is evidence of black holes. I gave you two examples.
Galileo's physics is not evidence based. His experiments were approximations at best. He measured time with a water clock - not exactly a quartz clock…….. and his assumption that free fall can be deduced from an inclined plane is simply wrong.
But - Galileo's model was not disproved, and neither were Newton's models. They were just refined.
You keep repeating that quantum and relativity theories are not perfect. What exactly is your point? No one claims otherwise…..
Ehud - like any secularist, I would love to learn something from religion. I'm listening….
sympathetic,
!
We just wait for the data and we don't care if the scientists are wrong or right in the sense that we won't murder people if the scientists say A and suddenly it turns out to be B. We understand that each generation corrects the mistakes of the previous generation and we understand that everything science can tell us, at the end of the day, It is mainly what is not true and what is true and we still accept science because it leads to technology that works. How simple. Technology and knowledge. Knowledge and technology are the ones that differentiate between science and religion and when I say technology and knowledge, I don't just mean cars, toasters, etc., but any idea that can be confirmed through additional experiments and that religion can never give.
I repeat my key sentence again: if religion disappears from the world tomorrow, nothing in my world and the world of many, will change, but, if science stops tomorrow (because of religious wars, most likely), the whole world will change, for the worse.
Michael
It seems to me that you are replacing the word mistake with nonsense.
Just because every respectable scientist in the nineteenth century believed in the site, doesn't mean that Maxwell Lorentz and Calvin were bullshitting. But if we discover that Hawking or Shechtman are trying to find the Philosopher's Stone - we can say that the screws have probably loosened a bit.
And religion is not seen as nonsense today by billions of believers. They - as their name is - believe.
And that's what I'm missing in this discussion that deals with morality, culture, law, order, cruelty and more, and not with the thing itself: belief in God.
The orderly, organized and rich Pythagorean brotherhood almost completely collapsed due to the discovery of the irrational numbers. The flat earth believers' fellowship currently includes only flat believers. So why do so many believe in God who has no evidence of his existence?
Everything else - the strange and different dictates of the religion, its different morals and culture are secondary only. We accept the strange laws of quantum mechanics with a grain of salt even though many good people would gladly give them up. A.E. Schrödinger and Einstein.
But the evidence for the strange and irrational quantum world is overwhelming. It's hard to argue with facts.
So where is the evidence for the existence of God? Because it is clear that if he exists then it will be much easier to accept his strange constitutions and commandments, whether we believe in their necessity or not.
It is hard for me to accept that Descartes cogito, who doubts everything, accepted such a strange and evidence-less assumption just because of the religious environment. He took nothing for granted. The same for Newton.
So maybe someone intelligent who truly believes in God and sees his reality in everything, could explain to stupid Israel how he came to this strange assumption?
deer
Although I was known for limited astrophysics but I am in everything
I know Hasem Chandraskar, I just wanted to show
Because the mass is not large enough to substantiate the claim that it is
black guy
You write "There is no theoretical problem of establishment
On a known theory for predicting the horizon of black holes.
This is a macroscopic phenomenon, not singular in relativity
The general one works great" but I guess because you know there is
A lot of theoretical discussions today about what happens to the viewer
Beyond the horizon of events there are various claims
On the subject of firewall or rather what happens to the information
Quantum black hole so blacks blacks and event horizon
They don't get along so well with other laws of physics. I'd be happy
Specify or attach sources if you wish later. In principle
Singularity is a problematic phenomenon in science and despite the problems
People from the settlement accept the opinion of scientists
In problematic issues without doubt.
Shmulik, of course you are right
deer,
In your explanation, could it be that you meant that a neutron star has a maximum mass and not black holes?
deer:
There are no shortage of ways to show the falsity of religion but the links I provided were not intended to do so. They are intended to confound the opposite claims that have been made - either regarding the number of religious scientists or regarding the contribution of religion to morality.
Of course, proving the falsity of one religion does not hold for another religion and certainly does not hold for religions that no one has yet bothered to fabricate, but at least for the Abrahamic religions it is possible to establish a common proof by refuting the claims of the Torah.
Israel:
I see you got my point.
Religion - like alchemy - was then seen as a serious matter.
Religion - like alchemy - is seen as nonsense today.
sympathetic,
====
Regarding your claims about the existence of black holes:
– Most black holes cannot be replaced by neutron stars since black holes have a maximum mass. Although this mass is not precisely known (it depends on the model that is assumed for the equation of state), but in any case, it is no more than approximately 3 solar masses. This means that a large part of the things that appear to be black holes must be black holes or something very exotic.
- There is another way from Hawking radiation to show that the body has no event horizon:
When a thin gas (which does not form an adsorption disk) is attached to a rigid body, it encounters its surface, slows down at once, heats up and radiates energy (think about the energy of a waterfall). Conversely, gas attached to matter with an event horizon will cross the horizon without experiencing anything dramatic and therefore nothing will happen. Therefore, if the amount of gas attached to the body is known, it is possible to predict what luminosity can be expected if it has or does not have an event horizon.
In our galaxy it is easy to do this because the parameters of the center of the galaxy are relatively well known and thus we will discover that there is no way to explain the observations if the massive object there does not have the event horizon. There are of course all kinds of alternative explanations but they require much more faith than black holes.
- There is no theoretical problem of relying on a well-known theory in predicting the horizon of black holes. This is a macroscopic, non-singular phenomenon where general relativity works perfectly.
The theoretical question that requires quantum gravity is about the nature of the singularity in the center and it doesn't matter much to someone who is outside the black hole (in fact, by definition it doesn't matter at all...).
L. Vanisim,
=======
You are right in that Newton, Descartes and Co. were religious because they lived in a religious environment and therefore it is not possible to learn from this about the reality of religion. According to the same method, it would be fair in my opinion to say that it is not possible to learn about the falsity of religion from the data presented by M (less educated people who are religious) - based on the same argument, they teach about the socioeconomic status of academics.
sympathetic,
====
Regarding your claims about the existence of black holes:
– Most black holes cannot be replaced by neutron stars since black holes have a maximum mass. Although this mass is not precisely known (it depends on the model that is assumed on the equation of state), but in any case, it is no more than approximately 3 solar masses. This means that a large part of the things that appear to be black holes must be black holes or something very exotic.
- There is another way from Hawking radiation to show that the body has no event horizon:
When a thin gas (which does not form an adsorption disk) is attached to a rigid body, it encounters its surface, slows down at once, heats up and radiates energy (think about the energy of a waterfall). Conversely, gas attached to matter with an event horizon will cross the horizon without experiencing anything dramatic and therefore nothing will happen. Therefore, if the amount of gas attached to the body is known, it is possible to predict what luminosity can be expected if it has or does not have an event horizon.
In our galaxy it is easy to do this because the parameters of the center of the galaxy are relatively well known and thus we will discover that there is no way to explain the observations if the massive object there does not have the event horizon. There are of course all kinds of alternative explanations but they require much more faith than black holes.
- There is no theoretical problem of relying on a well-known theory in predicting the horizon of black holes. This is a macroscopic, non-singular phenomenon where general relativity works perfectly.
The theoretical question that requires quantum gravity is about the nature of the singularity in the center and it doesn't matter much to someone who is outside the black hole (in fact, by definition it doesn't matter at all...).
to Michael and miracles,
=========
You are right in that Newton, Descartes and Co. were religious because they lived in a religious environment and therefore it is not possible to learn from this about the reality of religion. According to the same method, I think it would be fair to say that it is not possible to learn about the falsity of religion from the data presented by Michael (educated people who are less religious) - based on the same argument, they teach about the socioeconomic status of academics.
sympathetic,
For thousands of years, human sacrifices and virgins were brought to appease the gods and thankfully, this horrible practice has been stopped, at least in most of the world so that the pleading argument of "leave it to me because I am very ancient and therefore there must be things in my body" does not hold water. Religion was an early attempt to explain the world around us and the attempt was a complete failure except to settle in people's hearts and I am hopeful that in the coming years religion will disappear from the world.
You continue to write about "spirit" in the hope that I understand what you are talking about, but there is a limit. I don't understand what you mean by wind, except maybe, hot and smelly air, so please define what you are talking about and why you think only in religion this thing exists.
I am happy that in secular life there is no appeal to authority and that it is impossible to win an argument by arguing "stop. My Rebbe is a hundred years old and therefore more correct.' Secular life provides enough counseling and guidance of any kind, mental, physical, medical, mental, counseling that is not based on authority from above. When I got married, the rabbi gave me guidance about common married life. The amount of chauvinism that spewed out there was so terrible and embarrassing that I barely stopped myself from starting to argue with this retarded moron, and I haven't even told you what guidance my wife received in which a new biological theory was explained to her for having offspring. Do me a favor, stop romanticizing religion. It is a weight on our neck and every word written about charity is unnecessary. Nothing in my life will be lost if religion disappears and everything in my life will be lost if science disappears and in Israel, great efforts are being made to make science disappear by pouring crazy money on the religious businessmen. Read on this website why evolution is hardly taught to Israeli students. Let me give you a hint: Professor Ada Yonat is not to blame for this.
Regarding the scientists, come on, show me. Show me a law that prohibits insulting scientists. Show me when scientists started a war when some theory was proven wrong. If I replaced the word scientist with rabbi/priest/mufti you wouldn't have to think at all. Why do the religious censors need a law to prohibit insulting them? What are they afraid of and why do they have an automatic understanding if they resort to violence for their offense?
Breeze? exactly the opposite
Miracles,
I explained to you that to prove the existence of a black hole radiation must be detected
Hawking. A black hole is singular and therefore has an event horizon.
There is indirect evidence for large masses that do not emit radiation but
These are not conclusive evidences for the existence of a singularity.
You write ” a scientific theory that was established has never been disproved
on evidence". Wasn't Galileo's physics based on evidence
Was it not refuted by Einstein as above Newton's physics.
In addition, you write that "in physics there is still no general theory that works in all fields
The measure". You are clearly wrong, physical theories are not limited to the canon
measure Is there a law that the conservation of energy or momentum is limited to a certain scale?
Is quantum theory limited to a certain scale? Although not possible
to detect quantum phenomena in macroscopic bodies but the theory is supposed to
to continue to be correct on any scale. Physicists do not write a theory for a defined field.
Is private relativity defined for a certain domain? You are confusing between
The possibility of seeing effects that correspond to a certain theory and between
The validity of the theory. For example relative effects can be seen
At high speeds but the theory is valid for any speed. I thought
That you are interested in science... as for the Tanakh, this is a bit far from my area of expertise
But if you go to yeshiva they will surely be able to teach you which parts
In your book they refer to it as a story or a parable, while they believe in them, but they don't
This is the point I keep talking about. I say there are many
Wisdom in religion (not scientific wisdom) and we have a lot to learn
From religion instead of patronizing religious people.
Israel
Not only was Newton religious, many of the greatest scientists in history,
Forgive me Galileo, Laplace and Darwin, they were devout religious. A lot of science
Ours is based on religion as well as Western morality. I don't catch you
The religion of belief in the existence of God and nothing else. I believe as secular that religion is
Man's attempt to deal with the spiritual side of his being. have experience
He has successes and there are failures. There is a lot of humility in believing in something great
from you instead of thinking that you understand and know everything better than everyone else. the religion
Compulsorily combines the wisdom of many, many people gathered over time
A lot of time. So God may be dead but all knowledge should not be dismissed
The accumulated other and people who choose a different way of life should not be condescended to
from you.
By the way, unlike you, I do not think it is enough to encourage a secular learning culture
It is important for us to understand that man is not a rational being and perhaps it is good that he is so and therefore
His world is not just about studying, we have an emotional and spiritual side that we need
to turn and in this area the secular culture lacks placing the person in the center
A lot of knowledge.
Shmulik
I don't romanticize religion but I try to look
With less hatred and loathing for things that are different from me and things that I don't understand.
Religion, as I have written many times, has existed for thousands of years and has been practiced
Very smart people. It's easy to dismiss all her work and think
That we are the smartest and the most rational and therefore the best. perceptual
It is necessary to understand what is different from you and try to learn from it without
patronize him. For example, religion is built on spiritual advisors whose role is
Helping people deal with spiritual and physical questions (rabbi, pastor
and so on...). Such a figure is missing in the secular world where the individual is
He is in the center. I think there is a lot of beauty in the existence of such a character
The one who holds in her hand a lot of knowledge collected over hundreds of years and her role
Helping people cope with life's difficulties. There are many more examples like that.
Just to finish there is no evidence of a black hole. A black hole is singular and therefore
He has an event horizon. To detect an event horizon it is necessary to detect radiation
Hawking. There is indirect evidence for large masses that do not emit radiation though
These are not conclusive evidences for the existence of a singularity.
Regarding "None of the scientists will go to murder because of this and no one either
will not be offended. My side is not offended if he is wrong and allows the youngest of the students
To remark to the most senior of the experts that the truth is a candle to our feet, and in fact, most of it
The scientists are dying to find a mistake somewhere, because this is the way to advance science,
To become famous and gain world fame." Apparently you don't know many scientists?
You are doing exactly what you accused me of romanticizing science.
Miracles
If you are confused now, then what were you before? Wait until you get dressed and you will be much more competent. If you don't understand Haim now wait to be like Peres. I once asked an old man why his dog was behaving strangely, so he looked at me and with a half smile answered that the dog is already 14 years old (and this type doesn't live more than 10), adding that even a human at that age starts doing strange things... and laughed
sympathetic
NGC4261 is a galaxy centered on a body the size of the Solar System and weighing a billion times the Sun. It's probably a black hole. In M87 (another galaxy) there is a body in the center that is 3 times heavier than the body I mentioned earlier. It is necessarily a black hole. And there are another 10-15 of them...
Einstein himself said that the theory of relativity is not valid under extreme conditions. In physics there is still no general theory that works on all scales. It would be boring if everything was known, wouldn't it?
There was a lot of nonsense in science: phlogiston, epicycles, ether and so on. All these science itself threw away. But you know - a scientific theory that was based on evidence has never been disproved.
Are the religious stories stories? All the Tanakh stories? Or only some of them? What if the creation story? Also just a story? Didn't God create us? God did not rest on the seventh day? Is the binding of Isaac just a story? So Abraham's existence is also a story? Exodus from Egypt? The King David? Job story?
Listen, I have an idea. Maybe you could send me a Tanach book and mark with a yellow marker which parts are just stories? I'm really confused now….
An endless loop…. So she is a loop…. infinite…. is it good or bad? Man aspires and God decides (as the lyrics of the song)
You have every right not to put your neck in the noose.
I also have the right to continue litigating with anyone who wishes to do so.
And one more thing Michael - alchemy is nonsense only in retrospect. At the time it was considered a serious science. It was precisely the practice of alchemy that convinced Newton that the unfathomable - action at a distance without a tangible medium - was possible, thus paving the way for the theory of gravitation.
Israel,
As mentioned - he grew up in a time when the vast majority were religious and as mentioned he was also involved in astrology and alchemy.
By the way - one of the things I learned as a computer scientist is to recognize an infinite loop so let's stop this nonsense now.
The statistics I brought include the scientists of our time and believe me - everyone has heard of Newton.
Michael.
Newton is a son of the renaissance - during his time many already doubted God, according to Galileo, Bruno, (an ardent fan of Dawkins) and Descartes. They all preceded him.
True, there was a fear of going head to head with the church, but for Newton the preoccupation with God was obsessive. Furthermore, he was not afraid to confront the government and choose the Anglican Church, and win. Read Glick, he really believed. Even his absolute space is according to him "the spirit of God".
Could it be possible that a genius of this magnitude saw something we are missing?
sympathetic.
My problem with religion is actually the thing: belief in God.
You talk about the weak evidence for black holes, dark matter and gravitational waves, so where is the evidence for the existence of God?
Let's not go too far, go over your comments. You speak very sensibly about the beauty of a religious society that is content with little and is based on a hierarchy of respect for learners, learning and learning.
Can you show me one and only comment that speaks of your faith in God? This is the heart of the matter!
Kudos to Nir Lahav who works with others to encourage a secular learning culture (not enough in my opinion). If the youth were faced with the option of dozens and hundreds of light scientific cultural evenings in the style of "values", or Chabad, or the abundance of events with a religious tone, I believe that many would prefer this to spending time at parties and discos.
Israel:
Newton grew up in a time when everyone believed.
He also dabbled in astrology, alchemy and other nonsense (and no - alchemy is not a nuclear reaction).
In the end, his achievements and the achievements of those who followed him led to the situation that prevails today.
It is unfair to judge a person who received a medieval education by what we understand today, but it is even less appropriate to throw away the achievements we have reached after many years of research just because a scientist who was almost the first scientist was not aware of them.
sympathetic,
Something about a black hole: there is evidence of their existence but it doesn't change anything. It will also turn out that all the theories are wrong and it is necessary to change them (and it is assumed that this is the case), none of the scientists will commit murder because of it, and no one will be offended. My side is not offended if he is wrong and allows the youngest among the students to warn the senior among the experts that the truth is a candle to our feet, and in fact, most scientists are dying to find a mistake somewhere, because this is the way to promote science, become famous and gain world fame.
sympathetic,
I don't understand your romanticization of religion. Religion is one of our first attempts to explain reality and because of this, any explanation that religion offers for any phenomenon is wrong. Open any newspaper and check any article about religion and you will see the slime incarnate. Racism, passions, fights, condemnations, hatred, discrimination, exclusion and what not. What not? Beauty, sublimity, poetics, facts...need to continue?
For some reason you are convinced that religious people deal with the spirit (whatever that means) but no. Clergymen are people who said no. They are people who said we saw the facts, we saw the findings, we saw the evidence and we decided that a story made up from a few thousand years ago includes blood (always blood, forever blood and sacrifices), includes a talking snake and includes detailed instructions on how to live (so that the power is left with the priests) and goes down to the details Small to the level of the length of the penis that should be left for the baby, more likely and therefore we let the story and its priests rule our lives. I can't understand why you do this to yourself.
If you agreed with me about the screaming man, what else is there to talk about? What is special about the fact that he screamed and smashed something thousands of years ago? I can recognize the fact that my ancestors and forefathers believed in the Jewish religion and this is my tradition, but that does not make any of its commandments true.
Israel
I tend to agree with you. Life is more complex than science and religion
It is argued, both are abstract models of life which by virtue of being models they are
are limited, but those who believe in them should not be dismissed.
miracles,
You are a foolish follower of science. True, a black hole is a theoretical idea, but
There is not a single evidence of its existence. A black hole apart from being a large mass requires
event horizon. To detect an event horizon, you need to detect Hawking radiation.
Masses that are large and not radiating have indeed been identified based on star orbits
They could be neutron stars. So whoever comes out here in your language "Abel"
he is you You believe things that have no confirmation and think there is
to them only because scientists mention them. Has anyone ever seen
Gravitational waves. Which you are without a doubt. Of course you didn't answer me
On string theory and supersymmetry. Regarding scientific theories
I'm sorry to disappoint you, but theories in physics are general, it shouldn't be
They have an exception, for example the law of conservation of energy or momentum
It should always be for everyone, not in all cases except for... like the law
The second law of thermodynamics applies to all phenomena when found
A phenomenon that challenges such a theory is revolutionizing science.
So it seems that even though you believe in science you don't know what science is.
By the way Heaton did not think that his theory was limited and neither did all scientists
Until Einstein came back. Only human laws have a rule and an exception.
The trinity of life expectancy if there is no content in life is not something I am
Impressed by him. Our lives are not measured only in quantities, I'm sorry
that you think so You found some examples of religion's nonsense
Is it because of the nonsense of science and there were many that seem to have to be thrown away
The science is trash. Do clergy condone homosexuals or
Making human sacrifices? So what are you talking about? Narrative
The Tanach are stories and in religion they are treated as such.
There are very few if any factions that take the Tanakh word for word.
sympathetic
Scientists are human and humans are not rational. The scientific method is rational.
If you make the claim that relativity doesn't fit with quantum theory then you probably don't understand what a scientific theory is. These two teachings (Torah and theory are the same thing) do not claim to explain the world. They describe the world - with amazing accuracy. Newton's theory also describes the world very well. But what - everyone describes the world in very different time-space ranges. Where, after all, there is a problem - in the Big Bang event. And there science currently has no answers. But - is it due to the fact that the scientists talk nonsense? No - the scientists do not know everything. And they are the first to admit it.
What do you have black holes? A black hole is a theoretical object, the fruit of Schwarzchild's work, but it was thought of before him as well. Now - there is a lot of evidence for their existence. What you personally do not understand do you dismiss? You come out what is love…..
Let's leave science - the same science that tripled life expectancy, put a man on the moon, gave us vaccines, a communication network, means of transportation, and generally allows us to live in this world.
Let's go back to religion. How dare you say that religion has a positive attitude towards man? Do you want us to go over the Tanach stories about treating a person together? About the attitude towards homosexuals? The demand for human sacrifice? About infanticide? Did you punish many for a single act? Xenophobia?
Hear Ehud. You want to continue worshiping your God - that is your right. Please, stop sugarcoating it.
Why not a little duality?
Science - for matter. Religion (or whatever) - for the soul.
This nicely explains the phenomenon of religious scientists.
Michael-Newton, no small scientist at all, believed in God and devoted a lot of time and thought to theology and the Holy Trinity (Glick-Newton). There is a claim that he spent his last years studying Kabbalah.
Miracles
Instead of discussing religion right now, let's discuss a little science as you say you are
understands the subject. Are scientists rational people? if you understand
A little in science, you probably know that relativity doesn't get along with theory
The quanta (referring to general relativity). So if at least one of the two teachings
These are not true, how do scientists continue to believe in them?
You must have heard of black holes, what evidence do we have of their existence other than
Opinions of scientists, there is nothing. You again believe that scientists said
You have black holes. Aga the scientist who made the breakthrough
The largest in the field of black holes in Israel is Prof.
Jacob Bekenstein, a religious Jew. What a view of the world there is
in string theory. And supersymmetry? You again believe that
Scientists have told you and you call yourself a rational person. Regarding religion
I explained to you that what is true or good in religion is not its theories
about the creation of the world but its relation to man. Science does not
Tells you what is right and no, he does not explain to you how to proceed
in the world and he also does not give you spiritual advice and religion yes. Religion exists
Thousands of years and very smart people (at least like the Shatsa scientists
believe in them) so give some respect to what religion has to offer.
Michael Rothschild
Thank you!! I have a whole shelf at home devoted to Dawkins and Dent. And also some lesser-known thinkers in the field.
sympathetic
I accept the words of the scientists, first of all because I think I understand the field and have been dealing with it for decades.... The words of the scientists are based on looking at the world, thinking and coming up with explanations - and testing these explanations. In religion there is no third part - there is no test for explanations.
You underestimate dark matter. Dark matter is an idea that physicists have come up with to explain the observations. Today, the theory is tested in several ways and in addition completely different theories are put forward in an attempt to explain the same observations.
Evolution began as a theory designed to explain observations. And not only does it explain well all the huge variety of existing observations, we also found the biological process that enables evolution. Moreover - we know that evolution must be true!!! That is to say - even if something created the world before a certain time, evolution would occur and change all the life forms that the same intelligent agent created with so much effort (or maybe pulled from the waist in less than a week....)
Regarding feelings, human relationships, beliefs, blah blah blah... I don't understand what is special about them. They exist in other animals and they can be scientifically explained like any other phenomenon in the world.
Ehud - you must start thinking about the meaning of religious faith. In it we will give you some lines of thought that should bother you a lot.
The Jewish religion assumes an intelligent creator who planned and created the world. Why do you assume that this creator is unique? Why do you think he is good? Is the good separate from that Creator or does he decide what is good - the 2 options are problematic. Why do you suppose it still exists?
When you say that something was planned, you assume an intention, after all, this is the meaning of planning. I mean - you assume that we were created for a certain purpose. Do you want to live in a world where you are a tool for the purpose of something (or someone) else? Do you want to have children to be used by someone else? I would not want to be in such a world.
Let's do mental marriage. Imagine that tomorrow we all wake up and the world has changed, someone destroyed all the religious books and also made us forget what we know about religion. Do you think Judaism will come back to exist somehow? Will God reveal himself again because his great plan has gone awry?
Ehud - you don't accept the words of scientists and you expect me to listen to rabbis who talk nonsense which is a shame and disgrace. And the tighter the rabbi, the more ridiculous the nonsense.
Ehud Zakor - God created polio, man found a vaccine for it...
And some links about the contribution of religion to a more moral life:
Atheism, religion – and crime: http://secularist10.hubpages.com/hub/Religion-Atheism-and-Crime
Atheist don't commit as much crime as religious do: http://www.atheismresource.com/2010/atheist-dont-commit-as-much-crime-as-the-religious-do
http://www.nairaland.com/121066/predominantly-atheist-countries-lowest-crime
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/our-humanity-naturally/201103/misinformation-and-facts-about-secularism-and-religion
Most religious states are most criminal, divorced, impoverished
http://atheism.livejournal.com/2194071.html
http://current.com/community/92831935_atheists-supply-less-than-1-of-prison-populations-while-christians-make-up-75.htm
http://www.hofesh.org.il/crime/crime.html
http://www.hofesh.org.il/papers/papers.html
Miracles:
Surely these links will also interest you:
Dennett gives 10 reasons why people say they believe: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvJZQwy9dvE
And here is an honest scientist who was born in an ultra-Orthodox environment but did not let it confuse him:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d35nFvb1Wh4&feature=channel_page
Miracles,
really…
You write "to say that there is only matter and the laws of physics."
Ignore issues of space and time, of fields and of
contingency. And if you dig deeper, you will find that there are many who think
There is no such thing as a "material" model. The real world is much more
composed of the world of religion..."
Let's leave for a moment the concept of a real world, which is also very problematic.
What's amazing is that you're willing to accept the ramblings of scientists
Just because they are scientists. Does string theory predict that in the world
The real" has ten dimensions is more meaningful than the theories
The cosmologies of religion. Why, just because scientists wrote it?
You understand something in spacetime or are just willing to accept it because
Einstein came up with it. You get authority blindly and at the same time
opposes the religious because they do this. Have you ever seen anything?
dark matter? Does anyone know what dark energy is? Blah blah blah.
In addition, this is what I am explaining here and explaining our "real world".
As humans contains feelings, human relationships, aspirations and beliefs, to science
There is almost nothing to say about these things while religion deals with them
in detail Adherence to religious cosmologies is adherence to form
not to the content. Look for the essence not the shell.
Michael
Your links are interesting.
I got to talk a lot with people who are both wise and believers (there aren't many like that 🙂 ). Some of them are captives in their community and simply cannot afford to start thinking that they might be wrong - the social price is too high.
Another part underwent indoctrination - persuasion by shrewd clerics. Mostly they are told all kinds of facts (false of course). For example - the ancients had profound scientific knowledge that cannot be explained, such as the length of the year for example. Or, that it is unlikely that a random process like evolution could cause life to develop. Convincing that the serious errors in the Torah are actually very deep information that we simply do not understand. Or there is no morality without religion. And so on….
But, as Dawkins says, belief is a process of not thinking. As soon as you start a serious conversation with them they are sealed to the facts.
Regarding scientists who believe:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
http://www.nrg.co.il/online/55/ART1/748/479.html
http://www.calcalist.co.il/local/articles/0,7340,L-3480323,00.html
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/26/science/la-sci-religion-analytical-thinking-20120427
I went through some comments and saw that they continue to deal with the subject of altruism and devote more to it than insisting on its name, so I decided to add another reference of my own.
Altruism almost never creates stability.
What happens to a single altruist in the population happens to any number of altruists - they have a disadvantage and they gradually disappear.
The attempt to explain altruism by relying on Price succeeds in doing something only after he invents a very specific scenario in which there is a population that constantly moves between a state of a united population and a state of distribution into small subgroups.
Broadly speaking - this process makes it possible to define the group as a "replicator" and to apply principles of natural selection to it, and only in this way can group selection be created.
If the population remains "stuck" in one of the situations - the "altruists" will gradually disappear because within the group they are in they have a disadvantage.
Therefore - this explanation (which is not Price's formula, I emphasize, but an additional assumption that is essential to the conclusion) is not suitable for any population that does not go through it.
In short - it is only suitable for populations of bacteria, microscopic fungi, and perhaps certain insects.
That's why I also qualified and said at the beginning of my speech that this explanation does not provide an answer to altruism that is not automatic.
You can find a slightly more comprehensive review on the subject atThis article from Scientific American And in the links she points to (mainly In this link).
http://www.haaretz.co.il/magazine/zifferland/.premium-1.2051654
http://www.haaretz.co.il/news/politi/1.2051408
http://www.haaretz.co.il/news/education/.premium-1.2051898
sympathetic
Regarding the ants - you only reinforce my words. There is a biological explanation for the phenomenon. Biology is based on chemistry, and chemistry is based on physics. Therefore, there is also a physical explanation. The physical explanation includes a description of a trillion trillion atoms - would you call that a description?
To say that there is only matter and laws of physics is to ignore the issues of space and time, of fields and of randomness. And if you dig deeper, you will find that there are many who think that there is no such thing as a "material" model. The real world is much more complex than the world of religion……….
I know there are scientists who believe. As smart as they are, I'm sure they have a "disconnect in thought" between the two worlds. Nothing will help - science and religion do not go together. A scientist does experiments when he has a question. I have yet to see a scientist who put the existence of God to the test...
Miracles
Let's start from the end, why ants walk in a line. I think there is a biological explanation for this
The ants secrete a substance that the other ants recognize and that's how they walk
In the wake of the secreted substance. Just as a curiosity Richard Feynman the famous physicist
Dealt with the question of ants as a student with many ants in his room.
True, not everything Rambam said is true, but that still does not make us
to more moral or wiser than him.
You write
"Matter is a concept from the world of physics, and in the world of physics opinions
Divisions regarding this point". I would appreciate it if you could show me where in the world
"Physics" There are those who claim that there is more to the world than material and laws
physics. By the way, there are those who claim otherwise, in general there are many physicists
Excellent ones who are also religious (the Hebrew University has at least three
those with an international name).
Shmulik,
Let's start from the end, I probably wouldn't accept what your crazy is screaming though
It is not entirely clear to me that it is not. You keep looking again at the shape and not at
the essence The essence in religion is the spirit and not its cosmological theories or
her biology. Religion has existed for thousands of years and wise people have dealt with it this way
To dismiss it all just because of wrong cosmological theories is nonsense.
Regarding the meaning of life, it is in many cases greater than you, even if you are secular
Some people dedicate their lives to their family, some contribute to society in this way
that the claim that there is nothing bigger than our lives is inaccurate. An essential part of humanity
is a search for meaning. What bothers me is the perception that we are the good ones
the most moral and the wisest. Not a bit of self-criticism and humility
hurt Indeed, the modern secular society is the most advanced in terms of
Technologically, but in many other respects it lags far behind companies
Ancestors
ארי
It is easy to be condescending in the religious society, but in the secular society one becomes much more practical
Injustice on average. The pursuit of greed is what drives many secularists because matter has replaced the spirit
And when all that was thought of was your desires, in many cases people trample others. so how
They say Tol Cora is between your eyes. Religious are an easy target but a true test of
The friendship shows that the religious world is not so terrible and in many respects it is better
on the secular
sympathetic
Not everything Rambam said was true. For example - he was a racist. For example - he brought proof of the existence of God, a proof that is not offensive.
You say that in the secular world they believe that there is only matter. This is simply not true, and I think it is due to ignorance. Matter is a concept from the world of physics, and in the world of physics opinions are divided about this point.
What we do say (at least I say...) is that:
1. In the world there are only physical, natural concepts. There is no phenomenon in the world, and there never was, that cannot be explained physically. Of course we don't know all the explanations today, and Tenley never will.
2. Despite this, there are phenomena in our world that cannot be explained physically. For example, why do ants swallow a row? The reason for this is complexity.
You shouldn't believe in things that don't exist. You have to think, that's all 🙂
sympathetic,
The meaning of your life is what you pour into it and if there is no greater meaning, then there is none and I suggest you just get used to the idea. I can wish for something bigger than me, that doesn't make the wish real. I can want to have freaks around me, dancing and happy, that doesn't make them real so I don't get your argument completely. An example built on lies does not create reality and the fact that you invent something bigger than yourself is bad and unnecessary. You don't need it. Stop lying to yourself and be excited that even though the chance that you were supposed to be born in this exciting time tends to zero, you were still born and will look for meaning in real things. There is no problem finding happiness and sublimity in art, books, family, children, sports, etc.
I don't state that reality is just matter and that's all there is because it would be arrogance to claim that. I say there is no evidence of anything else and I live in peace and tranquility with that and find sublimity and wonder in the world around me.
Regarding Rambam: If he told the children that they would have no part in the next world if they did such and such, he is a liar. If he told people that they would go to hell (I am aware, I am not sure that this garbage "hell" entered Judaism already in his time) then he is a liar. Do you understand the direction? He was a giant on countless levels, I am dirt at his feet and at the time he lived it was probably difficult to be anything other than religious, but that does not change the point: we live in the 21st century and we already know why there are diseases, and why there are earthquakes and that God revolves around the sun and not the other way around (well, they both revolve around the common center of gravity point which is probably somehow inside the sun) and we all, but we all get the following Mark Twain quote:
It is best to read the weather forecast before we pray for rain
So why should we accept nonsense that people said 5000 years ago?
You did not answer me. Would you accept what my crazy screams?
sympathetic
The difference is that your friends from Beit Shemesh are not individuals, it is a community. They perceive their actions as a religious ideal, these are not just expressions of violence. Only religion can make an essentially normal person, not a psychopath, behave in a horrible way and feel conscientiously wonderful about it. It's a matter of poor education.
And in the context of a social rule: ultra-Orthodox society cannot be tolerant because Halacha is inherently intolerant. Religious people cannot allow permits but only add prohibitions, and because of that religion only tends to become more and more extreme over time.
Of course there are much more moderate religious or traditionalists, will they be the face of religion in the end, in 50, 100 years?
ארי
You also find the extreme cases easy to cling to. also
In the secular society you can find an extreme case of behaviors. the mother
Which define the whole society?
Shmulik,
I will start with the second part of your words,
” You would hear about a madman breaking statues and screaming about it
One should believe in one God who created the world and tells
A strange story about a rib and a talking snake, and therefore needs another
That you enjoyed 8 days of your baby's perfection, cut the
His penis is a specific length, so you have to thank him for not
Did he create you as a woman?"
As the Indian religious sages say, "You must look for the source and not
the shapes". The essence of religion is not the apparent claims
Go crazy. The essence is the search for meaning in life,
Order in a world that seems arbitrary and chaotic to us, the desire to connect
to something bigger than us and the desire to believe that there is something more
greater than our material existence.
It's easy for you to see the brainwashing that the religious go through but
The secular society is also subject to brainwashing from the age of 0 and it is
Much more sophisticated. From the age of 0, secularists learn that the world
He is just material and an attempt to treat him more oh childish at best
or false. You keep talking about religion as being based on a lie
And you refer to the ultra-Orthodox when you give examples, but there are all
Various types of religions and religious. In addition do you believe that Adam
Like Maimonides was a liar?
Safkan,
There are websites that convert Epub to pdf format, then it can be read comfortably on various tablets without downloading paid apps, very convenient.
sympathetic,
This is a very problematic question, because if, from the age of 0, you are subjected to the straitjacket of indoctrination, how will you know that there is something better elsewhere? Only freedom of choice can allow you to do that, and therefore where are more satisfied is not a good question and yet, it is clear to me that in the secular society people are more satisfied. I will once again add the force of the reflexive throat and agree that there are many ills in secular society that must be corrected, but under no circumstances, basing an entire life on lies and invented restrictions, is not the way. Just look at the panic in which the ultra-orthodox society is, about its various afflictions such as access to the Internet. Is hiding the truth from her people the right way? of course not.
Ask yourself the following question: Suppose the Jewish religion had not come into the world 5000 years ago, a time when they knew nothing about anything and every explanation was wrong. They did not know what causes diseases, why there are earthquakes, why there are floods, why it rains, etc., etc. Let's say that now, in our day, you would hear about a madman who breaks statues and screams that you have to believe in one God who created the world and tells a strange story about a rib and a talking snake, and therefore you should, after enjoying 8 days of your baby's perfection, cut his penis to a specific length, and therefore you should Thank him for not creating you as a woman? Would you have believed this madman and would religion have become a phenomenon?
MouthHole
I forgot to put my *nick* in the link I gave above to Edward Wilson's book.
MouthHole
You can download Edward Wilson's book (on an elaborate eusocial animal community structure, including human communities) at the address listed below. Among other things, the book gives a good and convincing explanation about the development of morals, the evolution of altruism and the other characteristics prevalent in the socialist society.
https://rapidshare.com/files/2151333561/wilson_-_the_social_conquest_of_earth.epub
The book is in EPUB format. Android tablets have software that reads books in this format. In Windows systems, you can download free programs for reading books in EPUB format. Printed books can be bought on AMAZON.
sympathetic
(I feel free to comment even though I wasn't asked)
"Where are people more satisfied in secular or religious society?"
I am secular and prefer to remain so, is the Halachic Jewish religion inherently able to accept this?
"Where are there less gaps in religious or secular society?"
Let's say - it depends on whether you choose to refer, for example, to the ugly discrimination of Mizrahim by Ashkenazim in ultra-Orthodox society, which is true, most of them are equal in their poverty.
"Where is there more concern and solidarity in secular or religious society?"
The Taliban of Beit Shemesh, is this also concern and solidarity? Solidarity of clamps I would say.
Fan, I'm not sure the real answers to the questions you state at the end serve your bottom line
: )
Shmulik
I am also not frightened by the fact that man is only material, but I am frightened
From attempts to define it using developed scientific theories
for animals. Altruism can be scientifically rationalized,
Art and culture by evolutionary theories but to think so
You understand these phenomena, it's scary.
Secular society is based on the premise that the individual person
He is in the center and his wishes are what matters. traditional companies
(including religiosity as well) depart from the assumption that the group originates
It is the center and from an individual in the group the importance of the person is derived.
Putting the person and his desires in the center is one of the scary things
In the secular society, lack of appreciation for the spirit and learning scares me
me in the secular society. The thought that the world would be better
If we all behave rationally she scares me. you say
That the religion is based on a lie, what exactly is the lie that it is based on
About him?
In addition, let's put beautiful theories aside for a moment and examine
Where are people more satisfied in secular or religious society? where
Are there fewer gaps in religious or secular society? where there is more
Concern and solidarity in secular or religious society? as they say
The English:
the test is in the pudding
Price formula:
I emailed Professor Alan Grafen of Oxford after seeing his review of the book whose translation started this whole debate.
Here is the email:
Hello,
I've read your article on the book "The price of altruism" on: http://bnreview.barnesandnoble.com/t5/Reviews-Essays/The-Price-of-Altruism/ba-p/2903 and I have a question regarding the Price Equation and Altruism.
Please excuse my English as it's not my native language and actually, I'm an electronics engineer (don't hold it against me) so I'm sort of a layman when it comes to the theory of evolution.
I had a debate with someone who claims the Price Equation is a non-starter when it comes to explaining how the Altruism trait can spread throughout the population and is actually useless.
That is because the equation needs more than one altruistic individual (actually a number much bigger than one) for it to work, which suggests that since there are already many altruistic individuals, no thanks to the mathematics of the equation, why do we need it in the first place?
My view is that he is wrong, and I based it on the Wikipedia definition of the equation and I didn't see any lower bound (except for 0 of course) but I was unable to convince him
Thanks in advance,
Shmulik
Here is his answer:
Dear Shmulik,
You are right, but your friend has a kind of point. Theories of altruism by inclusive fitness do rely on there being more than one altruism gene to give a selective advantage to altruism (one to cause the altruism, and another gene in another individual to benefit and so to have more copies as a result of the altruism ). But although this looks like a problem, it isn't. New mutations, if completely neutral, would sometimes go immediately extinct, but often spread purely by chance initially and then go extinct, and very very occasionally (in a diploid population of N individuals, the chance is 1/(2N)) spread purely by chance to fixation. So the selective advantage detected by the Price Equation has many opportunities to matter in providing a systematic force in favor of altruistic alleles, even though it does *not* operate when there is exactly one of them. This kind of question is discussed occasionally in the technical literature, and has been since (if I remember right, though the details escape me — it's not really a very important point) about 1970.
Price himself, of course, was also an engineer.
Best Wishes,
Alan
Here is the review:
http://bnreview.barnesandnoble.com/t5/Reviews-Essays/The-Price-of-Altruism/ba-p/2903
And here are the pages of
http://www.sjc.ox.ac.uk/373-693/Professor-Alan-Grafen.html
http://www.zoo.ox.ac.uk/people/view/grafen_a.htm
His email: alan.grafen@sjc.ox.ac.uk
It is clear from his answer that in order to activate Price you need more than one specification (although two seem to be sufficient) and in any case, and this is the important point, he also believes that Price's formula is important to explain why altruism is a stable evolutionary strategy.
sympathetic,
I could get into a discussion with you that we won't get out of, about what spirituality is, but we won't get out of it, and say that even if man is only material, then this material has brought up very beautiful ideas, such as the golden rule that jumps us beyond animal behavior, so I'm not scared of being just material.
The ideas that are the basis of the secular society are not based on lies like those of the religious society, and as a principle, truth is always better than lies. I will, of course, agree that an addiction to achievements and the pursuit of wealth without social solidarity will lead us to disaster (it is already here), but social solidarity, humanism, liberalism and democracy that rest on man alone are the great secular ideas of the last centuries and they are the ones that have brought us wonderful achievements in all respects, also Spirituality.
Shmulik
My answer is awaiting confirmation I must have mentioned the word
The forbidden "religion" or something like that. Where is the liberal secular society?
Shmulik
Funny to hear that my presentation of the secular world is "wrong and monolithic"
I would say the opposite, that your presentation of the religious world is one-dimensional
Simplistic and distorted. Bottom line what I'm saying is as soon as you
Giving up the spirit all that remains is the matter. The secular world has partially given up on
The spirit is therefore drawn into the material world. The material is measured in money and therefore the world
The secular pursues greed. You too when you write "the developments that have passed on the species
The human race in the last few centuries has been due to secular science, despite religion
And not because of her.", you are talking about technological and not spiritual developments. the company
The secular as a society cares less about its members, there are huge gaps between groups
diversity of the population. It is convenient to see the secular society as progressive but
Spiritually she took several steps back and in terms of her perception
of man it is based on a lie. Man is not mere matter, the world is not
Animal desires only, the exact sciences work fine but try to use
In their methods on man they are ridiculous and even dangerous.
Regarding the Price formula and altruism
I still don't understand from Michael's model why someone, in order to block the suffering he feels for the suffering of the other, would perform actions that would reduce his ability to survive and reproduce (if this model is supposed to replace other models, that is the question it is supposed to answer, i.e. also about extreme situations) Without the insights that Price's formula provides.
By the way, the title of De Val's article that I posted here a few comments ago is:
Putting the Altruism Back into Altruism: The Evolution of Empathy
http://www.life.umd.edu/faculty/wilkinson/BIOL608W/deWaalAnnRevPsych2008.pdf
And again, anyone can enter the value of the Price equation on Wikipedia and check if there is a lower barrier there, I did not see that there is. I have posted this question in several different forums. I have no idea what the answerers know. I'm still hoping for more answers.
Here's what I got so far:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AwrBzq1FE8BRSiMAJUDty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20130614080207AAoAuhi
https://www.facebook.com/RichardDawkinsFoundation/posts/10151653649455155?comment_id=28578547&offset=0&total_comments=1&ref=notif¬if_t=feed_comment
https://www.facebook.com/RichardDawkinsFoundation/posts/10151653649455155?comment_id=28593085&offset=0&total_comments=3&ref=notif¬if_t=feed_comment
sympathetic,
I am completely on the secular side. Certainly there are ills that need to be corrected, but your presentation of the secular society is wrong and monolithic. I repeat and remind you that secular society (I'm mainly talking about the West) is not based on lies but on liberal humanistic values that put the person at the center and that religion did everything to delay the moment when the transformation from a religious society to a secular society took place (justifiably for them, they lost power, ordinary earthly power ). The religious society is based on lies and fills the heads of believers and their children with lies in principled racism that does not exist in secular society. So, for example, the prayer that is said every day about men is "Blessed that I did not commit a Gentile, blessed... that I did not commit a woman" (racism and misogyny) and women say blessed that I did as he pleased (note the difference in syntax, which all represents submission). The good things that religion provided a long time ago were adopted by Western culture and moved on, while religion was deeply stuck in the past.
By the way, if you think that there is no pursuit of wealth and fame in the religious society, you are wrong. It may not be iPhone chasing but even though they don't believe in evolution, they also belong to the animal world and therefore basic instincts common to all humans exist there too. Don't over-romanticize the religious society and don't forget that all the developments that have happened to the human race in the last few hundred years were due to secular science, in spite of religion and not because of it.
Just for the record, I'll mention that I left the discussion.
I do not agree with either Shmulik or Ehud (on any of the issues they argued with me about) but there is a limit.
By the way - in the newer version of my article (the one I pointed to from the website "one against all religion") there is both a mention of de Waal's theory and a note of the differences.
De Waal read the English translation of the article and you read his response.
מ
Really, you give me stupid examples of study
in the ultra-orthodox world. I can bring you dozens of examples
of scientific research that is not worth the paper it is written on
On him and his value does not exceed the religious questions you mentioned.
Is it because of these studies that all science is wrong? also
In religious study there are different levels and different questions. also
And this is speculation your scholarly nature comes from your roots
the jews
You also accuse me of trying to attribute the confusion to you
between natural and not. Please re-read my words and see that I am
I wrote natural and then I asked to change the wording for the better
To have a basis for discussion between us, so the change was mine
And I didn't try to attribute any confusion to you (we are having a discussion).
Not signing a legal contract, let's look for hidden intentions
In every word, even if they are not there).
You are also determined to define religion precisely and insist on
these settings. In my opinion, this is a narrow perception of reality.
Reality is too complex to contain definitions
mathematics and try to prove theorems about them, even by trial
Mathematical quantification of biological systems is not very successful.
Religion is a complex phenomenon, it includes many people with
Different perceptions and try to give everyone the same definition and think
That by doing so you are saying something about the world is a misconception
in my opinion The correct way to handle a complex system is
Characterizing its properties is also sometimes done in biology.
Even Darwin, who came up with a comprehensive theory, did not sit in his living room
on the couch and thought what is life? What are species in nature?
Darwin went out and collected data and based on that he established a theory (that's how you do it
in science when dealing with complex phenomena).
Next we will now go out and collect data. Think you are an alien
who comes to earth (without prejudice). We will examine the public again
the religious He lives modestly (in part at the expense of others, the mother
it's bad? Children also live at the expense of their parents so there is
cases where it's not so bad). He is busy studying
in different fields and different levels. The thigh in it is built on
According to the assessment of study and knowledge. On the other hand there is a public and here
I do not generalize you not to be offended who values only money
publicity and fame. The idols of that public
They are television characters who demonstrate ignorance and bluntness
in all their actions. I see a serious problem here
In the secular public that lacks a spiritual side. We have
As the article (on which the comments are attached) also
Implying indirectly, what to learn from the religious.
Shmulik
Let's leave the question of morality for a moment because it seems to me that we are celebrating
in circles without moving forward. By the way these terrible punishments
That the religion promises those who will not uphold its laws, I am not sure that they do
exist in reality. Let's find out first whether you agree that religion
At its core, it is based on spirituality, which means that in the world around us there is
More than material? And now next we will examine the different companies
(I'm more interested in how people behave than trying to define
their morality). On the one hand we see a secular world in it
The spirit has been replaced by the material, there is a pursuit of fame and publicity
There is more appreciation for those who appear on television than those who dedicate
his life to study. On the other hand, there is a world where people live modestly
In studying and in it, those who studied more win. What a world we see
Is it truer or better for you? Racism exists in both worlds, too
In the secular world your country is worth more than others and you will fight
And you will even kill to maintain this perception. also in the world
The secular has brainwashing and preaching that tries to convince that there is no world of spirit only
A world of matter. Do you agree with me that their minds
of children in the secular world are washed by advertisements from age
zero? So the secular world is also based on a lie in my opinion.
And further along the line of a point (his name allows for so much wit):
Why are there never arguments here only on the substance of the matter and always add the body of the judge??
I don't want to start another discussion about it (because he started - no! Because he started!) but to give you a point to think about.. Does the day matter? (It's not a logical fallacy - ad hominem)
Friends, it seems that the debate has dissipated a bit. Let's sort it out. Let's start with summaries:
So let everyone give their opinion on the first letter ('M') in the word Moser.
R.H. Rafai.M
It doesn't matter who I am in the parable, what is clear is that the masterpiece series "Haye Haye", you keep a specific and clear role.
What about the wall by the way?
Michael,
No, I consistently asked not to get into this topic and politely added, after ping ponging with you, that if you want me to refer to it, give a definition and under no circumstances "with claims that I am talking about objective morality". I didn't get into this topic, certainly not with you and also, you admitted at a certain point that you added this topic because of the many arguments you are having here. The facts are on my side. I didn't get off you on the subject because at some point, you put too many words in my mouth and I decided to comment on the matter.
You are still wrong about Price's formula, you have no lower threshold as far as I can see and the math it suggests is the solution to why altruism is a stable evolutionary strategy. It does not pretend to predict the existence of any trait, but it is definitely critical to explaining why a species that has altruism, does not commit mass suicide but survives and the solution clearly talks about situations in which there is a preference for the group over the individual, unlike what you claimed.
I do not understand what is more real in the altruism you propose and there is no such thing as more real except according to your subjective definitions. I don't understand what is real in this context. Everything, so natural selection tells us, stems from evolutionary constraints. At most you can say that in species, starting from a certain level of development, on the basis of the altruism that is common in many less developed species (as the link I sent demonstrates well) and also exists in us, there are other mechanisms that lead to altruistic activities, such as empathy, which is probably less instinctive than what occurs in an ant and as As I have already written, I do not oppose this conclusion.
In addition, as I see it, if in the end some mechanism leads to altruism, here the mechanism ceases to play a role in the sense of explaining why the species survives and the species survives because of the solution that the Price equation offers and in the forums I asked, I still did not receive an answer. If one is received, I will tell, whatever the answer is.
You didn't answer the questions I asked, and that's understandable given the bad and belligerent spirit of this debate, but the questions are still in the air and in any case, because I'm interested in the facts and explanations, and not in fighting with people. Here is another article (unfortunately I've only read the abstract of it at this point but maybe I'll find time to delve into it) and it looks like you'll be interested. If you have already published it or are aware of it, you are welcome not to shout that you have already sent a link to it (there is a limit to how much digging in history I am willing to do) and understand that there are other people who may be reading this thread. In any case, the authors of the article do not claim that the mechanism they propose is "more real" than other mechanisms.
http://www.life.umd.edu/faculty/wilkinson/BIOL608W/deWaalAnnRevPsych2008.pdf
Shmulik:
Not true.
I saw that you talked about the fact that there is no absolute morality, so I wrote that I propose universal morality and that I explained that it is different from objective morality.
You demanded that I define universal morality and objective morality from them and I defined what universal morality is and said that I do not define objective morality because I am not talking about it.
So you came to me with claims that I was talking about objective morality and then I told you that I used the term because you used the synonymous term "absolute morality".
Since then you have not left me on the subject.
You interpret the formula differently from those who described it in Wikipedia and I showed you that they write that altruism should be widespread in the group so that it gives individuals an increased average survival and this is what is needed for the group to grow.
I also explained to you exactly what happens when there is only one altruist and I don't think you dealt with it even though you asked about it.
But know what?
As I said: if professionals understand and like the article - mine.
Don't alert them.
Machel
Allow me to finish the excavations of both of you with a chapter from the book of Job (the book about the good spirit and the evil spirit, and what is in between):
Staaamm, I know you hate it….. 🙂
I started digging!! Stop taking credit from me! Cheeky!
Michael,
Not true, I didn't argue with you about absolute morality and I asked not to get into it and I wrote that if you want to define at least and I gave it as a third example of a situation where you put things in my mouth.
You explained and I didn't get your explanation. I explained another explanation that is completely consistent with the formula, and that is that it is not limited to any threshold, in the links I provided it is said exactly that the individual may lose his reproductive capacity or even his life for the group so that the common genes will continue and the readers will decide which explanation they accept. The explanation is of course not mine, Price's formula is a formula accepted in the theory of evolution. That doesn't mean you can't disprove its necessity, but it certainly doesn't detract from its power.
Since you decided to define altruism differently, I have no ability to argue with you in any way. There is no such thing as psychology except in the sense of phenomena that have not been quantified and precisely altruism has been quantified, at least at such a level that allows linking many species, not necessarily mammals. Since this is so, and since there is a definition for the concept that connects many factors in the animal world, I find no reason to accept an explanation that, according to what you wrote, belongs only to mammals, since they too evolved from more primitive forms that probably had a form of altruism. In the Wikipedia link I provided about altruism in the animal world, Price is mentioned in a place of honor, so I also do not accept your explanation about bees, etc.
Regarding the questions I posted in the forums, there was no time to check yet. I don't know if it interests you, what other opinions would you say on the subject, it interests me.
I can accept the following claim: due to the education that exists in the human species and perhaps in other species, empathy is now used as a very significant factor for altruistic activity. I have no problem with that, but this is not the case in most of the animal world to which the human species belongs.
Again, since my time is also short and I spent too much time on this discussion, I ask: did you define your psychological altruism well in your articles and I missed the definition that allows for a critical discussion as well as what you think can disprove your theory?
I say again:
You started the digging.
I simply explained that I was talking about universal and not absolute morality and you started demanding definitions for absolute morality because you didn't understand that I meant what you called "absolute morality" even after I said it many times.
This argument was forgotten for a while and then you brought it up again in the cherry picking you did to show how bad I am.
Then all you have left is the argument and you forgot what it was about and tried to claim that I attributed to you a belief in absolute morality even though I never did.
The examples you gave in the quote are examples where there are many altruists.
I explained to you that if there is a single altruist, then his altruism does help many of his genes, but not the altruism gene.
Therefore the altruism gene is damaged and the non-altruistic genes are recruited and in the next generation the percentage of altruists will be lower.
Ants, bees and animals that live similarly are often described as a single organism.
The cooperation between the bees with the different roles is similar to the cooperation between the cells of the body.
The word altruism is not appropriate to describe such collaborations.
All the considerations in such nests are completely different and the Price equation does not deal with them either.
Oren Herman - in the link I provided - talks about psychological altruism.
It is about the motivation to help after it participates, along with other motivations, in determining a final decision whether to help or not.
There is such a thing as "psychological" and this is not in contradiction to the fact that psychology (like the weather and climate) is an emergent phenomenon based on the physical behavior of elementary particles.
The general definition was created by the fact that in the beginning they talked about exactly the type of altruism I'm talking about and then they introduced automatic altruism into it just so that the Price equation would have something to grind on, but this does not help the Price equation to explain the real altruism (and I explained why).
Michael,
You started the digging, I just didn't give up at this point. I explained again and again that I do not get into the subject of "how one should live" and even agreed with you that reciprocity is probably the way we are nowadays and the above was already said thousands of years ago. The object of my admiration did not fail, I also explained to you why and I do not intend to repeat it.
You are still wrong about the price but since I know my limitations and what I know, I asked the question I also asked here, in other forums. In my understanding, there is no problem for the individual to die as long as he shares some of his genes with the group and the group survives, therefore Price's formula is valid.
of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_in_animals.
A new study by Samuel Bowles at the Santa Fe Institute in New Mexico, US, is seen by some as breathing new life into the model of group selection for altruism, known as "Survival of the nicest". Bowles conducted a genetic analysis of contemporary foraging groups, including Australian aboriginals, native Siberian Inuit populations and indigenous tribal groups in Africa. It was found that hunter-gatherer bands of up to 30 individuals were considerably more closely related than was previously thought. Under these conditions, thought to be similar to those of the middle and upper Paleolithic, altruism towards other group-members would improve the overall fitness of the group.
If an individual defended the group but was killed, any genes that the individual shared with the overall group would still be passed on. Early customs such as food sharing or monogamy could have leveled out the "cost" of altruistic behavior, in the same way that income taxes redistribute income in society. He assembled genetic, climatic, archaeological, ethnographic and experimental data to examine the cost-benefit relationship of human cooperation in ancient populations. In his model, members of a group bearing genes for altruistic behavior pay a "tax" by limiting their reproductive opportunities to benefit from sharing food and information, thereby increasing the average fitness of the group as well as their inter-relatedness. Bands of altruistic humans would then act together to gain resources from other groups at this challenging time in history.
One in groups of 30 is not such a terrible ratio and it supports what I wrote. There is no problem with one of the hunters being altruistic. This will improve the strength of the group, and will allow the transfer of his shared genes further, even at the cost of his life or at the cost of his ability to reproduce.
Here is what I argued in general: according to the scientific definition of altruism, altruism also exists in ants and I have not seen a single study that talks about empathy there, and since man is part of the animal world, altruism in inferior animals is completely relevant and provides an explanation for the altruism that also exists in us, an explanation that did not need to be limited by species or in quantity or required for empathy or narrow definition.
I understand the root of the argument with you (although there are so many). As soon as you say that you defined psychological altruism, I understand that I really do not understand what he means because there is no such thing as "psychological". Psychological is all the subjects that we still don't know how to quantify and therefore they are under the psychological umbrella and I will assume, if only so that you don't get a heart attack, which is my mistake, I am ending the discussion with you on the subject here. The general definition does not need such reduction.
sympathetic:
It's not that I don't want to engage in spirituality.
Actually the opposite is true and my whole life is dedicated to spirituality but I have a disagreement with you about the definition of spirituality.
In my opinion - the preoccupation with a bull that gored a cow or the Torah of the King or the laws of killing homosexuals or On this list It is not a spiritual occupation even if you sit and study this nonsense all day.
The people who live austerely in the religious world live as parasites on the world of those who work and serve in the army.
The only opinion I have about The wind What they are dealing with is that if she allows them to act like that then she is Stinking.
I looked at myself because you talked about myself.
You are the one who claimed that the pursuit of money is in my eyes (my eyes which are part of myself) a good thing (by the way - again you confused between natural and good and tried to attribute the confusion to me).
In my opinion, the things I said are what characterize the religion.
I also know that everyone who deals with religion from the point of view of its influence on human history defines it in the same way.
I had the chance to hear these definitions in several lectures in the broadcast university series on ancient Iranian culture and in other series.
I also brought you a link where Professor Yuval Noah Harari uses the same definition.
Do you want to define religion differently?
It's your right, as I said.
In this case, you may not agree with the other people who deal with the issue, but as far as I'm concerned - if you define what you're talking about - it's legal.
Deini - but it is not clear if it would interest me.
I am only opposed to religions that meet the definition that I defined, and if you define a religion that includes a can of beer, a herd of giraffes and an antenna, I will agree with you that I have no objection to religion in this definition.
correction:
Upon re-examination, it becomes clear that the dependence of morality on the progress of knowledge is only implied from the article and it is written explicitly (for example in my words about Mother Teresa) only in the comments - including those in the links that the article points to.
Shmulik:
Fed up!
You are dragging me into history and you conjured up the matter of absolute morality.
You probably already forgot but I didn't claim that you claimed there is absolute morality and your obsession with it is simply incomprehensible.
All in all, you said that morality is relative because there is no absolute morality, and I said that although there is no objective morality, it makes sense to talk about universal morality and I explained the difference.
At this point you started digging into the subject of the word "objective" and since then it turns out you haven't stopped.
I also explained to you that even in the original article I explained how morality changes with culture and knowledge, so don't tell me I didn't say it depends on time. I even explained to you that the object of your admiration failed on this subject in his talk about Mother Teresa.
"The Price Equation: I don't agree with you. You wrote: "According to Price's formula - a single individual who is more altruistic than others will not lead to altruism in the group but will become extinct." I don't understand why you claim that. "
Do you not understand why traits that are harmful to their owners are extinct? Run the Price equation and see.
Price's formula allows altruism to be advantageous only if there are enough altruists in it.
It is written in the quotes I brought you. Why do I need to explain more?
Altruism of a single individual may give an advantage to the whole group but to this individual it gives a disadvantage and therefore all those who benefit from his help are those who do not carry the gene of altruism and his help to them does not promote altruism. I just don't understand how it can be difficult to understand this matter!
I say again - clear or not - the Price formula receives the benefits of the feature - both to the individual and to the group as an input. She does not think them. It only calculates the change in the size of the group and consequently - with an advantage, starting from the moment you entered this data.
So maybe it's hard for you to see the benefit in evidence but if you don't see it you won't be able to use the Price formula to predict anything about it at all.
The claim that the group is more important than the individual can only be accepted in evolution if you give a mathematical expression to the term "importance" (of both the individual and the group).
You are welcome to do this and show that the group is more important than the individual (which in case you meet the above challenge there will be a comparison between two numbers). Otherwise it is a value claim.
Your questions:
1. My explanation refers only to species in which there is psychological altruism. I don't know at the moment what they are, but they probably include all mammals to one degree or another.
2. No.
3. No - because I'm talking about psychological altruism and not about automatic altruism.
4. I don't understand the question. It is only important so you can read the explanation.
In conclusion - this is the conclusion for me.
I have devoted much more to this discussion than it deserves.
It is enough for me that those who understand anything in the field accept my words and even get excited about them.
It bothers me that because I am not in the barangay I have no way to advertise in it, but your presence will not help me in this matter.
You're asking me?? What's the deal with the wall??? Go away, don't answer me. The amount of nonsense I heard yesterday was enough for me. I don't need you either.
What about the wall, any results?
Good luck to both parties
Eyes on them and they won't hear...
Nissim, Kamila (if you still occasionally sample the forum) or anyone who knows,
There is a discussion here about the Price equation in the context of altruism and I have a question:
Does the Price equation need a certain amount of altruistic individuals, greater than a certain threshold, in order to be able to activate it, and below this threshold, it ceases to be relevant, or does it, even if there is one altruistic individual in the group, the formula indicates a small advantage (very small even, but still advantage) does a group containing this individual have over other groups?
Thanks
Michael,
You keep dragging me into history but I won't give up at this point. You agree with me and show yourself that I did not write that there is an absolute morality but the opposite and in addition takes my post from the middle and writes like this: "You are trying to claim as if your "relative" is relative to time and the technological level but that is not what you said in the first place." That's exactly what I said in the first place. Here is my first post. of:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/secular-spirituality-240513/comment-page-5/#comments
I asked: "What is the problem with relative morality?" And I added, among other things: "The reason we even talk about absolute morality is that it is good for us in life and we think that this is how it has always been, but this is not the case." "We are good in life" is in the enclave "a high technological level".
Later, already in the second post I sharpened the message and wrote as follows: "Morality, as I see and understand it, is completely related to the technological level at which the culture lives. When we reached a certain age in Western culture, it suddenly became more comfortable to live, easier, simpler, we became free to reflect on what we do to women, children, gays, blacks...".
Nowhere did I claim that there is an absolute morality and when we talked about reciprocity I also explained what the problem (in my opinion) was with reciprocity and I even said that for the future, reciprocity (in the general golden sense and not necessarily in the sense of an eye for an eye and all) is the way I try to live my life. I would love for you to answer the following question: Did you ever think in the discussion that I wrote that there is absolute morality?
My responses are polite and I don't understand what the problem is with writing, after the ping pong between us, that I think you lowered my argument to kindergarten level. If it was impolite in your opinion, I will try to avoid such sentences in the future, with you. That's it, I'm done wasting time on history because I know that in the next post I'll have to do it again, unless you stop yourself.
Price equation: I disagree with you. You wrote: "According to Price's formula - a single individual who is more altruistic than others will not lead to altruism in the group but will become extinct." I don't understand why you claim that. And if he does not become extinct? And why is the scenario I brought unlikely? Altruism may pay off for a group from the first individual in it, because it gives a very small advantage, but a small one with regard to groups that do not contain altruistic individuals and there is no requirement for a certain threshold in the mathematics of the equation. What I'm going to do is present the question in the forum (perhaps Nissim knows the subject well.). The above may not help you, because you decided that the formula is not able to function with one detail, but I don't see it.
I don't agree with you that there is such a thing as categorically clear necessity. I don't agree with you that "clear necessity" prevents research. At most it can be argued that in relation to the alternatives we see today, the necessity is clear for many species, in addition, the argument is a chicken and egg: it is clear that a person with eyes will suffer if left blind but a species in the animal world without eyes. For many species in the animal world, the sense of hearing is just as important. And again, there are species that exist very nicely even without seeing. Let's mention bats and let's not forget the bacteria, which make up half of the living world.
I completely disagree with your claim that "the claim that the group is more important than the individual is a value claim and not a claim that belongs to the field of evolution." This claim also completely belongs to the field of evolution and you are welcome to check it out.
Shmulik:
According to your level of difficulty:
You are trying to claim as if your "relative" is relative to time and the technological level but that is not what you said in the first place.
Here, for example, is a quote from your words:
"It is very difficult to define the concept of morality and in my opinion everyone will have a different perception of the concept"
https://www.hayadan.org.il/secular-spirituality-240513/comment-page-10/#comment-434223
It is relative to a person and in fact to everything - this is the classic concept of "relative morality" whose opposite is absolute/objective morality
According to me, about the Nazis you did answer, among other things, as follows:
"Whatever the decision within the group, morality is not absolute, therefore your question about the Nazis is a reduction of my argument to kindergarten level"
Indeed a wise answer (and I have to admit that it also very nicely confirms your claim about the politeness in your responses that you went through one by one).
It also shows (again) that you were not talking about morality that was only relative to time and place but also to a group of people - again - relative morality which is the opposite of total/absolute morality.
I knew that what you said about politeness in your comments was not true and that I wouldn't have to put in much effort to show it, so you can really see it already in the examples I gave, but here's another one:
"Michael,
You keep missing the point and it's unfathomable. It's as if you want to continue arguing, so you invent straw men and fake claims and try to drag me into a discussion that I'm not a part of."
https://www.hayadan.org.il/secular-spirituality-240513/comment-page-8/#comment-434030
And if you had a claim that I said that your words amaze me and you said that this is probably my strategy, then beyond the above example, it might be worth mentioning this opening as well:
"Michael,
It got weird.”
https://www.hayadan.org.il/secular-spirituality-240513/comment-page-7/#comment-433670
You wrote the claims that I ignore the morality of animals before you read the article (but after I presented it several times).
This in itself is brash and it is doubly upsetting when it is clear that a large part of the article talks about the morality of animals.
I did not disprove the Price formula and I did not abandon it.
I said - and I continue to say - that it does not explain altruism.
Of course, it also cannot in principle explain any feature, but only the way it is distributed in the population, and for this purpose it is based on "utility values" that the user has to enter.
This is a point I must reiterate: to use the Price formula you must determine in advance - and without using the formula - the values of the parameters you enter into it. This in itself throws the ground under the explanation claim that the explanation is given by justifying the values entered into the formula.
According to Price's formula - a single individual who is more altruistic than others will not lead to altruism in the group but will become extinct.
In order for altruism to pay off, there must be many altruists in the group.
This is what I said, this is what Wikipedia says and this is what emerges from the formula.
Therefore it simply does not explain altruism.
When you presented Price's formulation, you wrote as follows:
"While we talk about morality and ignore the elephant in the room, which is our genetics, which forms the basis of morality, Haaretz published an article about George Price, the man who cracked the puzzle of altruism.
For those who have a subscription or are registered in Israel"
So that's it - he didn't crack the puzzle of altruism because he doesn't explain it at all.
He can explain how - starting with a certain level of distribution of altruism, it can pay off, but he does not explain how this distribution can be reached, and that is actually the problem, because if it is not possible to reach this distribution, then there is no altruism, and if it can be reached without the Price formula, then no further explanation is needed ( Because the explanation that brought the distribution up to the minimum necessary distribution for Price is still valid and Price's formula - at most - offers an increase in the rate of spread of the trait).
Regarding the eye - or anything else - there is such a thing as "obvious necessity" and as mentioned, in any case, when using the Price formula, you have to determine all kinds of values that understanding the necessity is necessary in the process of determining them.
The evolutionary advantages of the eye are clear: it allows you to know better what is happening around you.
The only problem with the eye was that in order for it to evolve, creationists tried to argue, many independent things had to evolve, none of which provided an advantage on its own. They called it "inextricable complexity".
The answer is given by presenting a process in which the eye develops gradually and in small steps, with each stage of the process conferring an advantage over the previous one (and they did not use any formula to determine the advantage. They could only use formulas to determine the rate of spread of the feature given the advantage it confers) and the advantage attributed to each stage was Obviously - the necessity was clear.
The claim that the group is more important than the individual is a value claim and not a claim that belongs to the field of evolution.
The group has an effect on the fitness of the individual but what determines whether the group survives is the fitness of the individuals (which is also affected by the characteristics of the group).
I have to finish now because I have a lot of things to do today.
I will turn to the rest of the response later (not sure if today).
Michael,
When my comment is published, feel free to ignore point 2. You addressed it yourself.
Michael,
Easy to respect.
You keep putting things in my mouth. I entered the discussion with the claim that there is no absolute morality but relative (relative to time, to the technological level) and I demonstrated this over and over again and then you asked me, so there is no claim against the Nazis, etc., etc. And you have already answered this repeatedly why I actually have a claim against them. At a certain point I agreed with Ehud (then he was still a fan and not Ehud) that God offers absolute morality, but I also qualified this later, but the discussion with Ehud was after and unrelated to the discussion that developed with you. You were wrong, you mixed me up in a discussion I didn't belong to, and all I wanted was to not address the concept you brought up, so after you yourself said it didn't exist, I wrote that it was agreed upon: there is no such thing as absolute morality in order not to add another unnecessary topic to the debate. Is this topic closed?
I went through my comments and all of them, including the last one where I wrote that you put things in my mouth, were polite. After 2 responses in which I expressed my opinion (which did not oppose your opinion) after reading your article, I wrote to you that I want to go deeper into your article again and in between I asked you questions and all politely. If you chose to be hurt, it wasn't meant to be. Go read my previous posts and you will see that these were questions that did not come as an attack. I am ending this part of history therapy because it is taking up too much of my time.
I have already explained why the Price formula is valid as soon as the feature exists and as long as you do not bring new data, since you have in no way refuted it or abandoned it, as far as I am concerned the issue is closed. There is a stipulation that the type of altruism should be consistently uniform in the group (that is, several types of altruism should not develop) but under no circumstances is it claimed that another individual cannot start this snowball and as soon as one individual has the trait, it is a good strategy. Even if we assume for a moment that your explanation is correct, it does nothing to the formula because it describes why altruism is a stable evolutionary strategy and if anything, it completes the point of your words (to which I will immediately refer) and I have already written that it is clear that the formula does not predict altruism but rather it explains why , once the trait is already there, even in one detail, it can thrive. It is not the role of the formula to predict altruism but to explain how it is an effective strategy, just as evolution does not explain how life developed over the past but rather explains that after life and genes exist (although I do not know if this is a necessary condition), it comes into action.
Regarding the eye (or any other feature): there is no such thing as clear necessity and therefore the question of why the feature exists is not asked. Evolution doesn't work that way. The general (general) assumption is that every gene in our body or every organ has an evolutionary justification (or there was or at least no connection) and when there is no clear justification, efforts are made to explain it. Certainly they tried to explain why the eye developed and the why I mean is not why in terms of someone's desire but what are the evolutionary advantages when the eye developed. Since the eye developed slowly, at first probably to differentiate between light and dark, i.e. as a very primitive organ, the processing capacity required diverted resources from other operations. In addition, because without a doubt, the vast majority of higher beings have eyes, it is intriguing how creatures that did not develop eyes evolved and what mechanisms they use. An easy example of such a fish.
http://www.livescience.com/22807-cave-fish-cousins-separated-by-ocean-linked-by-dna.html
You wrote: "Among other things, beyond the misinterpretation of things, you even used the claim that its place would not be recognized in evolution and it is only appropriate in politics (don't catch me with the word absolute/objective) that the group is more important than the individual." - And this is exactly the problem and the formula provides the key to the solution. The formula explains that the reason the individual will sacrifice himself at one level or another is to strengthen the group since most of the individual's genes are found in the group.
Let's try to move forward. I have a few questions:
1. Does your explanation refer only to species of a certain level of development?
2. Would your explanation be disproved if I showed you that sociopaths who commit altruistic acts exist?
3. Will your explanation be refuted if I show you that there are species that perform altruistic actions and no empathy has been observed in them?
4. How much does the organ of evidence think of your explanation?
By the way, in my opinion, altruism is altogether a type of extreme behavior that is on the continuum in a group where there is an asymmetric division of roles in order to strengthen the group in order to improve the transfer of shared genes.
sympathetic,
A religion based on a lie at the most fundamental level cannot be moral in principle. A religion based on commandments accompanied by a bribe or punishment (usually a crazy punishment) cannot be moral. I gave a kind of definition to morality or at least what I think when I think of morality and I associate morality with free will (and I'm not starting to debate here whether or not there is free will at the most basic level. If there is no free will, there is no morality) and the empowerment of life. Free will is something that is not found in abundance in religion. Racism (in the sense of discrimination against someone who is Jewish versus someone who is not Jewish), which is the opposite of every moral principle I know, is built in the Jewish, Muslim and Christian religions and it cannot be a good basis for morality.
I will add again that religious people can certainly do good deeds, and there is no fundamental contradiction here. All their work is dictated to them by the system of commandments
Morality is not just rules of conduct that exist in any society but something that should be higher, a sort of behavioral principle to which we should strive.
מ
Let's say you don't want to engage in spirituality, now you can return to a later topic
More. You write “The reason you didn't get it is that you wanted it again
To sell the nonsense that capitalism replaces religion." I am
As a scientist and man of natural sciences I was trained to look at the world and from within
This observation draw my conclusions on him. I see a secular world
In it there is a pursuit of money, fame and publicity and on the other hand I see
A religious world where people live austerely and are busy studying. You do
An impressionist usually observes oneself in most cases and deduces from that
Conclusions about the world "And of course all my dealings with altruism,
morality, free will, science, mathematics, language, education, legislation,
An attempt to explain what I'm saying to people who insist on not understanding."
As a rational person what is the way to develop a theory to define a definition
A comprehensive problem about a complex phenomenon "Religion, as I (and everyone else
which deals with the subject) defines - is a system of derived rules of conduct
from a transcendental source" or is it better to look at the world and
The people in it and draw conclusions from that?
And of course all my dealings with altruism, morality, free will, science, mathematics, language, education, legislation, trying to explain what I'm saying to people who insist on not understanding, etc. are not intended except for the pursuit of money and there is nothing in them that in your eyes deserves the title of "spirituality"
sympathetic:
As usual - you do not refer to the answers you did receive and you prefer to claim that I did not answer even though I did.
I said what I see as religion.
Spirituality is not part of the definition of religion (even suppose the word spirituality was well defined).
As soon as a person is bound by rules of behavior dictated by a transcendent factor - it really doesn't matter to me if he calls his path "spiritual". It is clear to me that he obligates himself under certain conditions to act against what he would define as morality if he were not enslaved to religion.
You didn't understand the point of the polls and the poverty line at all.
They were only introduced to show the fact that people judge themselves relative to others and this is true for any measure.
The reason why you didn't understand this is that you wanted to sell the nonsense again about capitalism replacing religion and it really wasn't important for you to understand what they were trying to demonstrate to you.
Oh, actually that's not all you wanted - you also wanted to discredit me and say that in my eyes the pursuit of money is good.
I wonder why I stopped working for the money already more than five years ago (but that's just a fact - so what's even interesting about it - right?)
מ
Sorry, it looks good to you (instead of the word natural) because right now we are
Good and bad are discussed.
מ
Some people don't judge their lives by what they have or don't have
to them and in particular do not judge their lives according to what others have.
People living spiritual lives in general and in this context also religious
live like this On the other hand, the secularists are only interested in how many there are
benefit in relation to their neighbors. Religion was replaced by persecution
The money is with the seculars and it seems natural to you.
מ
As usual you don't answer questions. Is religion based on spirituality or not?
simple question.
I would still choose A.
And if I discovered a price gap - then I would compare the recommended price for the consumer and compare the income against the expenses and check and decide what is worth more to me.
They wouldn't answer you.
I would choose the first option without a second thought.
But before that, I would ask if there is a price difference between village A and village B... 🙂
sympathetic:
And as for my father - even if you knew him personally, you wouldn't be able to find out how he would have felt if his life had been different.
On the other hand - this is a known phenomenon.
Humans judge their personal situation - not against an absolute measure but in comparison to what they know.
You are welcome to observe, for example, the definition The poverty line and see that it is also relative.
I once read a study that went something like this (I don't remember where and I don't remember the numbers exactly, so I will describe a story that is similar to it only in principle):
People were told:
You have the option to choose between two options: receive $100 per year provided you live in a village where the average income is $200 per year, or receive $75 per year and live in a village where the average income is $50 per year. Which option would you choose?
An overwhelming majority chose the second option.
sympathetic:
As I said - this is my definition (and that of all those involved in the subject) of religion.
Against this I struggle.
Not against anything else.
If you find something that does not meet these characteristics, you are welcome to call it a religion and accept a "religion" that I will not fight against.
Shmulik
The previous comment is from me
Shmulik
The question is whether religion at the principle level is immoral the examples you give
Regarding Judaism as you perceive it, they are a narrow view of the concept of religion. established religion
On spirituality. It is based on man's desire to explore the world around him, why there is
Suffering, what is man's role in the world and what should he do. Note free will is a thing
Either it exists in the person or not, but its existence does not depend on external restrictions. if I
telling you so and so will happen if you do something I do not equate your free will. easy
Go describe the religious brainwashing but what about the secular brainwashing? Children
From the age of 0 they are exposed to advertisements and messages from television and society that those who are successful are good
He who is rich is successful. Isn't this brainwashing? What is the world's alternative?
The secular to the religious world. What's more, Judaism for many Rabbis is a religion that devotes study
and the intellect.
מ
I wrote that I do not know your father's story firsthand because you
You told him, I didn't claim that you invented him, I just claimed that I couldn't find out
Details in relation to him, would if your father knew there were other options
Was he unhappy? What even determines his happiness, what he has or what he is
Want, or something inner spiritual?
Regarding religion, you define what religion is and fight against its signs as you defined
them. Religion is not only "a system of rules of conduct derived from a transcendental source"
Religion is a complex thing, it includes many ideas and layers. Your perception
of religion is simplistic and narrow and similar to your view of science as defined
by the scientific method only. As you learn firsthand
"The first sentence in his words, along with Oren Herman's words,
presenting a painful point which is the inability of a person not to
Came from the barangay to hope that people from the barangay will help advertise
His words, but that's another story."
Science is also complex and has different layers and sides.
But let's get back to religion and move forward step by step. do you agree
(and this is not a rhetorical question) that religion is based on spirituality?
Spirituality for me is the concept that human life
consist of more than the sum of the visible world. while science
deals with the questions of what is in the world and why it behaves
As it seems to us, spirituality deals with the question of what is
Suffering and why it exists in the world, what is happiness and what is its function
of man in the world.
In fact, if one wants to be even more precise, the Price equation does not deal with the evolutionary justification of traits but with the evolutionary justification of their distribution in the population.
It makes it possible to understand the development of the distribution of the trait in the population according to the characteristics of the group and the characteristics of the benefit and cost of the trait.
It leaves the basic cost and benefit characteristics to its user to determine by himself and it only allows to predict how these characteristics will affect the demographics of the feature in the group.
When you try to use it to justify the spread of altruism in the population, you find that in order for it to be able to spread at all, it has to be widespread in the first place.
In my eyes, this is the definition of a non-starter.
It can be used in later stages to give further justification for circulation but it cannot be used to explain how it reached sufficient circulation in the first place.
This is a problem of all mutually binding qualities and therefore, for example, even though language helps us when there is another person who can speak - this benefit does not explain how we started speaking (because the first speaker had no one to speak with and therefore we have to look for another reason to explain how we got to the situation where there is many people who are able to speak).
This is also the reason why I wrote you The article on the development of language.
Note:
In the description of the Price equation, there is indeed a reference to the development of vision, but it is not intended to explain why vision developed, but to demonstrate the fact that the Price equation works
Shmulik:
It seems to me that you have moved on to an ad hominem discussion and I really want to stop talking to you.
I no longer remember if you said you didn't understand the Price equation or just proved it in your words about it, but one of the two clearly happened.
I didn't say that you said there is no connection between empathy and altruism, but you did say that what I (and the article you cited on the matter) said about the subject is not accurate (and not being accurate is a kind of not true) and you based this statement on inaccuracy in things that neither I nor the writer of the article in question said.
The topic of objective morality came up (well - you really go far to gather from the threshing floor and from the winery - but I didn't forget) - and I explained it - because you and someone else talked about an objective message only you called it absolute morality - so - Big Deal - I used a synonym .
You wrote that you don't understand my explanation after you wrote many things that oppose it. This is the wrong order of discussion. The things you wrote as an objection were not formulated as questions of clarification but as attacks.
In fact, we have an example of this from your last response as well: you wrote that a claim I did not make was inaccurate instead of asking for clarification.
There is no such thing as "becoming an altruist" everyone has an altruistic impulse that sometimes they act on and sometimes they don't. It depends on many things, among them the amount of effort or self-risk that is necessary to thwart the other's pain
I don't know what a "good enough" reason is for you and as mentioned - there is no such thing at the level of "becoming an altruist" because there is no such thing as "becoming an altruist". There is such a thing at the level of a single action and sometimes the reason can also be a mistake in assessing the risk or even brainwashing you went through.
I try to write things in a concise way because I assume that those who read my words can tie the ends together, but sometimes I come across a person who tries to ruin the joke and tell me (in a joke about two people who meet on a train) that the place I'm talking about doesn't have a train at all. My altruism is not enough to invest the necessary effort so that such a person, who does not try to understand the idea but on the contrary, has no loophole.
I quoted you the summary theorem of the Price equation on Wikipedia.
I can quote you more places from there,
Everywhere things are claimed that do not correspond to your interpretation of it (and the explicit things written in its description).
I don't have the energy to repeat the quotes again, but you are welcome to read them again and tell me why they don't say what they say.
Among other things, beyond the misinterpretation of things, you even used the claim that it has no place in evolution and is only appropriate in politics (don't catch me with the word absolute/objective) that the group is more important than the individual.
You should know that mutations are created in individuals and not in the group and they only survive if the individuals survive. The Price equation in its interpretation is based on the fact that in a certain division where there are enough altruists in the group - the benefit to the individual will be higher and then the group will be able to grow more than other groups.
The articles you brought are interesting and as I said - support my words. They did not reach the full depth of the conclusions I reached and in the article I explain exactly the logical process that led me from one thing to another.
In fact - in the English version of the article - I even boasted that most things are actually "armchair science" in the sense that they follow logically from simple facts. That was also the order of my thoughts. I thought first of all about the logic and later - since the logic is correct - I also found many supports for the findings.
You want more emphasis on the support and the support I found was enough for me.
It turns out that they were also enough for many others because they really tried to understand.
The comment about the eye is simply irrelevant.
They never tried to explain why the eyes developed because really their necessity is clear and the only question was how, technically, they could develop gradually. You won't find any equation (by Price or anyone else) that deals with the matter.
On the other hand - in relation to altruism - the question is not how but why - that is - what evolutionary justification is there for the matter. In case you didn't understand - this is the only area of activity of the Price equation.
Michael,
Let's count how many "amazing" I get after this comment. I understand that this is a discussion tactic, maybe to scare the other side, maybe to suppress him or maybe just to embarrass him but don't worry, nothing embarrasses me. I have no problem being wrong and admitting it. This is the purpose of discussion. I mention again, you can simply be matter-of-fact without giving marks (as I was in most of the discussion with you) but since you started:
There is a fundamental problem in arguing with you. You invent arguments and then accuse me of being wrong and in them and I can give a few examples, the last of which is that I said that I do not understand the Price equation and that I claimed that there is no connection between altruism and empathy (and we will also recall that somehow I was accused of being too much trouble by you on the subject of objective morality, a concept that I did not introduce but I tried to avoid it because I did not refer to it in any way, but you wrote it for the first time, probably because of another discussion you held here and even admitted it).
Search and you will see that I did not claim that there is no connection between them. It is quite possible that there is, it is possible that they stem from the same source and it is possible that one is the cause of the other, but I wrote that I could not understand what was new in your words, I wrote that I needed time to read your article (how many times do you read someone in the forum who admits that they need more time to formulate a proper answer?) and I asked for explanations Additional to your article. Is it wrong in the forum to ask for explanations? Do you only want people like R. H. Rafaim who agree with everything you say? Read my comments again and you will be convinced. I wrote that I don't really understand or can accept your explanation as a solution to such a deep question. Anyway, I didn't write that altruism can't come from empathy (and if you want, I can repeat that over and over again). I wrote that you don't seem to have shown convincingly that the suffering I suffer as a result of the other's suffering is a good enough reason to become altruistic. In addition, I did not claim that you claim that it is the same level of suffering, but I would understand your argument if it were the same level of suffering, but since it is a feeling that is even difficult to define as suffering, but something subconscious, that in itself does not seem to me to be a sufficient basis for taking empathy and turning it into a basis for altruism And the explanation given to you (which you brought) explains in my opinion (not that I am any function) the empathy. So again, try not to put words in my mouth and yes, I understand that now you will be looking under the carpet to see where I put things in your mouth. Here is an option: write no that you did not claim that I claimed that you claimed that it was the same level of suffering. Try to avoid it.
Obviously there are levels to altruism. It is impossible in the discussion here to cover the whole range and again, I did not claim that you claimed that only sacrifice is an expression of altruism, but the interesting points on the topic of altruism, in my opinion, are the extreme points. Those points where you sacrifice a lot including the biggest sacrifice of all, to help others and not when you give a penny to the poor, when you are a multimillionaire and there is no shortage of money.
I'm sorry, but it seems to me that you are the one who is wrong about the Price equation. Price's equation demonstrates how altruism can be a stable evolutionary strategy and it does not depend on how many individuals there are in the group and therefore it is considered relevant to evolution. If I am wrong, and the Price equation is no longer relevant, fine, but it is not true that it is a non starter. It does not predict the formation of the feature but explains why, once the feature appeared on the map, it is a good strategy.
Note that I have presented two links, one from Wikipedia which all the links to the articles it brings are early to your article. I'm not trying to take anything away from you, but to show that the issue has been investigated. I thought you would be happy to receive more articles on the subject, if you were not familiar with them. In the second link there is a reference to a study conducted in 2006 that tries to test empathy.
I mention again, part of the reason I included the links is because of sentences of the following type you wrote: "The second is that empathy is an inevitable by-product of the need (which has never been sought for justification because its necessity is self-evident) to decipher the environment and predict its effect on the future."
Searchers are also looking for justification for everything, in the sense of when the above-mentioned feature first appeared, in what types of creatures the feature exists and what can be concluded from it, and therefore one of the links is looking for empathy in mammals that are not monkeys. Just as one searches for when the eye (as primitive as it may be) first appeared even though its "necessity is self-evident"
R. H. Rafaim,
By force? really? How old are you?
I invite you not to use your brain and hit the wall without thinking about the consequences first. Post the results here. We will all be happy.
And by the way:
I am truly a Datophobe (and in particular a Natsophobe, Islamophobe, Jewtophobe and Christophobe) proud.
A phobia is a fear and I am indeed afraid of the amount of evil that religions inflict on the world.
thanking.
And among us - who would not be afraid of a set of rules of conduct thatthese laws Are they part of it?
Mouth Hole:
Thank you for your words in response to the doubt, but I did not understand what I said tired you.
: )
Shmulik:
I must state that your words are quite amazing.
On the one hand, you say - as I also said - that there were already people who stood on the connection between empathy and altruism.
On the other hand - you claim that it is not true.
Then you show me an article that discusses the origins of empathy and ignores the fact that this article was written more than a year after my article (which invalidates your argument from the start) and yet does not talk about altruism being a byproduct of the ability (the motivation for its development is clear) to decipher the mindset of the creatures around us .
Then you repeat parts of my article and "explain" them to me.
Then you say that the incredibly accurate things are not accurate.
The suffering of the other causes us suffering because of empathy and because of the fact that this is the only way we can understand what is happening in the mind of the other and this suffering (as all the places you cited also say) the altruistic action is meant to thwart. This is absolutely true and nowhere did I claim or imply (and nowhere did I rely on it) that this is the same level of suffering. I also did not claim that in an altruistic act we sacrifice ourselves - are you trying to say that none of those who are still able to argue here have not performed an altruistic act in their day?!).
Price's equation doesn't mean what you say and to understand it it is enough to read its concluding sentence which I have already quoted to you.
I presented my arguments to serious scientists although not all of them are experts in the field.
Two that were really enthusiastic about them Professor Yoel Rak וProfessor Haim Wolfson (who was then dean of exact sciences at Tel Aviv University)
I also introduced them toOren Herman (the author of the book you mentioned) and he told me that Val had already thought about these things, so I only asked Yoel to ask De Val And it turns out that he didn't think about it and didn't know about it.
Here is the exact quote of his answer to Yoel Rek:
Thanks for sending, looks like an interesting take on the issue, but what do you want me to do with it?
The most common assumption about the evolution of empathy is that it grew out of maternal care, where indeed the mother suffers when her offspring suffers, and that all other forms are an outgrowth of this caring system. I think it may fit with your friend's thinking.
All the best,
— Frans de Waal
_____________________________________________________________
Frans BM de Waal, Ph. d.
CH Candler Professor and Director of the Living Links Center
at the Yerkes Primate Center
postal address:
Psychology Department (PAIS Bldg)
Suite 270, 36 Eagle Row
EMORY University
Atlanta, GA 30322, USA
Tel. (+1) 404/727-7898
http://www.emory.edu/LIVING_LINKS/
"If you think education is expensive, try ignorance" (Derek Bok)
The first sentence of his words, together with Oren Herman's words, present a painful point which is the inability of a person who does not come from the barangay to hope that people from the barangay will help publish his words, but that is another story.
Shmvelik
"The mind through imagination and thought allows us to die over and over there, so that we can survive in the real world"
- Have you ever heard of the expression: only cowards die a thousand times?
This is what you look like. Like a coward who is afraid to face reality. Like most religious people.
Altruism as explained to you is the result of empathy towards the other and 'motivation' to improve the behavior of the other (the sufferer) according to the personal experience of that altruistic individual..
"Improve his behavior" - meaning that he will do good to the general (as long as one person does not screw up too much because of everyone else).
Michael,
I repeat again that the statement that empathy is good for us because it allows us to try to avoid the pain that the other suffers or to enjoy the same source is not a new claim. The mind through imagination and thought allows us to die over and over there, so that we can survive in the real world. The subject of the origin of empathy and the relationship between it and altruism has been researched and here are some links. By the way, I am not making a claim about the correctness of the links, but only to point out that the issue has been investigated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy-altruism
http://bawbrainblog.blogspot.co.il/2012/01/origins-of-empathy.html
Regarding Price, you wrote: “The formula only explains how groups with many altruists may grow. It does not explain how groups with many altruists could even be formed!"
I risk an answer here, because I am not an evolution expert, but in my humble opinion it is not accurate. Obviously, the formula does not come to predict the formation of altruism but explains why a group that has altruism will survive better than a group that does not have altruism, but there needs to be many individuals who are altruistic in order for the equation to start working. The trait itself could have been created by chance (as all traits are created) in certain individuals in the group, and thus, over time, and in evolution there is a lot, a lot of time, the presence of a few such individuals in the group, contributed to the group's ability to survive (to a very small extent) and thus allow the transfer of the altruistic genes Go ahead and spread to the rest of the group. Suppose that at a certain point there is only one individual with an altruistic trait who manages to survive and pass this trait on to the next generation. He is also invited to sacrifice himself after he has passed his genes on. So the group that included one individual with the trait may have survived a little better than other groups (or just luck. Not every trait has to be effective to be passed on) now the group that now includes the descendants of the first altruist will therefore survive a little better and so, in a tedious process And slowly, even one spec with an altruistic trait can reach an entire population with this trait. The formula definitely predicts a better survivability the more individuals with this trait there are, but it does not claim a certain threshold below which it collapses. If I misunderstood her, and she does collapse in a situation where there are too few details, she is indeed a non starter.
In your article you write:
We have a model in our mind that simulates the other.
This model is necessary for us to predict the behavior of the other, so evolution encouraged the formation of such a model.
Since the only way such a model can make it clear to us what the other feels is by making us feel his feelings, he makes us suffer when the other suffers.
An altruistic action is an action we take to thwart this suffering.
The third point is not accurate since we do not suffer at the same level that the other suffers and therefore there is no real explanation here as to why we would want to thwart suffering by our sacrifice because the suffering we feel does not come close to the suffering that our killing will cause or in general how our sacrifice will improve the evolutionary ability of the genes to be passed on. The explanation that Spryce's equation helps to understand is that the altruistic action of the individual helps the group to survive on the assumption that the group is more important than the individual.
Leave the argument with me for a second. Did you present your argument to experts in the field and did you receive feedback or only in the articles you published?
Ehud, Safkan and all the rest
My description of religion is not a simplistic description but reality. In Judaism, the religious are fed from the age of 0 in the Jewish example, study the Torah over and over again and are required to accept the burden of the mitzvot and since the indoctrination begins at the age of 0, the children have no choice. The fact that everything in the Torah is called a mitzvah and they bothered to give it a gematric score: 613 mitzvahs (XNUMX commandments of dos and don'ts) demonstrates how much the lives of religious people are dictated from above and when almost everything is dictated (and in the big things, everything), and in gray situations they run to the rabbi to decide, there is no Here for free will and therefore I do not accept the fact that a religion based on principled commands that come "from above" can be moral. It can dictate the doing of good deeds, but when the doing of the deeds comes as a result of an order or a bribe (the bribe is for honoring a father and if it is an extension of life, what is more than a bribe?), there is no morality here.
In addition, religion is based on telling lies at the most basic level and as I have already written, morality cannot be based on a lie. Note, I am not claiming that lying as a matter of principle must be immoral. For example, a doctor can lie to a patient and thereby activate a placebo effect that will save his life, but when the entire religious dogma is based on lies and intimidation, it is by definition immoral. Science by eliminating nonsense and lies, trusts in revealing truth, while religion in hiding it.
From what I hear from you, morality is in general rules of conduct within a group and therefore the Nazis were also moral, from their point of view. While I accept that there is a relative morality (which mainly moves in time and depends on the technological level) I claim that such a definition empties the concept of content and therefore does not accept such a definition. As I have already written, it is difficult to define morality and I think that everyone, at the end of the day, will have their own personal definition, but I associate morality with free will, telling the truth (lies prevent free will), trying to improve life and empower it, and since I am no brighter than the Book of Leviticus ( "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, I am the Lord." Here, again a threat), from Confucius or Hillel the elder says that in our day (and also thousands of years ago), the golden rule is a good start for defining morality and perhaps the most universal definition I know (my rule is Do not do to others what is hated by them) and certainly the Nazis did not act in light of this rule.
Jure
Maybe you can walk against the wind, but you can't pee against the wind. Why would you get dirty….
And precisely people like me manage better in human society than people like you.
People like you used to be stoned.
SAKAN
Keep your fay.
"I expressed my opinion about religion, spirituality and the whole package of social behavior in previous comments"
As you've probably noticed (and others have too), over the years no one cares what you think. (Besides that what you think is wrong and far from reality in most cases).
skeptic,
Have you tried to calm down a bit? I don't think he would do so well in human society if his attitude is like this even when he is not corresponding.
And although I haven't read the book you recommended, I quite agree with your personal opinion (and of course I think it is far from utopian as Roach brutally pointed out), I will put the book on my reading list.
And regarding Mich, I actually find that he has a very sound sense when it comes to mathematics and absolute things (his logic is higher than mine).
mouthhole
calm down Michael is obsessed with religion and homosexuality and talks a lot of nonsense about it. In short Datofov. Because of his authoritative tone and pseudo-rational reasoning there are people like you who give him credit he doesn't deserve.
As for a ghost with whom an outburst of profanity is an uncontrollable matter, something similar to Tourette's syndrome, don't get pressured by him.
I expressed my opinion about religion, spirituality and the whole package of social behavior in previous comments, there is no point in grinding them again. I strongly suggest reading Edward Wilson's excellent book, in English, named approx
The society conquered the earth.
It is a powerful book about the evolutionary development of man as a social being
U-social.
I am only saying my opinion here that there is no such thing as human morality, each community develops a social contract in order for it to function successfully, the contract is not universal but changes according to the changing circumstances can be extreme. The social contract includes all the elements of the community's culture, including community morality, including religion or other spiritual beliefs, including kindness and altruism. According to Edward Wilson, for about 4 million years all human communities were extremely hostile to each other, when they were in the same territory. Communities would unhesitatingly slaughter each other just like black tribes do in Africa when they come into conflict. Western morality is a utopia empty of content during a test.
"I don't know who you call "stupid". are you calling me stupid Are you saying that Makhal is stupid?”
No and yes. It depends on who is looking. If we say there is an alien who is much smarter than us - humans - then yes. You (and me too of course) are stupid compared to him. In any case, I meant Adam and it was half a joke...
"What you describe is utopia. And that's not how it is in real life. If you manage to understand this, you will be able to reduce your ego in cases where you know there is no need to inflate it"
I know that what I'm describing is impossible - I also mentioned it.. I don't know what all this has to do with my ego. Suri.
"Then you will be able to get closer (at the private level) to the universal morality that guarantees all good."
What you describe here is a contradiction - because if universal morality "guarantees all good" then it is a utopia - an impossible situation. Because the person who will define the universal morality is the person - who is also entitled to change it either according to democracy or according to "every male Dalim" as stated by Mich. By the way, if it hasn't been understood yet, I'd prefer it not to be the case.
again:
I don't know who you call "stupid". are you calling me stupid Are you saying that Makhal is stupid?
What you describe is utopia. And that's not how it is in real life.
If you manage to understand this, and manage to reduce your ego in cases where you know there is no need to inflate it, then you will be able to get closer (at the private level) to the universal morality that guarantees all good.
Mic and wind, it's a bit tiring.
I did not attack you and for some reason I feel attacked. The truth is that I didn't even try to contradict your claims, Mich, I don't understand where you saw that I tried...
mich,
I do not claim that success has anything to do with the concept of good.
I personally also think that universal morality is needed. But there is no way to "prove" that this is indeed the best way. And so the compliance is different.
Breeze,
What is this violence?
""Humans are not smart enough.." - not smart enough like you, did you want to say?" No. just no. I wrote what I wanted to say. And if you dig deeper, maybe you'll understand. Do an experiment - think whether a society where everyone is as altruistic as possible is better or a society where everyone is as egoistic as possible? Human nature (mine too...) is essentially egoistic.. but if everyone were smart enough to understand that personal benefit at the expense of society ends up hurting them too (society would be almost chaos and they would need a lot of laws), everything would look better, wouldn't you agree?
By the same weight, if there were no ZA countries and no armies for each territory, but only a world army whose main purpose is to fight groups that oppose its hegemony through a show of force, don't you think that many killings and wars would be saved? But man is not smart enough for such a thing - everyone has their own desires and will be ready to follow them - how stupid 🙂
"Jure"
"Humans are not smart enough.." - not smart enough like you, did you want to say?
"The Germans were in a really bad situation before Hitler came to the presidency and Hitler did manage to get them out of that situation (according to her claim both because of the exploitation of Jews and because of the military industry)." –
Germany was on the front before the outbreak of the second war because in the first war they lost.
Hitler ate the foreskins of Jewish babies out of a jar, when he was sleeping on a bench outside a synagogue he broke into when he was hungry (after 1st century AD). This is what brought him to hate the Jews.
But if you want conclusive evidence - then not all Nazis really believed in the Nazi ideology.
A significant part of them belonged to the Nazi party and Nazi ideals out of constraints. Constraints that if they had not taken into account they would have been sentenced to die.
Mouth Hole:
As I mentioned - success has nothing to do with the term "good". There are many successful thieves and murderers.
That's why I asked what you think the company is. If you allow anyone to form a "society" (and by virtue of some moral law you prevent this) then it's all Dalim men. Everyone can claim that in his private society, which includes only him, the decisions are made in a democratic framework (and actually - why would he do this - who said that democracy is moral?)
As long as we talk about morality and expect to be understood - we should talk about universal morality and not just that - when coming to someone with moral claims.
I suggest you read what I wrote on the subject and not just comment.
Regarding the unimportant percentages - I really checked Wiki and that's why I wondered...
Regarding the Nazis - according to my history teacher in high school (I can't believe I still remember this), the Germans were in a really bad situation before Hitler came to the presidency and Hitler did manage to get them out of that situation (according to her claim both because of the exploitation of Jews and because of the military industry). So it is true that in the end they were too greedy and opened too many fronts. But before they lost - they did quite well. [So much for the explanation of my intention in noting the success of the Nazis].
Mich, I meant more "democracy" than "all Dalim men" .. the majority determines the majority of policies. I didn't say this is the society I want to live in... absolutely not. That's just the way it is.
If you ask what the utopian situation is in my opinion - everyone works according to their ability and earns according to their needs. that there is no need for laws - everyone will let them know that as soon as you try to harm a company or one of its items, then the company itself will be harmed and in the end you will harm yourself. But it's not Riley either - for exactly the same reason. Humans are not smart enough.
MouthHole:
The percentage is really not important, but if the topic is really important to you - just check Wikipedia.
There are many numbers there and you are welcome to choose one.
Society decides what is moral and what is not?
And who is the company?
Aren't you just talking about any male dals?
The fact that the Nazis were quite successful (indeed - if you measure their success in the destruction of their country and the death of their citizens, they did succeed, but I don't know if that is what you mean when you talk about success) does not make their actions moral (even if in their society killing Jews is considered a moral thing).
I already explained before What I think should be called morality in an atheistic world And I haven't seen anyone suggest anything other than "all Dalim men".
I don't want to live in a world of all male Dalits.
Maybe you want to but take into account the fact that I am more violent than you.
sympathetic:
You say you don't know my father firsthand.
I wonder if you knew Einstein, Dirac, Heisenberg, Schrödinger, Feynman and many others first hand.
If you are trying to claim that I made up the story about my father then I have nothing to talk about with you.
Religion is not at all (but completely!) what you said.
Religion, as I (and everyone involved in the subject) defines it - is a system of behavioral laws derived from a transcendent source, so I have no interest in starting to delve into the reasons you bring to defend something else.
Pig capitalism has not replaced religion anywhere and there is no necessity that it will replace it anywhere.
You will soon ask me - just like the religious - if it is not better to be religious than a drug addict rapist and murderer.
Shmulik
The comment about Buddhism was to Eric. Regarding the freedom of will existing in religion
The believer always has the possibility to sin and the religion took this into account and discussed it
There are many ways in which sin can be excavated, so even according to your perception of religion there is morality.
The model of the religion of a great God who sits above and does no no no no to all
The believers is a very naive model.
מ
Well, let's put the diseases behind us, although it's hard for me to understand how you argue
that you can understand a Tasmanian devil and about your father's story I don't know him or
the story firsthand so I can't relate.
Religion like science is based on a human perception that there is more to the world than
The physical world, while science is looking for the laws that govern the religious world
Or rather, spirituality seeks what is behind human existence. ways
Spirituality aims to seek what is beyond our physical desires they assume
Because there is more to the world than the sum of our desires. Religion is an institution of the search
The spiritual and as an institution like any other institution has its problems. Your perception
of maximizing one's desires (while being constrained) led to an alternative
Capitalism (and pig capitalism). Spiritual ways understood that the way to happiness
Or real life is not a search for fulfilling desires or obtaining money to
fulfill them. By virtue of the person's personality structure, when he is literally you
His desires have new desires. Can you really claim that a world in it
Pig capitalism replaced religion is better? By the way, before we discuss the good
And it is bad to discuss what man is. Is man just a sophisticated animal,
Or have thousands of cultural differences changed something fundamental?
Michael, could you please tell me where the figure of 10% comes from? I only know the ones that are only 2-3%, and that sounds very logical to me if I try to remember the high school/military attack (and even now at work). Of course you will say people are ashamed of it - but in any case - I would appreciate the sources for the data.
And in any case, I agree with a point - society is the one who decides what is moral and what is not. Also in my head - it's really stupid not to accept gays, redheads or people over 190 cm. But what do my opinions matter when the whole society thinks differently?
The Nazis, the example you brought, is a company that did quite well despite its attitudes. Is it bad or good? Who will decide if not the company itself? Right now (fortunately) my girlfriend decides it's a bad thing. But if one day comes and my company decides that it is the moral thing to do - to kill gypsy gays and Jews (her right) - I will have no choice but to look for another company that fits the morality I know.
By the way, of course the Sages did not change the Torah at all - just now I noticed that you wrote that the Sages changed the Torah.
In my previous response I addressed the matter as if you meant the religious laws and not the Torah.
I still think that you really attributed it to the religious laws and not to the Torah and that the reference to the Torah was just a quill.
point:
I did not claim that religion was created by a higher power. I claimed that it was attributed to a higher power. Every religion has a period in which it is shaped and in the case of Judaism this period includes the period of the Sages.
After the formative period comes the fixation and then (if we continue with the example of Judaism) the Oral Torah is also attributed to God.
By the way - Sages also did not make any fundamental changes except to add restrictions and strictures. They never allowed anything that was forbidden in the Torah.
As I said - there is no absolute morality and one can only hope for a universal morality. The question is if you want to exclude ten percent of humans (who are descendants of those you do define as humans) from all of humanity. It doesn't work for me. It did work out for the Nazis.
The psychologists do not think that homosexuality is not innate. Where did you wink that from?! There are psychologists who still err in delusions for religious reasons but to claim that psychologists think so is simply a lie.
"If there is a certain culture that does not want to accept gays, it has the democratic right to do so."
What does this have to mean?
What is the democratic right of culture? The concept is not clear to me.
And what if there is a certain culture that does not want to accept redheads?
And what about a certain culture that does not want to accept patients?
And what about a certain culture that does not want to accept the poor?
Regarding the results of the culture's attitude towards homosexuals - not only is there information about the consequences but it is even self-evident.
First of all, it is about 10% of the population (the order of magnitude according to certain estimates. Some estimates give more and some give less) that the homophobes want to remove from society for no injustice.
Secondly - it is impossible to point to one useful thing that comes out of this for someone (except for the satisfaction of the homophobic brainwashing that went through)
And if you're looking for real findings - perhaps it's worth remembering Turing - the gay man who took mathematics and computer science considerable steps forward and who during World War II was responsible for cracking the Nazi encryption (the Enigma) and to whom we can attribute quite a bit of the credit for the victory of the Allies in the war.
This dear man, who saved millions with his wisdom, was ultimately brought by those millions of people to commit suicide when they condemned him to choose between chemical castration and imprisonment.
If those millions of people had discovered that he was gay before the war - they would have died!
1. Sages changed the Torah completely.
Despite the claim that the Torah is of non-human origin.
2. Nature is a breeding ground for genetic and evolutionary experiments, this does not mean that society must accept every product of these experiments. And as for whether homosexuality is innate or not, it doesn't matter at all. The psychologists think it is not innate. And even if it is innate, it does not matter in the sense that if there is a certain culture that does not want to accept gays, it has the democratic right to do so. Since no one has any right to morality, then every society has the right to shape itself as it sees fit.
3. The big question is what is the result of a certain culture or of a certain moral system and since there is no answer to this yet, then it is not possible to decide which moral system is more "superior" (in whatever sense we define the word superior).
4. This whole debate about morality will go down the drain in 100 years when all of humanity will be created by genetic engineering, combined with a machine, and then everything will be programmable.
Shmulik:
Here is an interview with Professor Oren Herman - the author of the book you mentioned, in which:
1. He explains the reason for Price's suicide exactly as I explained
2. He shows that the state of common understanding in the field does not deal with psychological altruism and is unable to accept true altruism (two things that are resolved in my explanation) and concludes from this the fundamental limitations of science (instead of concluding from this the limitations of the solutions known to it)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaHI4ThsXYY
And as for the question of whether religion is prevented from being moral in principle - I have already explained why this is so many times.
If we accept the definition of religion as a system of rules of behavior derived from a transcendent source - the conclusion is bound that without the help of that transcendent source it is impossible to change it (that is - to change the rules of behavior) and since transcendent sources are simply a lie they never come back to help us adapt and change the religion
Therefore, for example, if it is discovered that homosexuality is an innate trait that man does not choose and cannot change, this will not cause a homophobic religion to change its skin.
And if the question is "only in principle and without connection to Judaism" then the answer is that the religion can be moral with zero probability because the chance that the fabricator of the religion foresaw everything that would be discovered and created laws that would always fit is zero.
A small addition to clarify my words to Shmolik:
To be clear: I think that identifying with the feelings of pleasure in another (and with his feelings in general) is a by-product of something that is essential for survival and that is understanding the other for the purpose of integrating him into the model of the world.
It is a necessary by-product because there is no way to understand what is going on in the other's mind without experiencing it yourself - this is the identification and that is the whole idea of my article.
sympathetic:
We both agree that religion is natural to man and so are diseases.
Now the question arises whether religion, or other diseases, are an essential characteristic of a person.
I do not think so.
In my opinion it is possible to be a person (and a better person - subject to agreement on the term "good") without religion.
Man likes to live in a herd and all that is needed is to direct him to the optimal herd.
In fact, many people today live in several herds that contradict each other, which is why, for example, the Syrians, who until recently were united in the war against us, are today fighting each other on both sides of the border between Sunni and Shia.
In my opinion (I have stated this many times) the optimal herd is the herd of humanity.
The feeling of the herd is a feeling of "togetherness" and not a feeling of alienation.
In order to feel together there is no obligation to define someone as "other" who does not belong together.
Religions do not increase the feeling of "togetherness" - they only decrease the group we are together with you and increase the group of others.
I refuted the things you said one by one because you said them one by one.
If you want to base yourself on the method of medicine, then in this method - one of the main tools is what is called "differential diagnosis" and from your words - every time you brought (in fact as statements or rhetorical questions) one of the characteristics - it seemed that you were trying to make use of this method but what to do with the fact that none of the characteristics were able to characterize? So you started talking about all of them together and actually all of them together also failed.
I am willing to put the likelihood of the disease behind because as mentioned - in my opinion it is purely a semantic problem and the question is only of good and bad, but none of my arguments on the subject were puzzling. They were all incredibly accurate.
I certainly think I know what Tasmanian devils feel like, but if you're having trouble empathizing with them, I'm willing to tell you a story about humans.
My father grew up as a child in Nazi Germany and suffered from the anti-Semitism of teachers and neighbors there.
His life was nothing like what he or anyone else would define as a "good life" these days.
In 1939 his parents sent him alone to Israel and intended to join him later.
He managed to get on the last ship that left for the country before the war broke out.
His parents and sister were caught there and murdered and he is destined to grow up in Israel without a family.
Recently, when I talked to him about that period, he told me: whatever way I look at it today, my life was terrible, but at that time I didn't feel that way at all. That was just life.
I heard these things from a person I know well and I did not guess about the Tasmanian devil and in fact they are self-evident to those who delve a little deeper into the subject.
By and large - maximizing the achievement of the goals that all human beings set for themselves (that is - not the desires but their fulfillment) is a logical description of what I think should be defined as "good" (logical, but not completely perfect - I would add a constraint that guarantees that no one will be "knocked off anymore" Too" because of "the good of the majority").
Of course, a prerequisite for this is that they will not dictate to the captive babies, whether by bribery or threats, what they are supposed to want.
Of course, it is necessary to find out how to do this, but this seems to me a goal that can be agreed upon.
As I mentioned before - the key to building a universal morality is the possibility to agree on it (otherwise it is not universal).
A large part of the so-called "Eastern religions" are philosophies that do not fit the definition of religion.
If there are no laws dictated in advance (and as we know - the meaning of the word "religion" is law) then naturally there are also no laws that dictate harming others.
Of course, once it degenerates into castes and other rules of conduct, it becomes as harmful as the other religions.
Shmulik:
If you understand the Price equation then you understand that it cannot be defended against the fact that it requires widespread altruism in order to create the positive feedback of altruism and only from that moment it can act and is therefore a non-starter.
The link you provided does not refute my words, but strengthens them.
On the one hand - he stands firmly on the connection between empathy and altruism, but on the other hand he does not try to answer the question of why empathy developed.
There is also no proof that creative lemon doesn't help you avoid baldness. Is this a reason to start eating lemon curative to avoid baldness?
If you want to claim that identification with feelings of pleasure (the feelings of pleasure you omitted for some reason in the second instance of verbal description) in another contributes to survival, you are welcome to do so. You are welcome to do this even with a formula.
I don't believe there is such a formula but if you show me I will believe it.
I'll just as well believe it if you show me that there is a steaming pot of tea in orbit around the Earth, even though according to all the information I have right now I don't think there is such a pot.
Shmulik
My comment from 17:10 on June 13 is blocked at least temporarily. I must have uttered some kind of taboo word.
Shmulik
Regarding Nazi morality. In the eyes of most Germans, Nazi morality, up to a certain limit, was proper morality. The majority of German citizens did not see anything wrong with dispossessing Jews because they were foreigners exploiting the Germans. I said "majority" because there was a minority of Germans who thought differently but were afraid to express themselves. I said "up to a certain limit" because most German citizens were not aware of all the brutality of the Nazis.
The same goes for the attitude of the German people regarding the occupation of Europe. The German people for the most part did not care that they were occupying because the majority of the German people thought that the occupation would improve their quality of life.
Regarding the concealment of crimes by the Nazis. This was not done out of conscience but as a tactical move. It is more convenient in terms of war management to show an "enlightened" occupier than to show a "criminal" occupier. The Nazi Propaganda Ministry lied all the time, from 1935 onwards, this was a regular tactic.
Shmulik
I don't know if the persecution of Muslims by Bundists is an explicit part of Buddhism. What is certain is that they are due to hatred of foreigners, fear of foreigners and the like. Hatred of foreigners and fear of foreigners and contempt for foreigners and dehumanization of foreigners - is an inherent part, even if not explicitly stated, of every social contract. It is possible that there is nevertheless a common value for all social arts: the common value is hostility to foreigners because they are foreigners.
I have already said that the purpose of the social contract is only to trap the community inside, those who are outside the community the community members do not apply to him the social contract that binds the community. At best, the social-community contract treats foreigners as a nuisance or as someone who is allowed to be exploited; And in the worst case, the social contract commands to destroy them.
These persecutions, were they done because of the Buddhist principles?
Shmulik
In the matter of Buddhism. Buddhism is not an ideal formula for universal morality (there is none at all): Buddhists brutally persecuted Muslims, the historical conflict in Bengal, Pakistan and Kashmir was mainly between Buddhists and Muslims. There is also a beautiful film called "The Enigma Boy from Mumbai" which expresses today's struggles and exploitation between Indians and Muslims in Mumbai.
Safkan
Your post sounds logical and on this topic I said that in my opinion everyone else has their own definition of morality and for me, part of the concept must include not murdering for false reasons. I mean, I don't have a problem with self-defense, but when an entire culture agreed to convince itself that the Jews are "dangerous", put them in ghettos and still consider them dangerous and murder them under false pretenses, which they knew were false, it cannot be considered moral and this is the reason why there were no extermination camps in Germany and why it is very difficult to find the "order" to exterminate the Jews. They themselves knew that they were acting against every moral rule and therefore worked hard to cover their behinds.
If we nevertheless come to the conclusion that Nazi morality exists, then the concept of morality, in the sense of doing good (a super superficial definition, but one that I sometimes use when I talk to children about what it means to be moral), has been emptied of its content.
Do you agree with this statement?
Note
In the term "individuals" in the last paragraph of my words: I mean individual people within a community.
Shmulik
If you want a level explanation of a human social system, not a simplistic hocus pocus of some Price-style inequalities, look for Edward Wilson's book in English called (roughly)
THE SOCIAL CONQUER OF THE EARTH
The book also helps to understand, although this is not its main purpose, why every human community has human social arts (which arts can be religious or philosophical in different flavors).
Morality is part of the social arts. There is no such thing as a universal morality, or a universal social contract. A social contract meets the ad hoc needs of each community, therefore each community may adopt a different social contract that better meets its needs according to the circumstances of the time and place. As an example, Nazism is part of an attempted social contract and as such is moral as part of the social contract.
If you think Nazism is an exception to human morality, it's because you don't know history, the Romans committed crimes against humanity no less than the Nazis committed. The difference between the Romans and the Nazis is that the Romans won and therefore their crimes were forgiven. The Nazis were defeated, therefore their crimes are remembered by Draon, as the Romans said, "Woe to the vanquished".
A social contract aims to maintain community cohesion within the community, while anyone found *outside* the community is an enemy or servant or exploited or at least harassed. Therefore, the social contract of a community does not apply to the attitude of community members towards those who are outside the community.
Altruism is part of morality, which as mentioned is part of the communal social contract. Wilson's book also gives a logical explanation for altruism, as part of morality and the social contract. In general, the development of altruism is promoted by a group-selection mechanism, where at each point in time (of evolutionary development) it brings benefit to the majority of individuals (and negligible harm to their minority). The conflict between altruism and individual selection (Darwinian selection) greatly slows down social evolution but does not stop it outright.
sympathetic,
If the question about Buddhism is directed at me, then the answer is that when I talk about the fundamental problem of morality and religion I mean religions in which the whole way of life comes as a commandment in the name of God. Buddhism is not a religion in that sense. Beyond that, I don't know enough about Buddhism to answer further, but from what I have been impressed by, there is nothing there that is fundamentally immoral (according to my personal definition of the concept of morality)
Well, I'm tired of this stupid mother-in-law.
Michael,
(I apologize for some of the comments appearing twice)
I'm still in debt but something short. I didn't write that I don't understand the Price equation, but I'm not in a position to defend it (just as I'm not in a position to defend quantum mechanics but am able to contribute here and there). I understand what it solves in the sense that I understand what is written in Wikipedia or what was written in an article from Israel
Michael,
I also don't understand some of your arguments.
1. "The second is that empathy is an inevitable by-product of the need (which has never been sought for justification because its necessity is self-evident) to decipher the environment and predict its effect on the future."
Does the following link refute what you wrote:
http://www.parentingscience.com/empathy-and-the-brain.html
2. You wrote in a previous post and I wanted to ask about it: "The important thing is to answer the question of why this was created in the first place because advantages built on reciprocity are a non-starter in evolution and because identifying with feelings of pleasure in another does not contribute to the survival of your genes and no formula will help here."
How did you prove that identification with the other does not contribute to the survival of the genes and how did you determine that no formula will help here?
Nissim, if you are still sampling this thread, as someone who has shown that he understands something about evolution, do you accept Michael's claims?
Michael,
I'm still in debt but something short. I did not write that I do not understand the Price equation, but I am not in a position to defend it (as I am not in a position to defend quantum mechanics). I understand what it solves in the sense that I understand what is written in Wikipedia or what was written in the article
Shmulik
As for the page, to destroy you simply need talent.
The debate is not about altruism but whether religion fundamentally is not
moral Can you claim that religion in its essence is prevented from being
moral? Take for example Buddhism as an example of a religion that does no harm
in others
It goes without saying = it goes without saying
מ
I apologize if I was not understood properly, I saw that the previous times I asked the question
The plausibility of your claim that religion is a disease could be understood as a question
rhetorical. Regarding the question of whether religion can be considered a disease, I explained a number of things
times why this is not a semantic argument. We both agree that religion is natural to man
And now the question arises whether it is an essential quality of the person or is given in education
It is right to solve it. By the way, all the attempts in history to get rid of religion have led
to be replaced by much worse phenomena (which you tend to call
the same religions). In my humble opinion, it is the herd phenomenon that makes us human
Without it we will be collecting details. A number of people (maybe sick) can live without
Religion (or no large reference group) but humanity as a whole is not.
Another side note. You write because you refute the characteristics that I bring one
One and then I move on to the other. A science like medicine is not a mathematical science, a doctor is not
Refuting symptoms of patients he looks at the whole and therefore collects
My claims are weighty and I bring them as an argument and not just any claim
By herself. Note that I was talking about probability and not certainty.
Unfortunately every time I try to lay down the argument about the plausibility
of religion as a disease behind you comes up with another puzzling claim that is hard for me to ignore.
You are using the thoughts of the Tasmanian Devil as an argument
"The Tasmanian devil, for example, I would not define as "suffering". Although it hurts him
And although he is sick, for him "this is life" and he does not see
himself as a "sufferer". Of course you know what the Tasmanian devil thinks about life
And what is life as far as he is concerned and you bring this as a reason for how
Religious see the world??? But let's move on.
For some reason you treat my questions with disdain when I asked you
If according to you, would the world be better if all the people
will maximize their desires?” I meant to maximize while doing so
The mutual constraints, after all, this is understandable. Or was Eli
state it explicitly. I would appreciate it if you claimed the questions and did not offer
Lee Crambo. The questions were
Would the world be better if all people maximized their desires?
Is the goal of man in the world is the maximization of desires
His? Is this the best in your opinion, and if not, then what is?
Machel
There is an insight hidden in your penultimate response.
An insight I just realized! And I thank you very much for that!
Regardless: from most of the links you posted from Boedem, I found a response, following which I repeat and ask you: Can you write an article about dreams?
Shmulik:
A more recent version of the same article Is here
But there are more comments and clarification debates in the first link
Shmulik:
I accept also accept. Why do you ask?
In fact I am among the extremes in this direction, as you can read inAn article I wrote about free will And in the responses I made in the debates that followed.
Michael,
I promise to carefully read your responses (unfortunately at work it's hard for me to concentrate on other things) but I would appreciate an answer to the following question: Do you not accept that every emotion is in fact an electrical chemical reaction that takes place in the brain and as such it naturally arises from an evolutionary biological mechanism?
Shmulik:
While I don't agree with your arguments about the Price formula, I have to thank you for encouraging me to look into some things and think about others.
What I was looking for is if there is a way to show you the problem of Price's formula without forcing you to understand all the math of it.
I invite you to open the The entry on the Price equation on Wikipedia.
In the summary of the chapter on altruism, you will find the following sentence:
In other words, for b>a there may be a positive contribution to the average altruism as a result of a group growing due to its high number of altruists and this growth can offset in-group losses, especially if the variance of the in- group altruism is low. In order for this effect to be significant, there must be a spread in the average altruism of the groups.
Remember I told you about Paris's need for reciprocity?
This is it!
The formula only explains how groups with many altruists might grow. She does not explain how groups with many altruists could even be formed!
This is a fundamental advantage of my explanation: it explains the formation of empathy and altruism without the need for similar qualities in group members.
Only thanks to this kind of advantage is there any chance that groups with many altruists will be formed. Otherwise, as I said, altruism is a non-starter.
The new thing I thought about thanks to our conversation is not an argument, but it is super interesting from a human point of view:
In my opinion, Price himself would have been overjoyed if he had heard my explanation!
Price was really haunted by his conclusions on altruism which showed that in the end altruism is a utilitarian trait and is not "real", i.e., not altruism per se.
It was so hard for him to accept that at one point he decided to dedicate his life to being a counterexample to it.
As a result of this decision, he started helping the needy without any utilitarian account until he lost all his possessions, was thrown out of his rented apartment, fell into depression and committed suicide.
And what do we see in my explanation?
One of the things we see in it is the fact that the altruism I'm talking about is not beneficial in itself! It is merely a by-product of another trait which is the one that benefits us so much that natural selection promotes it.
In other words - the altruism I'm talking about is altruism for its own sake - the one whose conclusion about its absence brought Price to the mouth of the abyss and beyond.
The above insight brought me great happiness personally.
I claim two simple things:
One is to have empathy. Empathy is an emotion and this emotion underlies true altruistic actions. This gives an answer to a question that has been asked a lot about altruism in variations on the question "Okay, let there be altruism, but why is it accompanied by feelings?"
The second is that empathy is an inevitable by-product of the need (which has never been sought for justification because its necessity is self-evident) to decipher the environment and predict its effect on the future.
Note that no one has bothered to develop a formula to explain why the feeling of hunger exists, or why feelings such as pain or love exist. The answers to these questions will obviously evolve because they are necessary for our survival.
What I do is explain empathy and altruism as by-products of a capacity for which the answer is clearly that its development contributes to survival.
Thus, like a magic wand, an answer is given both to the question of emotion, to the question of empathy in general (including with positive emotions), and to the question of inter-racial empathy and altruism, something that clearly exists, some examples of which are even given in the article, and that vegetarianism is in some of its manifestations as well as the fight against training slaughter and the fight against animal experiments , are distinct human examples of it.
Besides - I must point out that in light of your comments, the whole conversation between us seems terribly strange to me.
You say you don't understand the Price equation and you don't understand what I'm saying, but still you come to the defense of the Price equation.
I promise you that if you really try - you won't have a hard time understanding what I'm saying, while if you try to understand the Price equation - you'll have a hard time with it and after you understand, you'll see that it doesn't answer much.
sympathetic,
So according to your definition, this word has no meaning except within the group and it actually empties the concept of its content, especially with Nazi morality can be considered morality. In any case, in a religious system that puts everything in the hands of the one who decides everything, the system of the big boss's commands is not, according to my definition, a moral system since free will is not involved. The only caveat is for the situation where the religious person will act against the commandments and in any other situation, talking about morals that the boss gives is like saying that a robot has morals. Since we have both repeated these arguments, we have reached a stage where it is difficult to move forward because you do not accept my free will argument.
So absolute yes, moral no.
Chutsamza, in his previous comments your page was weird. How and why did you do it?
Michael,
Since I'm really not familiar with the subject of the Price equation, which is claimed to solve the problem of altruism (empathy was a word I introduced and the equation speaks and fully solves the problem of altruism, so I don't understand the criticism you have, except maybe an explanation for altruism between groups if something like that actually exists in nature which does not go beyond statistical distortion) and yes, I admit that I do not understand exactly what you are claiming in your article or what is so special about it, so I am still looking at your article and trying to formulate a smarter answer.
you actually stated 'maybe'
sympathetic
Certainly he is less bad than someone who hurts people, and again: absolutely. And note that you also stated (absolutely?) that it is bad under certain conditions
sympathetic:
I do not avoid giving answers at all, but my answers may not be understood.
First of all, I really claim that the subject of the disease is a semantic question and has no importance, but, on the other hand, also because I am not sure that it will convince you and also because what you say about diseases is wrong in my opinion - I also respond to the things you said about the diseases.
In your various references to diseases you talked about different characteristics when every time I refuted one of them you did not respond to the refutation but moved on to another characteristic.
To me, this shows a goal that was marked in advance and an unwillingness to have a real discussion, and this is confirmed by your attempt in the last response to switch to another coping method - we will take all the characteristics that were mentioned before and say that this is actually the "characteristic".
So I'll go ahead and say that I refuse to accept the misrepresentation you're trying to create as if you've already asked this before.
To the best of my recollection, you didn't ask.
Now I will ask you to forgive me if I also address this new question. That doesn't mean I think the issue is important. I still think this is a semantic question. It just means that I think you are wrong in the new attempt as well and the reason is that there are diseases that do not have all of these characteristics and they are still considered diseases. In fact, some of the examples I have already given are like that.
In general - the term "suffering" is problematic because in order to "suffer" you have to be aware of the other possibility.
The Tasmanian devil, for example, I would not define as "suffering". Although he is in pain and indeed he is sick, but as far as he is concerned "this is life" and he does not see himself as "suffering".
Of course, this is also related to his limited ability to conceptualize and think.
Even the religious brainwashed do not know what real life is and therefore they too cannot be defined as "sufferers".
You said that the population "survives not bad" and I ask myself what you would define as "bad". After all, it is clear that multitudes of people have been murdered and are being murdered every day because of religion (and yes! Religion actually causes direct harm to its believers and also to believers of other religions!). These are people who would not have been murdered otherwise. So maybe in your eyes it's "not bad" but in my eyes it's very bad.
I won't ask you if your responses to his words are rational because in my opinion they have already crossed that threshold a long time ago. I think they are not decent!
And I repeat: I did not avoid giving answers. It's just a plot. I said I was tired because you tired me with all the demagoguery and repetitions but I did so only after making sure I answered everything you said.
ארי
You ask "Can an altruist who does not hurt anyone's feelings at any cost be called a bad person?"
Yes for sure, is that person working to fight evil? If he doesn't do anything against deeds
Bad to others, maybe he is also immoral? Give me a guiding principle on which secular morality is based?
מ
You are stupid, on the one hand you claim that I am returning to the semantics of an illness, on the other hand you are
Obsessively brings links to various diseases, when you do not explicitly answer the question,
According to what we know about diseases, is it reasonable to call something that the majority of the population has,
Is she happy with him and survives well in the name of illness? Is it rational not to consider the facts?
You don't answer this simple question so I repeat it over and over hoping to get it
A direct answer, but perhaps I should be content with the fact that we have come to the conclusion that religion is natural,
That's something too.
By the way, after you accuse me of returning to the semantics of illness, you end with a question
"What do you think about the periods when most of humanity fell ill and even died in various epidemics? Weren't they sick?"
I have no problem answering a direct question, yes it was a disease and it caused the death of the patients
In it, religion does not cause direct harm to its practitioners, they do not die en masse.
There is no point in discussion if you continue to avoid giving direct answers with strange claims such as:
I'm tired, I've already answered this elsewhere, I'm starting to think I'm talking to
A computer program that is in an infinite loop, etc... will answer directly on the spot
Dodge and we can move forward.
Shmulik
I partially agree with you, indeed in relative morality it is not possible to determine who is right and who is wrong and the Nazis cannot be blamed
and claim that they were absolutely evil. There is still a meaning to morality in any relative system
determined internally by the people in that company.
In contrast, in a religious system or any system that assumes that there is something more important or greater than man
The individual and his desires can be said to be absolute morality.
Shmulik:
I don't use the empathy mechanism to explain it. I am answering the most important question in the matter and that is how evolution could have made empathy clear. Price doesn't deal with it at all because his equation doesn't deal with it. In fact, he does not deal with it at the molecular or genetic level either, so it is not clear to me what kind of explanation you expect to hear from me.
I explained that mirror neurons participate in the realization of empathy, but, as mentioned, the important thing is to answer the question of why it was created in the first place, because advantages built on reciprocity are a non-starter in evolution and because identifying with feelings of pleasure in another does not contribute to the survival of your genes, and no formula will help here.
I explained that the very ability to understand the other is the ability that evolution selects and empathy is created as a byproduct of the only mechanism that enables such understanding.
In my opinion, the main prestige of Price on the subject stems - not from his formula but from his suicide, and the formula is only a platform for expressing identification.
By the way - Price's formula completely ignores the existence of empathy and altruism between different species.
All in all - I am not saying what the Price formula should explain but why an explanation is needed and when I check the Price formula I see that it can be a partial explanation for a small part of the phenomena that are all - and many others - explained by my explanation.
Would the world be a better place if all people had carambo?
Yes !
sympathetic,
Let's postpone for a moment the discussion on the basis of morality in genetics, because I have no proof of anything (I'm not an evolutionist) and everything I wrote is based on Wikipedia, a Google search, etc. By the way, an article was recently published about Price's equation which explains how altruism was created in an evolutionary process.
to the subject of relative morality. Your approach to relationships is completely different from mine. You, I am sorry to say, cannot defend yourself against a claim made by Michael: "Then, you have no claim against the Nazis". The Nazis are a group, the Nazis created a morality for themselves and therefore under the Nazi morality, it is moral to burn Jews.
Therefore, if I accept your argument, the word morality has no more meaning. She doesn't really say anything. Each group will develop its own moral rules and it will never be possible to argue against them. The group will always be able to claim that it cannot be judged outside the group. In fact, not only each group, but each individual will decide for himself what the right actions are to perform and no one will be able to criticize him.
I wanted to write another whole dig but it's important for me not to get distracted. Do you accept my point?
Michael,
I refrain from debating the importance of Price to the theory of evolution. From the little I have read, apparently his equation is an essential part of the theory of evolution and I am not in a position to agree or disagree whether his equation should explain positive elements such as empathy for positive things. His equation explains action against the immediate interest which is the difficult issue in evolution.
In any case, even if the equation should be thrown into the dustbin of history, you are not resolved to explain how the empathy mechanism was created and it seems to me that you are using this mechanism to explain it.
sympathetic
Can an altruist who does not hurt anyone's feelings at any cost be called a bad person? In my opinion, absolutely not. Let's start with that.
By the way, you are invited to read about the type of "health" (= general disease) that almost wiped out the Tasmanian devil
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tasmanian_devil
sympathetic:
Sorry for giving a serious answer to your simplistic questions.
Would the world be a better place if all people had carambo?
Maximizing the desires of all people is not possible because maximizing the desire of one may harm another.
I tried to give a serious answer to what I see as morality and explained that it is something that develops over time.
Are you entering the semantics of a disease again?!
What do you think about the periods when most of humanity fell ill and even died in various epidemics? weren't they sick
I'm starting to think I'm talking to a computer program in an infinite loop.
מ
You don't answer questions, you just provide links. My questions are simple.
As a rational person, aren't you committed to the facts?
Does calling something that most of humanity has a disease fit the definition
of a disease?
You remind me of the old joke about David Levy driving against the direction of traffic
and heard on the radio about a madman driving against the direction of traffic. "Crazy one? he
Shouted on the radio, everyone is crazy today." Insanity as well as its illness are defined
are defined by the behavior of the majority.
מ
You have already said or written everything, of course, but I ask three simple questions, maybe simple
Answer them directly.
Would the world be better if all people maximized their desires?
Is the goal of man in the world is the maximization of desires
His? Is this the best in your opinion, and if not, then what is?
Just an example I came across again, of a disease without suffering:
http://news.walla.co.il/?w=%2F15%2F2649324
a quote:
"He was never sad or depressed, but it is doubtful that many of us would be willing to trade with him." Mollison in the years after surgery
It turns out that even the ultra-orthodox abroad do not understand that it is the tycoons who are to blame.
They also do not understand that it is not a matter of religion but only of a local group.
Yayyy! Don't they know that they have to cooperate with those among the secular who are trying to defend the crimes of the ultra-Orthodox?!
http://www.haaretz.co.il/news/education/1.2043029
And of course I don't need any alternative to religion.
Do I need an alternative mechanism to justify the murder of Sabbath breakers or can I be content with the absence of such a monstrous mechanism?
Do I need another mechanism to justify evading military service and work or can I be content with the absence of such a monstrous mechanism?
I have already presented my alternative to what religion claims to call "morality".
Why does it always have to go back to zero?
We agree that it is drowning and I guess we also agree that AIDS is natural.
There are natural phenomena that we understand that we can improve our well-being by fighting them.
What is "improve"?
This is a word that expresses "transition from a certain situation to a situation that is better than it".
This requires a scale of values.
Without this kind of scale of values, it is also impossible to justify the fight against AIDS.
But actually - why am I repeating myself again?!
After all, I said I'm tired of this stupid nonsense!
מ
Of course you have already answered everything, you have already said everything somewhere, and you also think that the question is whether religion is
Disease or not is a semantic debate and the only question is - if it is good or if it is bad. That is not the question at all
for me I claim that belief in religion is a sign of humanity. As it is not significant to argue whether the fact
Having two hands is good or bad simply as humans we have two hands, maybe it would be better if
We had four hands but it's not like that. There are also a few who have one hand, maybe they should argue
Because the fact that we have two hands is a disease and it would be better if we all had only one hand.
I have already written to you several times about why religion is natural to man, but you insist on talking about good and bad.
Since this is the topic that interests you, I would love to hear what your alternative to religion is, would the world be better
If all people maximize their wants. Is the goal of man in the world is the maximization of desires
His? Is this the best in your opinion, and if not, then what is?
ארי
A point has already been answered, there is no basis for morality. Morality is a relative concept. The definition of morality is subjective
The classification of actions in the world into good and bad, but what is good and what is bad is relative and depends on culture.
Shmulik
I am not familiar with Jewish laws regarding saving Gentile life on Shabbat, but let's assume that saving Gentile life is desecration of Shabbat
Although I am not sure about this, if so according to Judaism the doctor did an act that is not moral and according to morality
Yours he did a moral act. You talk about genetics as a basis for morality, I would like to understand why
You mean, is genetics also the basis of painting, mathematics and music? So for me
Your definition of genetics is too general. I would appreciate it if you could elaborate on what you mean when you say
basis and what evidence do you have for this.
Shmulik:
Absolutely not true!
All of Price's explanations at all (but at all!) cannot explain the feelings (which do not always lead to action).
They don't explain our empathy with positive things (like love) that don't "require" action at all.
Part of the explanation is even based on reciprocity, which is a wrong thing because in order for there to be reciprocity, the trait of altruism must already be the property of a solid majority in the population, and therefore it cannot explain anything to begin with.
sympathetic,
I would like to conclude because I think you were confused in your previous response, so allow me to correct. According to your definition, the Jewish doctor who saved a Gentile on Shabbat did a moral act according to my method but an immoral act according to Judaism. Do you agree with that?
Michael,
I have a problem with the point of your article. You write:
"Therefore it is quite clear that when we endure the suffering of the other as part of the operation of the model that simulates it in our mind, we will try to alleviate his suffering in order to suffer less ourselves!"
The empathy mechanism must be expressed in genes and Price's explanation explains why the mechanism was created in the first place and therefore his explanation is acceptable.
Note that when you write that it is "quite obvious" you are relying on the fact that the empathy mechanism already exists, therefore if you want to replace its explanation, you have to explain in a different way why the mechanism was created
Eric:
The explanation I offered is not limited to humans either. in fact the opposite. He explains why empathy and, following it, altruism must develop in living beings and can be expected even in aliens.
Price's explanation, in my opinion, explains almost nothing in humans. It is limited to much inferior creatures whose behavior is automatic. He can't even begin to deal with the feelings.
Ghosts, ad hominem is for the weak, so far I haven't seen a serious philosophical review here related to the matter, and if there was, I'm sure I'd be waiting too.
And if the ugly way you speak, your morals are flawed. Absolute in any reference system.
Eric:
"The issue of absolute or relative morality is a serious philosophical matter and it's a shame to feed it with this level" - so stop feeding it with this level.
Maybe that way you will also get answers from which you can learn a thing or two about morality, hoping that it will improve your flawed morality.
Successfully
The issue of absolute or relative morality is a serious philosophical matter and it's a shame to feed it with this level, ghosts
But of course you know and understand better than everyone, have a good day.
I know. I watched it too. And I didn't mean to convince you either. All in all, I pointed to facts. Facts that obviously don't confuse you.
ghosts
You didn't convince me
point
What happened, you suddenly sobered up? "Whoever thinks there is a clear definition of morality is living in a movie."
ארי
Precisely this time a point answered your question. And for a change of justice! 🙂
Point, you are completely ignoring my point
Eric. Ask the Germans, they were the greatest understanders of morality.
Anyone who thinks there is a clear definition of morality is living in a movie. In the same movie that the Jews lived in before the Holocaust
sympathetic
I didn't mean to say that moral dilemmas don't exist, and it's not my job to get into them. That's why there are institutions that believe in ethics, basic laws, etc. All I wanted to say is that there is probably a clear definition for 'morality' and there is a basis that can be striven for.
Regarding vegetarianism, it can be dangerous if it leads to disregard for human life. I'm not religious, but for example Rabbi Kook who believed in vegetarianism as an ideal ('the vision of vegetarianism and peace'), talked about the dangers, and there is truth in his words.
Michael thanks.
I just want to comment that the development of the mathematical model carried out by George Price is not limited to the human species but to herd animals and hence the strength of the explanation he offered.
"Rational" religion? It is an oxymoron.
If you have an idea for a religion, and you believe it is a necessary religion, get up and make souls for it. For that you must mobilize your talents as a priest and a prophet, because that's how it goes. Good luck and we say Amen.
sympathetic:
As I said - I have already answered all your words.
I have also already answered the words of others that you quote.
I can add you Something more about the "religion of rationality" And if I try I can also direct you to a response where I said exactly what you are saying now about the word "disease", but this whole debate about whether it is a disease or not is just a semantic debate about the meaning of the word disease and is simply idiotic.
The only question is whether it is good or bad.
Shmulik:
In my opinion, I found altruism to be much more significant.
Its first version Posted on this site
A slightly more edited version of it was published HERE
And while we talk about morality and ignore the elephant in the room, which is our genetics, which forms the basis of morality, Haaretz published an article about George Price, the man who cracked the puzzle of altruism.
For those who have a subscription or are registered in Israel
http://www.haaretz.co.il/literature/book-week/.premium-1.2036686
sympathetic,
I think you're confused so let me correct you. According to your definition, the Jewish doctor who saved a gentile on Shabbat, did a moral act in my opinion but an immoral act according to Judaism. Do you agree with that?
Doganat = obscene examples
Sacrificing a child to the gods is one of the "abominations of the Gentiles" that the Bible strongly opposes. The story of the binding of Isaac can be interpreted as part of the system of symbols of the transition from pagan worship to the worship that the Bible preaches.
In the book of Kings XNUMX, chapter XNUMX (verses XNUMX onwards) there is a story in which a baby is murdered in order to eat its flesh and the king of Israel's response to hearing the story is to tear his clothes as a sign of grief. The story of Bat Yiftach is also presented to the reader as a difficult event.
From these two passages and other examples, it seems to me that the Bible presents the willingness of humans to kill their own children as a lost trait and preaches to avoid it.
Safkan
You are right in some of your claims, indeed a stupid discussion is taking place here.
Thank you very much for the excellent link.
Regarding cold fusion, in my opinion, it is also a stupid idea. I would like to
Talk about it (in any thread) when you show me an experiment with it
Measure radiation, neutrons, gamma, etc... from a cold fusion process.
מ
You are actually a follower of the religion of rationality, Niha. This religion says, if all
Be rational and the world will be better. The standard religions are not yours
Asking a deeper question "How can suffering in the world be stopped"
This question is relevant not only to Buddhism which is the basic starting point
His. As I wrote to you, Vatea ignores for some reason, most of the actions
Ours on a daily basis are not rational they are based on desires that you have at all
Not testing them. That is, your thought is that man is the sum of his desires
Let's maximize them. Religion, on the other hand, asks a much deeper question
"What is man and what is his role in the world.
In addition, you consider yourself a rational person, but what would you say?
To a person who ignores the facts? You have a theory, religion is a disease
Let's examine the facts:
About 90% of the world's population is religious and only about 2.5% are atheists,
Would you say that religion is a disease or maybe atheism?
It seems that people who believe in any religion are average
More happy than people without faith, about a subject
You have already answered this before. When all the data is collected from the
Rational in terms of what we know about diseases, your theory
does not stand the test of reality.
Shmulik
I was indeed confused, I'm a fan, so I have nothing to answer you.
Again in answer to your question, we agreed that morality is relative,
The Jewish doctor did a moral act according to Judaism and according to
Your morals don't.
Miracles
Miracles
You write "Ehud".
I mean - do you justify the murder of Jews by Christians and Muslims? you don't think
For the moment, Judaism has a monopoly on morality, right? Jewish morality is not something..."
By what rule do you judge Jewish morality? You have a universal rule
For morality and then you examine each and every religion? Incidentally to the question of the murder of the baby
I'll list what Point started to explain to you. It's clear
Go because it is possible to think of cases in which a crying baby can discover a group
of Jews hiding from the Germans, isn't that immoral even then?
Murder him (but I'm starting to sound too much like a boy scout guide)?
By the way, you don't read what they write to you (Mila, I do, but what the point writes
Go) and repeat your mantra over and over.
ארי
You start from a point of departure that you claim is obvious, but in my opinion
She is not justified.
You write "This is not true, let's take the most extreme: suppose I am altruistic
XNUMX, does not hurt anyone's feelings, etc. My actions are certainly not 'horrible' because I do no harm
In no one is it possible to determine a scale of equilibrium and balance between one extreme of the individual's will
To the other extreme of absolute altruism when the meta-principle is the golden rule when desired.
Minimum harm to another".
Who said that the individual is the most important thing in society? Who said satisfying his needs
Of every single individual in society, what is the ideal? Maybe there is something above man? for example
Soldiers sacrifice their lives for the homeland. By the way, perhaps the individual's role in society is to preach
Show the light to those who think differently? Maybe the meat eaters are killers and you
Need to worry about living?
Point, Michael clearly wrote the word "correctness" at the beginning of his sentence, so turn off your automatic reflex to react in a panic every time you read something unkind said about the Torah (and there is a lot to say), read carefully, read again and then respond.
In any case, was there or was not a command to destroy all of Amalek (there were some babies there, weren't they?) What about the destruction of the 7 nations of the land (there were also some babies there, no)
Here is real candy. Louis CK in a masterful piece called: God is like a Shitty Girlfriend talking about the binding of Isaac. Huge
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnd_JOp-eBE
point:
Did you really not understand what I wrote about the covenant of Isaac or are you just being stupid?
And besides, the question of whether it is permissible to murder a baby or not depends on the circumstances, for example if the baby endangers the life of the mother should he be killed.
In any case, this is all personal morality, and everyone can think differently.
Where is infanticide in the Torah?
There was no murder in the Yitzhak settlement. Stop making up your own stories. You have been brainwashed.
There is a much simpler explanation:
there is a God!
And God forbid if he doesn't arrange for David Israel some nice hit at the roulette.
Israel,
You understood Asimov just like I did. It is clear to me that he meant religion.
I see this entity (without quotes) as derived from the herd drive, which humanity is not immune to. The tendency to surrender to higher powers is inherent in us (at least in most of us) and there are among us people whose talent and role is to harness this tendency and channel it in any directions.
sympathetic
I already said about 200 comments ago in this thread my opinion that this thread is boring. It seems to me that I also said more or less that the discussion is water milling that will not add anything to the insight into the essence of religion, God, spirituality and the like. So 200 comments will be poured out here for nothing (unless there are people who think water softeners and or agotrip are worth something).
Today I found an article on the blog of someone named Mafihu who visited the site about two years ago and came to similar conclusions to mine. There is nothing new under the sun, vanity vanity everything is vanity.
Since Maffiho's style is more eloquent and better than mine, I link to his article. Read and you will understand that all your writing in the fuse here is in vain.
mafiahu.wordpress.com/2011/11/13/censorship-in-know-more-vision-for-the-darkness-of-the-Habi/
Regarding Andrea Rossi's ecat devices, devices that claim to realize productive cold fusion. I started writing to you in detail about something that I did not detail in my previous response to you regarding this matter. After writing, when I saw that they were dealing here with the nonsense of science and pure reason as a substitute for spirituality and religion - I decided not to bring the continuation because I don't want to debate such an important issue in this forum of jokes.
jubilee.
Michael's response about religion living on the bed of the brains doesn't remind you of Asimov's "Hostess"?
And indeed there the parasitic intelligence exploits its hosts for its purposes.
But here the question arises: as in that story, is religion a separate "entity"? Or maybe there are flesh-and-blood people who operate it with calculated planning?
It seems to me that the answer must be negative.
In other words, there is a scenario here that is not necessarily extreme: if all humans were religious, humanity would be extinct, therefore the secular are the ones who preserve humanity lest it become extinct and thus actually help religion to survive.
Each person and his divisions is 🙂 the main thing is that the division is right
By the way, Yuval, I divide the population into two types of people:
Those who divide the population into two types of people and those who don't.
I don't think there is anything similar here.
As I mentioned, it is possible that in the past, when there were no enforcement mechanisms, the situation was different, but today, after the negro has done his thing, he can go.
To say that religion helps in something, you have to point to a thing where it helps. I have never heard such a convincing claim.
A thing survives if it is good at surviving.
Religion is good for survival.
It takes full advantage of the platform on which it lives - the minds of people - and does so while completely and permanently enslaving them.
That's why she survives.
Part of its survival is based on the sacrifice of its believers.
As I said - the fact that the religion survives means that it is good for survival and not that it is good for the survival of humans.
Let's take the following parable:
Humans use fossil fuels. Humans survive. It's a kind of symbiosis between humans and fossil fuels. Does this mean that humans contribute to the survival of fossil fuels? And what if you put tuna fish instead of fossil fuels?
thanks Michael.
I divide the population into two groups: those who are offended by the use of the word evil and those who laugh. If the damage that religiosity brings in its wings is greater than the benefit, doesn't common sense say that it will not survive. And yet, the offended are many of the laughing.
From genetics we know the interrelationship between malaria and sickle cell anemia. Is there a game like this here too?
Michael
And this is not the only case……
sympathetic:
I'm tired
I think I already gave you all the answers to your questions a long time ago.
In the Torah, the willingness to murder a child became a real symbol and example in the story of the bond of Isaac. Then we are surprised that there is a Taliban mother.
jubilee:
There are many types of symbiosis and in some of them one of the parties loses.
Even in the "symbiosis" between religion and humanity there is a losing side and that side is humanity.
The symbiosis of religion with humanity is good for religion and harmful for humanity.
From the point of view of humanity - this symbiosis is simply not better than a system of laws and regulations that are not based on Sha'a. It is much inferior to it and harms the ability to survive, because laws based on Sha'a cannot change and adapt themselves to the accumulated knowledge except by Sha'a and it doesn't even make a phone call.
point
You and I agree that killing a baby is immoral, right?
In the Bible it is considered moral……
sympathetic,
I think you are wrong. Are you sure it's not a fan?
Question: According to your definition, would that hypothetical Jewish doctor, if he saved a gentile on Shabbat, be doing a moral act or not?
point
I think everyone thinks infanticide is immoral, right? The Torah does not think so
QED
Thank you Michael, indeed a scholarly answer. And as I answered you then, I will answer today as well: tame her with understanding 🙂
However, although the genetic mechanism, like its memetic counterpart, is very interesting in its own right, I was not asking about it, but about its contribution to survival. And more refined: It is clear that humanity and religion live in symbiosis, but how is symbiosis with religion better than symbiosis with a set of laws and regulations that the Sha'a did not sign?
R. H. Rafaim,
Some nonsense in your comments. is funny.
Listen, listen to whoever you want, that's fine, but at least try to understand. I didn't argue with Michael even though he tried to drag me into a topic I didn't talk about and if anything, not because I'm trying to please you but to point out that I wrote that I would probably agree with him about what he wrote about religion.
The argument I had with him started after I wrote that I think morality is relative and he responded that if that's the case, how could I have a claim against the Nazis and even at a later stage went crazy about how Christopher Hitchens could condemn Mother Teresa so harshly. To this I have repeatedly responded that there is no problem judging Nazis or Mother Teresa, even under relative morality, since morality, like evolution, moves slowly as long as the judgment is made in the correct cultural context and I do not intend to repeat my arguments. If you think otherwise, enjoy, just try to renew because reading over and over that you trust Michael and blah blah blah is getting boring, even him
bass"
Miracles, according to what do you determine which morality is something or not something. It's like you have an idea of the ultimate morality.
sympathetic
I mean - do you justify the murder of Jews by Christians and Muslims? You don't think for a moment that Judaism has a monopoly on morality, do you? Jewish morality is not something...
Ghost doesn't understand your question. It is clear that this is a type of education, or perhaps something genetic... Of course it is not about some supreme principle (as we would expect from something that can be called moral)
point
Is a dog that saves another dog a brainwashed dog?
You are delusional.
You are still arguing about morality when most of the things you call morality are psychological matters related to education and brainwashing.
I returned. It was fun. :))
ghosts
Return to the land of spirits from which you came
"A society that legislates laws under the principle of minimal unnecessary interference in individual life is a just society. In my opinion, this is absolutely true."
Chatter from the land of chatter.
You live in utopia. Exit the movie.
sympathetic
My words revolved around what you wrote "...while something can come and claim your actions as well
Terrible on the basis of morality that seems natural to him by the way"
This is not true, let's take it to the extreme: let's say I'm altruistic, don't hurt anyone's feelings, etc. Aa to say that I am *not* moral (when you stick to a consistent definition, otherwise you can play with anything: "War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is power"). My actions are certainly not 'horrible' because I am not hurting anyone.
It is possible to establish a scale of equilibrium and balance between one extreme of the individual's will and the other extreme of absolute altruism when the meta-principle is the golden rule as an aspiration. Minimum harm to another.
A society that legislates laws under the principle of minimal unnecessary interference in individual life is a just society. To me this is absolutely true.
Again: 'Whatever you hate, don't do it'
By the way, I'm a vegetarian, and only because you mentioned it as a relevant point for discussion. But I've come to the conclusion that I'm not preaching to anyone about it.
Shmulik
A passing note: my name is Ehud, not Ohad
The definition of the concept of morality in my opinion is the determination or attribution of good and bad
for operations. Do we agree on this? For me the definition of morality
Does not depend on people, but morality itself does. Even if what is true and what
Not dictated from above, the religious person still has freedom to choose if
Follow the rules and behave morally or not, so that too
Religious people have morals as far as I'm concerned. They are not programmed in general
Gods are defined for them and they are free to choose whether to fulfill them or not.
According to your examples, morality does not lose its validity, it changes
Depending on the group of people, the time and the situation, but the morality
The secular is relative and the religious is universal to the believer. the secular
can try to set moral rules for him according to his environment and morality
The religious is determined by the religious authority as it decrees it of its own free will,
God's (ideally, of course). What is so hard for you to understand?
As a religious person, you are obligated to accept divine morality even if
It goes against your natural perception. you can ask her
A question about the world. It is natural for me to assume that we live in a world with
Three dimensions of how God determined that we live in a world with
Four dimensions or ten (does God believe in string theory?).
Our understanding of what is right and what is real does not always correspond to the ideal
of how one should live according to religion or what exists in the world.
מ
Finally, finally, an answer to the matter. You claim that man is at his core
Rational and that's what you base your worldview on. In my opinion, as you were told
Many of the respondents are not rational beings. we love, hate,
Angry, laughing. All these actions can be rationalized but they are
are fundamentally irrational. to our ability to enjoy a beautiful view, a marvelous mathematical theorem,
Or a work of art can be rationalized but they are not feelings
rationality. We don't choose who to marry based on a rationale, we don't
Taking care of our children out of a rationale. Man is an irrational creature
And this is part of his humanity, this point religion understood, while science did not.
That is why religion speaks to many more people than rational science
It is only the tip of the iceberg above the water beneath which sit all the features that become
us to humans and not to machines.
Rationality may allow us a way to maximize our desires
This is also doubtful, but who determined that maximizing our desires brings us
Happiness (it doesn't have to be true if we're not rational). Additionally
Who determined that our desires are positive and should be maximized?
Miracles
You will probably have to find another religion for you. If God exists, he probably is
Know better than me and you what is moral and what is not? Anyway, you know as well as I do
Because even though these rules are written in the Bible, they are not implemented. also in religion
There is freedom to interpret the scriptures and their meaning, but in religion the basis for the claims
He is the existence of a God thanks to whom there is life and before whom all your opinions are nullified
I am writing to you for the fourth time already, in my opinion there is morality outside of religion and there is
Morality in religion But only religious morality can be established and made universal
For all those who believe in the same religion, non-religious morality is relative
Ali=Ali, sorry
ארי
What is the iron rule you are talking about and who established it? Where is it engraved?
Should I stop eating meat because it hurts animals? should i stop
To live in the country because it hurts the neighboring countries. Where do you set the rules from?
Your iron and to whom do they apply and why?
There is no point in judging "hunger" in terms of rationality.
Rationality serves us well in seeking the way to reach maximum satisfaction of those needs and drives that drive us.
This is not a substitute for needs and urges, but a mechanism that allows us to optimize their satisfaction.
The less you use this tool, the less successful you will be in this optimization and the less motivated you will be.
Of course, rational thinking is required for technological or scientific developments, but the motives are not rational.
point:
Do you really claim that all the technology that serves us and all the science behind it could have been created without rational thinking?
There are people who have feelings of inferiority and then they accuse those they perceive as better than them of arrogance and self-aggrandizement.
I see it everywhere.
jubilee:
It seems to me that in the past you wrote some comment about states and religions being natural and therefore good.
I didn't get to answer then and I hope that even if it's not a quote, the idea is described correctly (I don't have the strength to search in previous comments because since the comments were split into separate pages it became really inconvenient).
Now you ask if there is any benefit to humanity in this timatological phenomenon.
I will (again) answer all of these together before addressing the question of what in the human race encourages it (which I have also already given explanations for in the past).
Not everything that is "natural" is perceived as good in our eyes.
AIDS is bad, infant mortality is bad, diseases are bad... and they are all natural; They are all the fruits of evolution.
Murder is also natural, abuse of the helpless is natural (in general - I do not believe in the existence of supernatural things) and the people who take these actions are also the products of evolution.
The only connection between good and bad (that is, morality) and evolution lies in the fact that evolution equipped us with an innate conscience on the basis of which it is possible, with the help of logic (which is also the fruit of evolution), to build a moral system that will suit all of us.
In my opinion, today's religion has no contribution to humanity.
I emphasize the word "nowadays" because it is possible that in the past, when the enforcement system did not come close to the dimensions of today's big brother, people's faith in a policeman watching over was beneficial and perhaps (not sure) even resulted in greater benefit than the damage it caused.
What is certain is that today it is already possible to say "the negro has done his (damage), the negro can go".
Regarding the question "What in the human soul encourages the believers to lean towards stupidity?", it turns out that I not only referred to it, but that I even happened to direct such a reference to you.
See here:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/does-evolution-disprove-god-0711/comment-page-5/#comment-298988
ארי
Absolutely not true. The subject was a point, and I addressed it in my response. On the other hand - your words are only ad hominem, and hence your opinion is not relevant to the discussion.
Shmulik
It is not clear what you are writing.
What is clear is that people like Makhal for example have healthy morals. At least I prefer to listen to him.
You (and Ehud - as you say) apparently have different morals than Michal.
If his morality is healthy and yours is the opposite in his own definition - then you will understand for yourself...
And I don't understand why you are so scared of healthy morals?
R.H. Rafai.M,
Boy Oh Boy
If you followed my responses, you should have understood this a long time ago: the definition of the term is a definition, and as a definition, it is not supposed to be relative, however, it is very difficult to define the concept of morality and I think everyone will have a different perception of the concept, just as it is difficult to say "a few grains defining a pile" and in addition, science changes what we think about terms so that if our genes are embedded with a basic knowledge of distinguishing between good and bad and the definition of the concept did not include this empirical knowledge, the definition has to change. I didn't follow the whole thread but I defined the concept of morality in the thread as I see it and a fan added his own. By the way, to the definition of a fan I would like to add the point of what I see as the term morality: "...against immediate self-interest" (which is probably already ingrained in our genes) but most of the thread did not deal with the definition of the concept.
The activation of the concept of "morality" is the question we discussed. Does religion, after defining the concept of morality, offer absolute morality? (In my opinion no, not on all the levels as I detailed), is it possible to present claims against certain groups if morality is relative (in my opinion yes, due to the reasons I detailed) etc.
"We both know it's just stupidity", but this stupidity still controls more than half of humanity. I am interested in knowing two things in this context: a) Is there any benefit to humanity in this idiotic phenomenon? b) What in the human soul encourages believers to lean towards stupidity?
I would love to get smart answers.
Ghosts, isn't your quote from above ad hominem? Your comments are disgusting
"Man is not a rational being. The thinking itself can be rational, but it still does not constitute a motive for any action."
- a clearly irrational response.
"Man's motives are clearly irrational" - are you sure? Because if so, then your motives for writing answers here are illogical. And therefore you are wrong. As already explained to you.
Man is not a rational being. The thinking itself can be rational but still it is not a motive for any action.
Man's motives are clearly irrational. And even in those cases where thinking does interfere with the result, the rationality there has no meaning, because the basic assumptions are not rational.
I know other smart people who don't understand that man is an irrational creature. They just want to create the impression that they are special in their wisdom, but this is just a form of self-aggrandizement.
Eric,
This is not ad hominem. The response is relevant and legitimate. I referred to the respondent's body in a justified way. I expressed my opinion about his behavior. And there is no rudeness here. All in all, these are facts. If the reaction is too harsh for you, then you can say that it is harsh or blunt, but there is no attempt here to 'come down' on miracles or on you or anything similar.
Ghosts:
I don't have to hold back because I don't get angry at all.
Misunderstandings are a natural part of our lives and as long as they happen in good faith I accept them with love.
I get annoyed (but really!) when I think that my interlocutor understood my words but tries to present them in a different way as part of a demagogic argument.
Ghosts, there is no need for ad hominem over and over again, there is no reason to write "much, much more rational than a d*** like you". It's rude
Machel
There is no argument between us. I think like you. I just wanted to comment on Nissim's behavior.
Does it not bother you that miracles, for example, make you teach him the facts of life?
I understand you have time for that, but I don't. I also have no tolerance for people like him. How do you hold back in front of people like him, I also want to learn...?
Ghosts:
I wanted to write something about the order, but I see that you have already written.
But seriously - if you listen to me, as you claim, then I ask you to consider your words more and not attack people unnecessarily.
There was a slight misunderstanding, Nissim eventually realized that he did not understand my intention and said so (between us - apparently my words were not clear enough), the matter was over.
Miracles:
Very nice links.
The third one Molik has already seen (along with other links) if he read my article.
Eric.
I'm sorry. Next time I will be in Eilat with friends.. maybe next time... 🙂
Ghosts, I call you to order.
Miracles
"What I tried to show is that we are not rational beings" - yes, you are seen. 🙂 )))
In general, speak for yourself.
Much, much more rational than a d*** like you. That's why his opinion also has many times more weight than your opinion (it has no weight at all). This is why people like him are listened to and not people like you.
And no matter how many times you try to present the facts the other way around.
Miracles,
I have already attached some links from Wikipedia, I thought you had inside information 🙂
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/5373379/Animals-can-tell-right-from-wrong.html
a quote:
Experiments with rats have shown that they will not take food if they know their actions will cause pain to another rat. In lab tests, rats were given food which then caused a second group of rats to receive an electric shock.
The rats with the food stopped eating rather than see another rat receive a shock. Similarly, mice react more strongly to pain when they have seen another mouse in pain.
http://www.livescience.com/24802-animals-have-morals-book.html
http://www.ted.com/talks/frans_de_waal_do_animals_have_morals.html
30 seconds on Google……
Miracles,
Can shed some light on morality in animals? Do you know any studies?
Michael
I must not have understood you. What I was trying to show is that we are not rational beings. I didn't want to get into religious matters - we both know it's just stupid.
In total - there are 2 opinions here. One view is that there is morality outside of religion. And a second notice of those who do not know how to be moral without the fear of hell...
flows with you
Eric,
I prefer my own rule: don't do to your friend what he hates 🙂
Fan,
I claim that the definition of the concept of "morality" is independent of people, culture and time, that is, in order for us to move forward in the discussion, you must agree with me that the concept of morality is not defined in the same way for religious people and for secular people.
If we agreed on this point, which is critical to the argument, I claim, also according to your definition of the concept of morality, that the classification of the set of behaviors, which is dictated from above, empties of its content what we think when we think about morality. In my opinion, the concept of "morality" must include free will (and here I assume that there is a free will even though it is completely unclear, especially if a huge part of our morality is embedded in the genes) and therefore, I cannot say of a religious person that he is moral if the set is dictated to him from above exactly As a programmed robot will not be moral in any way no matter how many good deeds it does. So yes, religion paints reality in sharp colors, but it is not moral according to my definition.
The universality of the concept of morality. Let's assume for a moment that religion can be moral and remove the free will factor. Saving a human life is considered a moral act, but Ovadia Yosef recently ruled that a Jewish doctor is forbidden to save a Gentile on Shabbat and he justified this by saying "If this commandment had been spurred on, it might have been possible to change it, but this commandment is Dauriita (from the Torah) and therefore there is nothing to be done. Now let's assume that Yosef is absolutely right and we don't appeal his ruling. Did a religious doctor who let a Gentile bleed to death on Shabbat commit a moral act? If you tell me that it is not moral in the secular sense but moral in the religious sense then not only do you accept that morality moves in time but moves between groups of people arbitrarily, as they please and the concept of morality in general loses all validity.
I would also like to refer to your last sentence: "In addition, in your attempt to judge the moral treatment of women, you are contradicting yourself because these rules were established in a different period and were appropriate for that period, so you cannot judge their morality in the light of today's morality. We have already agreed that morality is a relative thing even in time."
The only reason I write again and again about the immorality of the Torah is because according to the religious, the Torah was given by God in his own honor and by himself, and then my question is: "If God gave the Torah, how did he give such an immoral Torah". If God wrote laws that were customary then, why do we need him? You expect God to outlaw slavery completely and not be such a chauvinist who hates gays. When you assume that the Torah was written by people, everything is understandable and there is really no possibility of judging them harshly
Miracles:
Yes.
I did all of these.
By the way, not everyone is irrational in every situation, it depends on the circumstances.
Anyway - why do you think I need examples of something I said we were doing?
Michael Rothschild
Have you ever driven over the speed limit? did you drink coke Have you seen a stupid show on TV? Did you get mad at a driver who overtook you? did you eat dessert Did you argue with people here? Did you buy something you didn't really have to?
point:
What you say is not true, but even if it were true, it would mean that leaving the film is rational, so why are you asking for it? Why do you even think that if it's rational?
Miracles:
What is a "crowd"?
And besides - is "all that is abundant is fine"?
Michael Rothschild
I hope you are aware that we do a great many irrational things.
Michael, get out of the rational movie.
Man is an irrational creature.
sympathetic:
I did skip this question because it seemed unimportant to me and I no longer had the energy.
Irrational behavior is not helpful (to say the least) and should be avoided.
We are human and we are not able to do this all the time, but to build a whole life on irrational behavior and instill it as an ideal for children is... I have no words.
Of course I repeated myself for completely different reasons.
sympathetic
Shmulik gave you some examples of the "morality" of the Jewish religion. Maybe just answer him directly? There are many examples of immorality in the Torah.
If the meaning of being Jewish is to accept the Tanakh stories as examples of morality then I will probably have to look for another religion...
"You come from outside religion and try to claim that you are practical
Believe threats based on external morality while someone can come and claim your actions as well
Terrible on the basis of morality that seems natural to him by the way"
You forget the iron rule: 'What you hate, don't do' or 'Don't cause suffering'. There is nothing relative here.
It turns out that this time I repeated myself, but it was only done
For aesthetic reasons
מ
It seems that you are repeating yourself because you are ignoring the questions you are being asked. That's why this time
Instead of answering your claims about religious morality. I will repeat the same question next time
the second or the third. Do you believe that irrational behavior is a flaw, that humanity
Need to learn to live without her? And in addition, should human actions be rational
only and everything that is not a disease? In my opinion, the question is directly related to the discussion of whether religion is
Disease?
Shmulik
For me, morality is not the action but the classification of cases and the way in which one should act as good or bad.
The action the person chooses and the motive for the action is not part of morality as far as I'm concerned, thanks to the labeling of actions
The actions of a person can also be labeled as good and bad. Your determination that a person acting for salary motives
And punishment is not moral is a moral assertion and assumes that only an altruistic action is moral, an assumption
which is not acceptable to me. By the way, even without human actions, it is possible to determine morality that will guide people how to act in hypothetical situations. Indeed, like you and in contrast to M, I believe that religious morality changes over time because religion is different
would not have survived. Religion must adapt itself to the spirit of the times. My argument was that
Religion is able to establish the coloring of the world in the colors of good and evil by relying on a divine other
The secular has no anchor in which he can anchor his determination that something is good or bad.
You brought the claim to me about Buddhism in response to the fact that you claimed that" in addition, if you assume
That slavery is moral, that it is permissible to murder a girl who was raped, a woman/girl who cheated on her husband, then yes
Religion offers you an impressive and beautiful morality." You come from outside religion and try to claim that you are practical
Believe threats based on external morality while someone can come and claim your actions as well
Terrible on the basis of morality which seems natural to him by the way
In addition to your attempt to judge the moral treatment of women you contradict yourself because
These rules were established in another period and were appropriate for that period so you are not
can judge their morality in the light of today's morality. We have already agreed that morality is a thing
also relative in time.
מ
מ
It seems that you are repeating yourself because you are ignoring the questions you are being asked. Therefore this time instead of answering you about
Your claims about religious morality. I will repeat the same question for the second or third time. Do you believe that
Irrational behavior is a flaw that humanity has to learn to live without? And in addition, should human actions be only rational and everything that is not rational is a disease?
In my opinion, the question is directly related to the discussion of whether religion is a disease
Before I answer, I would like to comment that one of my problems is with articles that are so long even though the main idea can be understood in 10% of it. Too bad.
As a matter of fact, who determined that in order to exist, to feel meaningful and secure in ourselves, we need something bigger than ourselves?
A person in order to feel meaning without religion can feel strength and meaning through education, study, research, art, literature, development, all these will not only add to him but will add an immeasurably great contribution. Religion, as one of our informants said, is a drug for the masses. It is easy to sell and much easier to live with.
Fan,
How many points
1. I make a simple claim: religion by definition cannot be moral since every action the religious person does is as a result of God's commandment so that the religious person either fears punishment or expects retribution. Altruism is apparently the most moral position (we all praise the soldier who lay down on the grenade...) but the religious person has an interest and this completely cancels the morality of his action and makes his action the opposite of an altruist, no matter what he does. A religious person can of course do good deeds (and many of them do) but deep down, he does it because he is commanded to do so or he is afraid of the punishment. It is not moral.
By the way, you can argue against me, after I have given arguments that morality exists in the living world, that in fact a large part of what I call morality is actually inherent in my genes and that I am the expression of my genes and then my actions are dictated by evolution and that is not moral either.
2. Even if you don't accept my first argument, refer to the next point: the absolute. I was wrong when I said that God offers absolute morality because the Torah also changes and changes, depending on the time. I don't want to repeat all the horrors that the Torah details (what to do with a girl/woman who cheated on her husband, there is a difference between a girl and a woman, rape murder, stoning gays, genocide...) and concentrate on slavery. Slavery was moral in the Torah, it describes in great detail how slaves should be treated, Hebrew or not, so at that time, it was perfectly moral to own slaves, as long as the rules were followed, but then history progressed and Rambam changed the rules of slavery and if I understand correctly, also on the table I have no idea what the situation is today regarding slaves in Judaism today, but surely there have been changes between that period and ours. Since the Torah is a book and every book interprets (especially the Torah), even the name of morality is not absolute
3. It is clear that different religions have different morals. And the point is? I don't understand why you wrote the obvious
Michael,
You keep missing the point and it's unfathomable. It's like you want to continue arguing, so you invent straw men and fake claims and try to drag me into a discussion that I'm not a part of.
You write "perhaps not determine..." (it's clear, you are not in a position to determine anything for anyone) but then you "point to the only way in my opinion that it is possible for everyone to live without making the lives of others miserable" oh humility. So here it is:
1. Symmetry, the Golden Rule, Confucius, the Book of Leviticus, Hillel the Elder - this was already said a few thousand years ago. You are not renewing anything. By the way, I like the rule better: "Don't do to your friend what he hates". that's mine.
2. Even if you renew something (as to how this rule can be deduced) it puts you in a different slot than me. You make a claim about the future (which is perfectly fine) but I entered the discussion because of another issue. I expressed my opinion that there is no need to fear that morality is relative, and I showed that morality is relative (in several ways) and at the same time people can be called immoral, when they are judged in the correct cultural context, according to the morality that existed in their time. Because of this, your claim that I cannot have a claim against the Nazis is a false and childish claim. I explained repeatedly why, even under relative morality, an argument against the Nazis would be possible. Do you agree that the claim you made against me about the Nazis is wrong?
3. My only reference to why I accept our moral system and why I think it is superior to other moral rules in the world (the Muslim one for example) is because of the empirical reason. I do not make any absolute statement that in the future there will not be other, better rules of morality.
4. Animals: I don't follow all your musings in any response but in the discussion that started with me, you completely missed the reason why I brought up the gorillas and the rest of the animal world. You're saying something about talking to gorillas (by the way, read in Israel, an article was recently published there talking about the fact that soon we might be able to communicate with them. Yes, yes, it won't be about Nietzsche, that's clear, but it's amusing) but my intention was to show that since and the species of man, before For tens of thousands of years, he probably behaved exactly like the gorillas, in the sense of the social structure, and in this structure there was not an iota of symmetry between the individuals who made up the pack and still, we have no permission to call the people who walked around then immoral. On the contrary, the above-mentioned behavior maximized the level of happiness of the group (which was more important than the individual, unlike today) and therefore precisely the lack of symmetry, in that period, is the right way to conduct oneself. That is, I recruited the animal world to show that morality is relative and variable. This is the reason why I entered the discussion.
5. I claim that symmetry is possible as a moral rule only when life began to be comfortable and the individual became more and more important and the group less and less and continues to claim that morality depends on the technological level of the culture.
Regarding the card, Topher Hitchens was shamefully wrong. Let me update you but Mother Teresa lived in our time and he researched her exploits while she was still alive. She knew exactly who she was taking money from and when she repeats the Catholic example that contraceptives are equivalent to murder, she condemns her fans to poverty (due to repeated pregnancies) in a society that is also poor and prevents protection against AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases and when, because of a religious example, you prevent a cure and cause To death (albeit not directly) you are, in my book, a bad person. If you have no factual arguments against what he claimed, then his argument is perfectly clear, unless you still don't understand why it's okay to have relative morality and still be able to judge people. It embarrasses me to state the obvious, yet morality, like evolution, changes slowly so there is no problem judging Nazis or Mother Teresa. Nothing substantial has been discovered since they went up and down the stage of history. We are not talking about people who lived thousands of years ago but in our time. What is not understood in this?
Again, for the umpteenth time, I am not renewing too much about how to live and they said the rule of reciprocity, better than me and more beautiful than me thousands of years ago. It seems to me that the only innovation I brought to the discussion (beyond showing that it is possible to be a digger at your level) is my claim that morality is relative to the technological level of culture and that there is no need to be alarmed by this.
Beyond that, I will probably agree to any claim you make against religion, I did not enter into a discussion with you but against those who claim that without religion we would not have absolute morality and then we would not be able to judge anyone, while I am completely unmoved by this. Thus an attempt to drag me into a debate that I do not belong to will probably succeed (a dig, did I already say that?) but I will not agree to give up my original claim: it is possible to accept relative morality and still make claims against the Nazis. There is no contradiction in that.
If this point is still not clear, we have reached the water grinding stage.
And the fact is that there is no other group in Israel that allows itself the parasitism that the ultra-orthodox allow themselves.
What distinguishes the ultra-Orthodox from the rest of the population is religion, so what is the cause of parasitism?
sympathetic:
Haredim are a clear example of religious people in the Jewish religion.
In Israel they have more freedom of action than abroad and therefore they express it in a more extreme way than abroad.
I have already explained more than once that religion - because it defines an unequivocal and fixed morality that cannot be perfected when knowledge increases is predestined to conflict with the sense of morality of those who do allow themselves to draw lessons from the accumulated knowledge.
But I'm really tired of repeating myself
Shmulik
We agree that non-religious morality is relative but your claims about
The immorality of religion is ridiculous, if you believe that ever
There is a purpose and there is an order, you cannot claim that the religious laws are
cruel When we judge some action morally we
It is compared to the alternatives when something believes in God
He has no alternatives, the weight of acting against God's will
trumps everything else. There is no point in judging religious morality
on the outside. Beyond that, different religions have different moral laws
A believer will see you as a cruel murderer because you eat meat.
מ
I'm also getting tired of this argument and I don't have much time either. I'm talking about religion as a part
From humanity and you answer me anxiously:
I'm tired of this stupid bickering. You write:
"The entire ultra-orthodox establishment makes statements that parasitism is actually
On the contrary and you say it's not because of religion" and in addition you bring me more
An example of a rabbi who does not allow a woman to go to study???
Haredim is not equal to religious in Israel and religious in Israel is not equal to religious in the world
And religious in the world does not equal religion. How do you expect to prove your claim?
That religion is a disease of the human race (and not what defines it) on
By examples of Haredim who live at the expense of the state?
In order to advance the discussion, I would be happy to hear explicitly and not in hints
Do you think that religion is analogous to a disease, i.e. it is not something basic to humanity?
Secondly, in this context, I would love to hear if you think that activity
Irrationality is a problem that humanity has to learn to live without?
Should human actions be purely rational and all
What is not a disease?
And of course I answered your question about the administration of the state by the ultra-Orthodox even before you asked.
point:
And your professional opinion on the fundamental law of human dignity and freedom is of course complete nonsense.
Can you explain to me how it contrasts?
Can you explain how it is that the court - not only did not notice this (and remind you: the secular are also human beings and deserve respect and freedom) but ruled against the discriminatory laws?
Besides - recruiting a person to the army who has not learned what it is to be a soldier is a way to make cannon fodder and not a way to win the war.
point:
You didn't answer anything and a half!
Please tell me what you answered to the question of why the ultra-Orthodox don't go to work.
Please tell me what in your opinion is the method by which the capitalists specifically prohibit the ultra-Orthodox from going to work and allow it only for the secular.
Please tell me - if the capitalists are the ones preventing the Haredim from working and enlisting - why the Haredim are protesting precisely against the work and enlistment and not against the capitalists who prevent them from working and enlisting.
Please tell me what your answer was to my claim that the economy would have benefited from the ultra-Orthodox joining the labor market even if the vain claim that the capitalists limit the number of jobs was true.
And I'll add another question: how is it that I never needed any wealthy capitalist.
And regarding the "dodging" of the ultra-orthodox. It's ridiculous. The whole matter of forcing military conscription is completely against the basic law of human dignity. And there is a special clause that during an emergency yes you can recruit into the army by compulsion.
It seems to me from the outside that those secularists who consider themselves liberals or pluralists actually have a fascist and dark mindset. In short, it is hatred that speaks from their throats. Only with filters of intellectualization that can mislead the innocent listener.
"Throughout most of its history the state has been run by the ultra-Orthodox" the ultra-orthodox is less than 10 mandates. Most Shas voters are not ultra-Orthodox at all. Such claims are reminiscent of the claims of the Germans before the Holocaust as if all their troubles were caused by the Jews.
And about Zalika I answered you and for some reason you choose to ignore the corruption in the capitalist system led by Bibi and his friend Fisher in which there is no competition in the market. I said that the capitalists do not limit the jobs. The corrupt system in which all the capital is concentrated in a few people limits the jobs. And so the talk about the ultra-Orthodox exiting the labor market is superficial. Because there are no jobs. This is roughly what the attribution says (with my own additions).
Ghosts:
In my opinion, the terms "good" and "bad" have no meaning that is not part of a moral value system. Therefore it is impossible to say that a certain morality is good or bad - unless you judge it according to the value system of some morality (different or the same).
In my opinion, as mentioned, there is only one type of value system with which a universal agreement can be reached.
This is the moral system I propose and I usually determine whether something is good or bad based on it.
point:
What nonsense!
Throughout most of its history, the country has been run by the ultra-orthodox parties.
It's the tail wagging the dog and they have blackmailed all governments so far to get what they want.
How did they blackmail?
Very simple: nothing other than the ultra-orthodox is important to them and therefore they can get along with both the right and the left. This allows them to go back and forth between the blocs and combine as much as possible with the price and thus bring it to power.
Although I said that the ultra-Orthodox are important to them, and that is true, but by denying them education, work and military service, they are constantly harming them and, by the way, harming the rest of the country.
Only Tommy Lapid and now Yair Lapid have so far managed to push their feet out of the government. During Tommy Lapid's time, there was a certain improvement that will play out later. Let's hope that our son will do better.
In fact, you didn't answer any of the claims I made about Zalika's words and you ignore all the wars that the ultra-Orthodox are waging in order to continue to evade.
ארי
You mean what points and muliks do? Of course immoral.
But morality is fenced in by laws, and these laws are dictated by the powerful.
It doesn't matter if I think what a dot is doing, for example, is immoral. What matters is the consensus in human society.
ghosts
Is ad hominem moral or not? What do you think?
point
One more time: stop attributing things to me that I didn't say.
I wasn't talking about morality based on feelings. I wrote clearly and you as usual twist things to fit your way of thinking.
What interests you is your problem. It has nothing to do with the existing reality and the subject of the discussion.
Beyond that, you neither confirmed nor refuted anything from my response, so in my opinion there is no point in continuing the discussion.
You are talking about morality based on feelings, feelings of what is good and what is not good. There is nothing special about this, what causes you pangs of conscience is your personal matter, with the education you have undergone, etc. I have it and every person has it, everyone and their super ego. This is usually what is meant when they say morality, but this is what brought about the Holocaust, so I don't see it as anything particularly interesting.
On the other hand, morality based on thinking about what is right or wrong, or more precisely, what is appropriate or inappropriate, seems to me more interesting than the theoretical scientific aspect (although practically it has no meaning because it cannot be realized).
point
You have already proven that you have no morals, so why would you understand what morality is? you won't understand
I didn't talk about any feelings.
And it's also not related, as you say, to thinking.
Morality is based on laws.
Laws that are derivatives of morality as expressed in interpersonal consensus.
ghosts It seems to me that you do not understand what morality is.
It does not refer to feelings, because then there is no meaning to the debate about morality, that taste and smell should not be debated.
Morality is supposed to be something related to thinking, a decision based on thinking. And according to certain principles in thinking (for example the principle of equality), and this is something that is not found in animals at all. And not for most people.
Once again: what's funny is the things you say, Shmulik.
Morality is not relative.
Morality is a term invented by man to describe something. We also find this in other animals.
Hence, if humans find morality in other animals as well, it follows that all animals (including humans) are moral.
That is, morality is universal and not relative. Maybe you meant to word it differently, but it's not clear why you didn't.
To what extent morality is developed in each race and sex and individual, that is another question. The question can be answered by using the concept of symmetry. (but you probably don't understand that either)
In animals, morality has not developed to the same level as it is in humans.
Still it doesn't mean that a person who only steals all his life is more moral than an animal,
But it also in no way suggests that morality is relative.
Machel
Peace.
According to your definition, is morality good or bad? And is there even such a thing as good morals and bad morals.
There are those who say that immorality is evil. Morality itself is a good thing.
Michael:
Do you agree that the employer has an interest in paying the employee as little salary as possible?
Michael, they do not limit out of an interest to limit. The restriction is a result of non-competition in the economy. No competition, monopolies. There are no jobs, and certainly not for the ultra-Orthodox.
And again I ask what I asked you once and you and my father avoided the torments. This country is run by a government. And the government is largely secular. So why do they continue to give budgets to the ultra-Orthodox? The only plausible answer is what Shiron Zelicha says. And not what you say (according to what you say the government is religious).
point:
I have seen many lectures by Yaron Zelicha and he is wrong and misleading in almost every possible aspect:
1. No capitalist opposes the work of ultra-Orthodox. The fact that the ultra-Orthodox don't work is their decision alone and not the capitalists'.
2. Even if he were right in his claim that the capitalists limit the number of jobs (and he is not right about it, but let's assume for a moment that they are) - ultra-Orthodox can go to work. If the number of jobs does not increase, then some will be accepted and some will not, and at the same time - some of the seculars will be expelled from the workforce. So it is true that the number of employees will not change, but nevertheless the state of the economy will improve because the level of employees everywhere will improve (because the workplaces will prefer the best from a larger selection)
3. As mentioned, he is wrong in his claim that the capitalists are limiting the supply of jobs. He is wrong about this in two respects: one is that the capitalists gain nothing from limiting the supply of jobs and therefore it simply does not make sense for them to do so. The second is that it is not only the capitalists who create jobs. Many start-up companies were founded by people who could not find a vacancy in an existing workplace, and the more people there are who are interested in working, the more people who are able to create jobs will be found in them.
Michael. You should very much watch Yaron Shelikah's lecture at the Technion. There he explains that the whole ultra-Orthodox thing is a result of the centralization of the economy, that the capitalists control everything here, and there are no jobs. A. The state prefers to give them budgets.
The whole matter of this "parasitism", it comes from the capitalists because they are not interested in changing the system. It has nothing to do with religion at all. Hate blinds your eyes.
sympathetic:
I'm tired of this stupid bickering.
The entire ultra-Orthodox establishment makes statements that parasitism is actually the opposite and you say it's not because of religion.
There is a limit to the degree of ignoring the reality that I see myself obliged to deal with you and you have long since passed this limit.
The patient does not always suffer from his illness.
For example, those who are on the floor or in different levels of blurred senses - do not suffer.
Insane patients - they also do not suffer in many cases and psychopaths even enjoy when they cause suffering to those around them.
But come on, I'm tired of slandering someone who has made up his mind in advance to deny everything he says, no matter how true it is.
Shmulik:
I also do not determine how one should live, but I point to the only way in which I think it is possible for everyone to live without making the lives of others miserable.
I claim that it is no coincidence that this is the method that the West drains into and in my opinion - any culture that is freed from the clutches of religion will drain into it.
It is true that experience shows that this is the case, but in fact logic also points to this and you don't have to be a game theory genius to discover this.
If you read my words carefully, you will find in them, for example, the following sentence: "While the morality of the secular corresponds to his natural sense of morality and becomes more and more sophisticated as he gains knowledge and understanding, the religious "morality" often contradicts the natural sense of morality of the religious himself and actually requires To act in the way he dug into his soul (something that religion often suppresses) he would consider as immoral."
This is actually a more accurate representation of the fact that you are talking about the dependence on place and time.
It is more accurate because it points to the connection between our insights (and I explained the connection between intelligence and morality) and the same change that occurred in morality.
This is not an arbitrary dependence, but a dependence that comes from a better understanding of the world.
This is not about the necessity of the circumstances (hunger, etc.) because those who understood that stealing is immoral - might steal when hungry but still knew it was immoral. I have already explained that our actions are controlled by more than one drive.
Strangely enough - it is Hitchens who makes a colossal mistake in this regard, when he talks about Mother Teresa and judges her according to the insights we have today. This, for example, is an immoral step. It is absolutely appropriate to point out the fact that according to the knowledge we have today it is not appropriate to act as she did, but to conclude that she was a bad or immoral woman is not fair.
If you accept the rules of conduct that I point to and also the method of moral development that I pointed to - you have no reason to claim that another moral system is no less worthy.
It's like the story with medicine and "alternative" medicine - alternative medicine that works is called medicine. If there is a refinement that deserves to be introduced into morality - it expresses some insight into the world that once people reach it - its consequences for morality will also be determined.
To claim that I ignored the animal world is complete nonsense (if not unparalleled audacity) for those who have read my words, a considerable part of which discusses the animal world and the evolutionary origins of our morality.
I am not separating man from the living world - I am only pointing out the correct relationship between him and the other animals and I pointed out exactly what I called "man is allowed from the animal" in the moral field.
Unlike humans - animals are almost incapable of deriving morality logically and through introspection, therefore it is impossible to demand from them insights that did not develop in them during evolution.
And in conclusion, I (again and again) claim that morality is indeed relative, but that it is possible quietly (and in fact essential for our future) to talk about a point of reference which is "the human race" and accept what I define as universal morality.
God's relation to united nations:
A. And all the land will have one language and one language. XNUMX And it happened that they traveled before them and they found a valley in the land of Shinar and they dwelt there. XNUMX And a man said to his neighbor, Let it be made of brick and burnt to burn, and the brick became stone to them, and the clay became clay to them. XNUMX And they said, Let us build a city and a tower with its head in the sky, and let us make a name spread over the face of the whole earth. And Jehovah came down to see the city and the tower that the sons of men had built. And Yahweh said, They are one people and one language for all of them, and this is what he dreamed of doing, and now everything that they set out to do will not be prevented from them. XNUMX Let their language descend and perish there, so that no one will listen to his neighbor's language. XNUMX And Jehovah scattered them from there over the face of the whole earth and they stopped building the city. XNUMX Therefore its name was called Babylon, because there, because of Jehovah, was the language of the whole earth, and from there Jehovah spread it over the face of the entire earth. {f}
Following on from my comment,
If part of my morality is embedded in our genes, and evolution is adaptation to the environment, it is quite clear that morality is something that moves with time
sympathetic,
You are right that God offers a kind of absolute "morality". I write "moral" because of the following reasons:
All my religious friends will forgive me, but nothing in religion is moral because if you act because Sadan Hussein in the sky forces you, and threatens you, it is not moral.
Please read the Ten Commandments and see for yourself. Each and every word contains an insane punishment or a bribe as an incentive. If, for example, you take God's name in vain, all your descendants, up to and including your great-grandson, will suffer. You should respect your father or mother so that your days will be long, which means that here is a bribe that Saddam Hussein is offering you.
In addition, if you assume that slavery is moral, that it is permissible to murder a girl who was raped, a woman/girl who cheated on her husband, then yes the religion offers you an impressive and beautiful morality.
Don't understand what that means relative morality cannot be established logically. I defined morality in a previous post and if you agree with my definition, it is quite clear why morality is relative and why it makes sense for it to be relative. In addition, I also wrote about our connection to the living world and the morality we share with our fellow animals. I want to say, some of these moral rules are embedded in our genes and to ignore this fact is ridiculous.
מ
You write
"I am pointing to a moral problem caused by religion and which results in the organized harm of an entire population."
The moral problem you point to is not caused by religion any more than the fact that there are chemical weapons is
The fault of the science of chemistry. Religion does not say that believers must live at the expense of those who are not
Trainers.
I think we agreed that faith or religion is natural to man. You are trying to argue that
This is a disease. I don't see any arguments from you why religion is a disease. the patients in it
They do not appear to me to be suffering. If you come out with a sweeping declaration that religion is a disease and not a way
That I claim an inherent part of the concept of humanity you must show it in general.
Shmulik
You refer to things indirectly every time, therefore in violation of the rule of symmetry I will refer
Directly to your words (escalation is the result of trying to establish symmetry in the system no
posture).
I only claimed that religion allows morality that is not relative. I am not afraid of morality that is not
Relativistic only asserts that it cannot be logically established. While you believed as soon as it is assumed that there is
Purpose for existence and order in the moral world is derived. Again fear of relative morality is a thing
Psychologically I'm not afraid of relational things, in that sense I agree with you
that morality based on man is relative.
I didn't understand what was funny.
I am not making any determination about whether there are situations in which we have become too humane, etc. but rather saying that morality is relative. What's funny about that????????????
I miss the days when we didn't just climb from 0 to a hundred in a second, days when things might have been weird, strange, flawed, wrong, illogical.
Shmulik
Your comments are delusional.
If in the past people would be stoned because they committed a crime, then today thanks to the moral symmetry, they are not stoned but given freedom and space to express themselves (even if their words are not true and they think that morality is relative).
Michael,
I will summarize my argument here again.
I don't determine how one should live and I completely accept that in the culture I live in, the golden rule, symmetry, etc. are the way one should live and I don't have too much to innovate on the subject. I define morality as rules of conduct that we apply to ourselves and hope that others will also adopt them (a basic condition) in order to maximize the happiness of the individual and of society (and only if the happiness of society maximizes the happiness of the individual). At this time he commented that survival is only a part (very important but only a part) of the individual's happiness, since for example, nowadays, euthanasia becomes a moral act, for those terminally ill who suffer indescribable suffering.
I notice that, from an empirical point of view, Western humanism based on the golden rule, is the form of behavior that led to the maximization of the individual's happiness in the best way that led to the best achievements of the individual and society, in any field and in any measure, and this is mainly the reason why I advocate humanism and not for any theoretical reason Other.
I state that morality is relative to the period, culture and its technological level (in my opinion, this is the main parameter) because morality is based on "how easy it is to live" and this was my point of entry into the discussion, regarding someone else's claim and not yours. I say that you should not be afraid of this and the fact of relativity does not diminish my ability to claim that what the great oppressors did is terrible and immoral and all my examples were brought to prove the relativity of morality. This is my claim and therefore the examples do not come to deal with the claims of what you probably wrote.
Because of this, because I accept the rules of conduct that you also mentioned, Hitchens' speech is a master piece: it hits home what I think. When he was still alive, Hitchens was second to none as an orator.
By the way, you missed something about the animal world: since the human species belongs to the animal world and it is nonsense to disconnect man from the animal world, all his instincts and social structures come from the same world where gorillas, lions, etc. live, I brought them as an example: to show that man once lived in a reality with symmetry It did not exist in any form whatsoever and these human societies cannot be called immoral.
So in conclusion, again: I am not arguing against how one should live, but stating that morality is relative, one should not be afraid of it and it does not allow anyone to avoid punishment just because sometime in the past or sometime in the future, the rules of morality were or will be different. We are judged by the current rules in which we live.
And another thing that interests me, Shmulik, is why you say Hitchens' music video is a masterpiece if he constantly repeats terms of good and bad and other value judgments. What do you think these terms mean?
And I say again: many of your responses include preaching morality and I must ask what morality you are talking about and why you think it is binding on me.
And regarding the survival of the gorillas - you brought this reasoning and I only refuted it.
Shmulik:
I argue with a lot of people at the same time and it's hard to use everyone's terminology exactly.
I said that for me absolute morality and objective morality are the same, therefore my reference to objective morality was also in place.
Sorry I didn't use the word you chose but I meant exactly the same thing (and in fact I already said it).
I took pains to emphasize that universal morality is a different thing and I explained how it is different and why it can still serve us as a substitute for the concept of religious morality based on an entity that does not exist (and therefore is not defined).
I explained that in order to live together we need such a thing because in the environment of all male Dalits the majority die.
Not a single example of the examples you gave does not deal with my words.
The fact that something is connected to a person does not make him a worthy alternative to the concept of morality and I explained what I think are the qualities that such morality should demonstrate.
The example of the genius leader is also not appropriate because it is clear to everyone that the symmetrical relationship is derived from the symmetry between the individuals and when there is no such symmetry the relationship is also allowed to be asymmetrical.
There is no need to go for such fantastic examples - the fact that workplaces have different degrees is a fact of life and it fits well with the concept of morality that I propose.
The symmetry is the starting point and it only exists until proven otherwise.
This is called equal opportunity.
There are individuals who violate the symmetry in one direction and because of that go to prison and there are individuals who violate it in the opposite direction and because of that get better conditions.
By the way - the selection of the genius leader or a promotion in rank or imprisonment are not necessarily actions that are done by virtue of morality.
I have already explained that among our motives there are other things beyond morality and in the end our actions are the result of weighing all the impulses.
By the way, the Or party is reminiscent of the Illuminati. There is a connection?
So you can't throw me a few tens of millions of dollars, too bad :\
Regarding the story, I just read about the famous banker Guy de Rothschild… 🙂
Michael,
It's getting weird.
I wrote that I am not required to talk about objective morality. You wrote this concept in your response to me and then you wrote that you don't believe in it and I made it clear that I don't intend to refer to it because I don't really understand what he is saying. The one who has to argue is you, you keep bringing up a concept that I didn't discuss (but because I'm not ready to give you the last word on this issue, I probably have to argue as well)
further,
If you explained that morality is anthropocentric and I must of course accept your explanation, it still leaves you with an empty bag. In the commentary I repeatedly wrote examples that include a person so that my examples are valid.
I don't see why the fact that man survives better than a gorilla invalidates my argument. This is absolutely not true. You build yourself a straw man and fight him. I agree that symmetry can be a good rule, I agree that symmetry (although it can include an eye for an eye) as we maintain it today helps us survive and is the reason for its existence and for no other reason. I'm just claiming that there was not always symmetry in human society and only in the twenty-first century view can we call those human societies (because you don't allow talking about animals, even though we are animals and not in the negative sense) immoral, rather it's ridiculous to do so.
Regarding Nazism: at no time? Not even a hundred thousand years ago? A period in which one human tribe destroyed other tribes and other races (I'm not ready to give up the attitude of man to other races despite your demand to only concern ourselves) in the struggle for survival without batting an eyelid.
I ask you for a direct answer: we are in the period after World War III. The state of resources is depleted and the chances of survival are poor. One tribe survives because it has a genius dictator leader, to whom everyone is subordinate and he is allowed to do as he pleases and if democracy occurs, the tribe will not survive. There is no symmetry. Is the dictator immoral? Is the tribe immoral?
I claim again: symmetry is only good for a time when everything is easy, like today and by no means in other times when we had to fight for our survival
point:
Depends on what you define as a relationship.
My only connection with you is that my last name is the same as theirs.
By the way, an interesting story:
My father's name is Gideon And once - when we were living in Paris in light of my father's mission, my father called the office of another Israeli friend.
The friend was not there and his (Israeli) clerk wrote a message.
The next day the friend called my father rolling with laughter and says that his clerk told him thatGuy de Rothschild Looked him up and he even speaks Hebrew
Michael,
Out of curiosity,
Are you related to the famous Rothschild family?
to Nir Lahav,
Let your ears hear what your mouth is saying.
After all, the whole claim of the monotheistic religions speaks in exactly the same terms, maybe the words are slightly different but the idea is the same:
Consciousness-soul (it was given to us by God and therefore we can explore and try to get closer to him)
God is infinite wisdom
A feeling that..- A feeling that..
There is a small difference, that you speak out of pride and not out of humility. You have more to learn
Shmulik:
Objective or absolute things are, as I understand the word, things that do not depend on a thing - not a person, not an animal and not anything else.
Therefore objective morality should also be like this.
I didn't put the word into the discussion. I was merely commenting on its use by others.
I said there is no such thing. You also think there isn't, but you probably have to argue.
I explained what universal is. I also explained that I was talking about consent. I also explained that the symmetry in agreement is bound by the symmetry of its partners.
I was not talking about this as a moral rule but as a characteristic of moral agreements that can be reached when the starting point is symmetry between the individuals.
I explained that universal morality is anthropocentric and therefore the question of whether animals are moral has no meaning at all.
What is clear is that man survives better than the gorillas but, even though it knocks down your survival argument, it does not make man more moral because the morality I am talking about is, as mentioned, anthropocentric.
If the day comes when it is possible to discuss morals with gorillas, I suppose they too will prefer a symmetrical approach, but Grandma doesn't have wheels.
I argue that at no time in which non-Aryans lived could there be a consensus on Nazism as morality. This is in contrast to a moral system of the type I am talking about.
http://alaxon.co.il/article/%d7%94%d7%90%d7%a1%d7%98%d7%a8%d7%95%d7%a4%d7%99%d7%96%d7%99%d7%a7%d7%94-%d7%9b%d7%9e%d7%93%d7%a2-%d7%91%d7%93%d7%99%d7%95%d7%a0%d7%99/
Further to Michael's youtube, here is what Christopher Hitchens said about Nazism, around 3 minutes into the clip which is a master piece
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUSxMCtWLII
Michael,
Another response will come right away, less silly. You are welcome to wait with your response
Michael,
(For some reason this response got stuck with my father, so I'm trying again)
Summarize:
There is no such thing as objective morality (a concept you wrote but don't believe in, so I'm not required to refer to it. If you want a reference to it, please define it first)
You talk about symmetry as a moral rule (the golden rule, Confucius, etc.) that you think is the right way to conduct yourself, while I can agree with this rule and even live by its light, but that doesn't change my argument that I'm not talking about how one should live but with what exists.
symmetry:
A person who lived a hundred thousand years ago may have survived better if there was no symmetry in his group but he was the only determinant and indeed we see this in the living world, to which we belong. Is there symmetry in gorillas, lions, wolves? in a dream at night Are these animals "immoral"? If the race survived as a result of the asymmetric behavior in the group, the race acted morally, then the symmetry requirement is not valid in any situation. Symmetry is only good for our time, which is the most convenient the human race has ever seen and that's what I argued in the first place. it's all relative.
I entered the discussion following someone's demand (not yours, I no longer remember who brought it up) for absolute morality and I wondered what is scary about morality not being absolute. You stated that I cannot have a claim against the Nazis and I have already answered that, and if that is not enough, I will answer briefly again: I certainly accept that in each period such and such rules of conduct are observed. At the time when the Nazis were operating, their actions were immoral in the most severe way ever seen because they were acting in total opposition to what was acceptable in their time. I'm not the only one saying this, but they themselves.
sympathetic
Goodwin's law does not matter when the Nazis are relevant to the discussion (like dealing with moral issues)
I would define religion a little more narrowly than he does, but you are invited to hear here why Nazism and Marxism are religions:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3FKAKlyK3w&feature=youtu.be&t=39m7s
And the joke with Nazism and Marxism simply ignores the fact that these are religions.
sympathetic:
It's just unbelievable!
I point to a moral problem that is caused by a religion and results in the organized harm of an entire population to another and you tell me two things in response: one is that there are more serious crimes committed by individuals (as if I justified them and as if there are none among the ultra-orthodox as well) and further adds that this is not a result of religion - What a fool!
And regarding Godwin's law: here is Michael's law:
Whenever the Nazis are mentioned so convincingly that the commenter has no real answer he will pull out Goodwin's Law as if it were an argument.
מ
At last the awl is out of the bag, you write
"Do you really think that any moral system should be accepted - even one that justifies the parasitic life of the ultra-Orthodox?"
So this is the terrible moral crime of the ultra-Orthodox, they live at my expense? Are the people who steal my money and use
where living in luxury hotels or on luxury goods is no less moral than those ultra-Orthodox people who live a poor life at my expense, provided
pressing. Don't you donate to charity? Consider the money you give them as charity. Maybe you think you live at our expense
Hurting the country, but the country or nationalism is another concept that you oppose?
Indeed, I think that the situation in which they live at my expense is not a good situation, but it is not related to religion.
Haredim abroad do work. So your argument against Judaism is not against the religion but against a local anomaly.
You write:
"Do you think that if the Nazis followed the laws of their country they would be allowed to do this?" are you aware
Goodwin's law:
"As an online discussion goes on, the probability that a Nazi or Hitler-related acceptance will occur approaches one (absolute certainty)." There is a refinement of the law that determines
"A refinement of the law,[1] accepted as a tradition in discussion groups, forums and other websites that allow discussion or an online forum, states that whenever such acceptance occurs, the discussion ends, and anyone who mentioned the Nazis automatically lost the discussion that took place."
In any case, if you have already raised the issue. The thing I do fear is people who have a universal moral theory
Especially in the secular case. A universal moral theory is the basis of Nazism and Marxism and the crimes they entailed. If you push me into a corner I will support a "live and let live" approach.
Michael,
Summarize:
There is no such thing as objective morality (a concept you wrote and don't believe in, so I'm not required to)
You talk about symmetry as a moral rule (the golden rule, Confucius, etc.) that you think is the right way to behave, while I can agree with that, but it does not change my argument: a person who lived a hundred thousand years ago may have survived better if his group did not There was symmetry, but it was the only determinant (we see it in the living world) and the demand for symmetry does not make sense under any circumstances for that period.
Symmetry is only good for our time, which strengthens my argument that everything is relative
Shmulik:
In the above document I am not talking about objective morality at all because in my opinion there is no such thing.
The meaning I am referring to by the word "universal" is "acceptable to all human beings"
Shmulik
http://1vsdat.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=564:%D7%A2%D7%9C-%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A1%D7%A8&Itemid=189
Michael Rothschild,
Well, please send me your definition of universal morality and objective morality and the differences between them and then I will respond again.
Shmulik:
Whatever the group's decision - your above comment is another in a series of moral preachings you do and if there is no universal morality (and I explained the difference between universal morality and objective morality) it has no effect on anyone.
You are actually calling for a world where all Dalims prevail.
This is of course a possibility.
The Nazis chose it, TV series like Survival and "Big Brother" are based on it.
Evolution also does an experiment on the matter from time to time and then the psychopaths are accepted.
As I took the trouble to point out - the morality I'm talking about is an offer of consent.
If you don't want to agree, you are welcome to start your own personal survival struggle. I remind you that your chances of success are 1 in 7 billion.
Another confusion that arises from your words in the previous responses is the assumption that all our actions are determined by our sense of morality.
These things express a misunderstanding of the difference between the objective function and the constraints.
A person who likes the sweet taste will not stop loving it because of a lack of sugar, even though the lack will require him to consume less sweet food.
It will not be a change in the sense of taste but a change in the degree of approaching the goal.
These things also express the lack of awareness that our actions are ultimately the result of weighing many impulses, of which the impulse to act morally is only one.
Michael,
Whatever the decision within the group, morality is not absolute and therefore your question about the Nazis is a reduction of my argument to kindergarten level
Anyone who participates in the discussion here and preaches to others does so because they think they are doing wrong.
If everyone has their own morality - these sermons have no meaning.
It catches up for me point, Shmulik And anyone who does so.
It seems to me that none of those who practice this way have read what I proposed as morality (including a point that repeats a section of what I wrote there without knowing that it has already been said and using the wrong term "objective morality").
The fact is that in order to live together there must be a moral code and one of the elementary conditions for such a code is that it be agreed upon and the only way to reach agreement is symmetry - but I will not repeat the whole article here.
As a general rule, my morals tell me that when you want to comment on other people's words, you should first check them.
I agree with you, under the conditions I specified: I live in the same culture as you, at the same time and as "normal" as you. In short, as long as we are very similar, we can agree on some beautiful rules of thumb like the golden rule, but my principle argument has not moved an inch: morality is relative to a lot of factors and especially to the technological level of the culture, or in short: how easy it is to exist. The easier it is to exist, communities that were once oppressed with a heavy hand receive rights and proper moral treatment, but as soon as it becomes difficult to exist...
Hello point
Note that in the wording of the article I always tried to write down a wording in the style of "Our feeling is that there is an infinite depth in nature that can be explored" or "It seems that thanks to our self-consciousness we have tremendous and possibly infinite abilities." I've always tried to emphasize that we feel like we have infinite capabilities. The emphasis is on the feeling. If the word infinity bothers you, you can replace it with the word "tremendous" or "huge". How great are our abilities? Can it be said that our abilities are infinite? Maybe yes and maybe not, we will see in the later studies. Note that the feeling of infinite abilities also stems from the fact that abilities are potential for something and potential can develop and be created over time, so it's really hard to say if there is an end to abilities.
Shmulik.
There is an acute problem if morality in your eyes is a relative and undefined concept.
In my opinion, the issue of morality is terribly simple and should be so, if we leave Hitler for a moment.
You cling too literally to the second rule I brought, neither you nor I, religious people, take the spirit of things: if you are able to feel suffering and understand what it is, do not cause suffering. It has nothing to do with the ancient man, level of intelligence, or technological progress. There is no point in talking about someone who has never felt any kind of suffering, a. Because apparently there is no such thing, b. Those who have never felt suffering also do not really know that they are causing it because they do not understand what it is.
Eric,
There is another response that needs to go through my father. Wait and see what examples I wrote there.
The golden rule is not a bad rule at all and I try to live by it, but it is not perfect. If the other is Hitler, I definitely want things done to him that I hate.
The second rule you brought up is terrible, if I'm a sociopath: as a sociopath, nothing causes me pain and thus, if I'm Hitler, I get a blank check to abuse the human race and be moral. The rule is good as usual, only if you are "normal" (whatever that is).
I still maintain, any moral rule you give me, is only good until a certain time (from a certain moment in the past the moral rule is not relevant), and it is only good for the culture in which you live. Again, I will not call any Homo sapiens who lived a hundred thousand years ago immoral because they murdered other Homo sapiens immoral. Would you call him immoral?
The reason I accept the moral terms of the Western world is that we have won (at least for now). In the western world, we are the most technologically advanced, quality of life, longevity, we are leaders in wealth indicators, we are the only ones who put people on the moon and the only ones who can tell their leader to go fuck himself without going to jail. Hence, on an empirical level, the morality of the Western world has led to the best achievements the human race has ever seen and therefore the morality we have developed is probably less bad than others. Can this situation change, certainly, and so does my opinion.
This is the reason why I am not afraid to say that morality is relative to the technological level of culture. See my previous post, not yet published 🙂
clean up
Indeed, the definition of morality among the Nazis is somewhat different from what is accepted in Jewish-Christian culture. Hegel, from whom many were influenced, defined war as a "purifying force, which purifies the moral health of nations that have been corrupted by prolonged peace, just as the wind keeps the sea from being polluted by prolonged silence."
Nietzsche, another beloved philosopher of the Nazis, says in "Thus Said Zarathustra": And you loved peace as a way to war, and the short peace more than the long one" not for peace but for war... a good war will sanctify every matter.
For them, the extermination of the Jews and any trace of the lax Jewish culture, was a supreme value prior to all. One only has to see Hitler's last pictures, when Berlin and all of East Germany are being washed away by the "Jewish" Bolshevik forces in his eyes, to understand the severity of the punishment this man received.
Michael Rothschild
No, of course I have a claim against the Nazis, they created the world's greatest murder machine, but I recognize that it is immoral in the fabric of our lives. By the way, I'm not stating that they behaved immorally (the understatement of the year), but they themselves admitted and admit it, and walked around and still walk around with this sign of shame in shame. Generations of Germans live with this shame to this very day. Their inner daemon tells them that.
Claiming that because I understand that morality is relative to the time we live in is one thing. It's another thing to relegate the argument to kindergarten level.
If in a few years we can produce food completely synthetically, let's say from moon rocks, people who eat animals will be considered immoral in the first degree (some already think so today) but no one can claim that because in 2050 there will be no need to eat animals and therefore eating them will be considered immoral , it was immoral to eat animals when the human race was just developing, let's say a hundred thousand years ago. You see, relative to the period and there is no problem with that.
Morality, as I see and understand it, is completely related to the technological level in which the culture lives. When we reached a certain age in Western culture, it suddenly became more comfortable to live, easier, simpler, we became free to reflect on what we do to women, children, gays, blacks and little by little what used to be completely moral (murdering gays, treating women as sex objects, child labor In hardship and taking negroes as slaves is they are inferior to the white man) but where did this insight succeed? Only in companies that have reached a certain technological development level.
do you see again Relative to the period.
And that´s it
Shmulik
Why did you choose a problematic example?
Absolute and unequivocal moral values can be defined. The golden rule: 'Do not do what you hate' or: 'Do not treat others in ways that would cause you pain.' and so'
http://www.scarboromissions.ca/Golden_rule/sacred_texts_hb.php
That's what you claim
To call these things that are afraid to make them morality?
In short, period, you have no morals, only passions, eh?
If I may express my opinion on morality...
What the Nazis did was moral in their view.
In the same way, killing those Nazis even after they stopped their actions, seems moral in our eyes.
Morality has never been man's main motive, what drives man are passions, habits, culture, prejudices and all other things of that kind. And usually you can say that the person does the things that will make him feel better (of course the time frames differ from person to person).
When everything is good (that is, when the state of affairs is such that you can ignore the troubles of others), then you start talking about what is moral and what is not.
True, there are those people for whom the question of what is moral and what is not bothers them and preoccupies them a lot. But usually, if we dig, we will find out that these are psychological problems that stand in the background of things. And actually what bothers that person is not what is moral, but what will make him feel good.
Regarding an objective moral system, one can develop one relatively easily, if one defines a rule. basic rule. Then we just have an optimization problem. Just an example:
* To maximize the total human well-being. (We will have to define what human well-being is and how it is measured).
In short, Shmulik, you have no claim against the Nazis. Right?
I fail to understand the arguments that seem to be taken from those of the Christian apologist Craig Shall about absolute morality and the fear of morality based on the person who is then, how terribly, relative. What is the problem with relative morality? What is the unreasonable need to establish absolute morality?
Let's take a fairly absolute taboo in all human societies: sex between a brother and a sister (the above example is suitable for those who think that this action is immoral). Let's imagine a world after World War III. In this imaginary world, there are 2 people left alive on Earth and they are a brother and a sister. Would it be immoral for them to have sex and revive the human race? Of course not, complete nonsense.
The adherents of absolute morality will say yes, and we hand eternal extinction to the human race. Stupidity for his name.
It is not difficult to think of countless other cases in which absolute morality collapses. The reason we even talk about absolute morality is that life is good for us and we think that's how it's always been, but that's not the case. We don't live 17000 years ago but then the only way to survive was to kill everything that threatened to threaten you without batting an eyelid and by today's standards to live a clearly immoral life.
sympathetic:
You finally started to pay attention to my words.
Now you might understand them too.
I'm not talking about "my morality"
If you had read my words carefully, you would have understood that I am talking about the common denominator between all human beings.
You keep coming to me with complaints and I'm trying to understand by virtue of what "morality" you do this? Who authorized you to visit me?!
I claim that you are doing it precisely because of the same morality I am talking about and your criticism is purely a misunderstanding.
Do you really think that any moral system should be accepted - even one that justifies the parasitic life of the ultra-Orthodox?
Do you think you should get the This morality?
Do you think that if the Nazis followed the laws of their country they would be allowed to do this?
If you finally read my words carefully I hope you will change your mind.
מ
Finally the discussion focuses on the main point. Your claims are particularly against
The Jewish religion and the claims are against the saw of the religion.
"I explained the scale of values that guides me and the commandments of the Jewish religion,
For example, all my guts turn when I think about their level of morality."
You come up with your own morals and think you can judge people who make choices
live by a different morality. For my part, I think that if people want to live
In a certain way this is their right as long as they comply with the laws of the country.
Beyond that, we both agree that religion is something natural, you think
It's a disease, I think it's something natural that defines us
as human. You are of course welcome to fight against human weakness
And hope for a robotic society that upholds rational morality. inclusive humanity
Weakness, irrationality, emotions are all part of what one becomes
us to humans.
Miracles
I didn't say that morality had to be something determined from the outside, I said that it should
To establish morality it must be external to man. Morality based on the person
is relative. How should we choose between children's morality and other types of morality?
If you don't have faith in an external order for a person to determine what is good and what is bad there is none
You have the option to establish your own morality.
Again there is no point in you repeating that there is a morality that is not religious, it is obvious and not
I argued otherwise from the beginning. The argument is that non-religious morality is relative.
You say you think about the world but something else thinks differently
There is no criterion to decide which of you is morally right. I would add
Ten more exclamation points if there was a chance it would help you understand the claim
Instead of going back and referring to things I didn't claim..
point:
Certainly my words do not make your words untrue.
It's your words that make you
sympathetic
What I said is that both children and animals have morals - these things are known from experience. Therefore - morality does not have to be something determined from the outside. I didn't say we should live by this morality.
You say that if I believed in God then his actions were moral. I see it as something else - I see it as confirmation that there is morality without God. In the story of Noah's Ark, pregnant women were murdered. Are you arguing that this can be seen as moral?
Kane murdered his brother - is the fact that he became a rich and important person a proper punishment in your eyes?
Understand something - you start from an unfounded assumption and try to show that the world corresponds to this assumption.
I, on the other hand, think about the world.
You claim that the world was created for a certain purpose. That is - I am a tool designed to serve a purpose.
If I thought like that - I would never bring children into this world.
M, just because you say something is wrong, doesn't make it so.
I know this is true because I have seen the hatred that the religious have in general and the ultra-Orthodox in particular.
And I see how this hatred is fueled, (and all this while taking advantage of the general stupidity and ignorance of the public), while giving pseudo-rational explanations regarding the need for equal burden, at the same time there is no equal burden in this country, the disparities are huge.
And I also see how all those who hate the religious do not understand a thing and a half neither in science nor in philosophy but use it as if to attack or argue as if in a logical way when a simple philosophical investigation will show that there is no logic in it.
sympathetic:
I explained again and again that there is no dispute at all that religion is natural.
As I mentioned - the AIDS disease is also natural.
Nevertheless, there are things that we find appropriate to fight against and we do so on the basis of some value scale because if things are neither good nor bad then there is no reason to fight them.
If you want to go back and tell me the thing I've always known - that religion is natural - then there's no point in arguing (which doesn't exist at all at this point).
I explained what the scale of values is that guides me and the commandments of the Jewish religion, for example, turn all my guts when I think about their level of morality.
So you can also go back and ask me to explain what my scale of values is even though I explained and I will find no interest in that either.
By the way - if we assume for the purpose of the discussion that I would not present my scale of values, according to which scale of values are you even asking me to present my scale of values? Why do I even have to comply with any request from you?
Even behind this demand of yours hides a scale of values that you refuse to reveal.
point:
If you have to say something wrong then - as you can see - you are allowed.
It should be said that those who hate the religious hate them because it is difficult for them to understand and accept (because of jealousy) that someone else feels good even though they believe in what they see as nonsense.
The rational excuses for why religion is nonsense come to cover the jealousy that is at the root of the hatred.
מ
Let's start from the end, I claim during the discussion that religion is neither good nor bad but is natural to man and therefore should not be attributed to it
A scale of values or tags of good and bad. Since you claim that religion is bad. It seems to me that it is your duty to define what you are
think what is good and what is bad and the scale of values according to which you judge the religion. Is going against science the absolute evil?
Regarding my reference to secularism and not to religion, throughout the discussion you choose to refer to religion as you wish, sometimes you answer me about the Jewish religion, sometimes you define nationalism, Marxism and Nazism as religion, all this as you wish. My reference to herdism as part of human traits was a counter argument to all your arguments against herdism as a phenomenon to be fought.
Regarding religion and humanity. Yes, religion is part of the definition of humanity, but human behavior is a spectrum. Rationality is also part of human behavior, but we still treat the mentally ill as part of humanity. Jealousy and even cruelty are also part of humanity, but we also treat Mother Teresa as human. Again this is a spectrum and not binary definitions. Your question about religion and humanity "Do you mean to say that I am not human, that Einstein was not human, that Dawkins was not human (in fact that the vast majority of scientists are not human)?" It's strange because later you write
"The fact that religion, murder, psychopathy are part of the spectrum of human behaviors does not justify them." Am I to understand that your question about you regarding Einstein and Dawkins is a redundant question? On the one hand, you state that religion is part of the human spectrum when before you tried to disprove this claim using specific examples.
By the way of specific examples that there are dozens more like them (compared to the example of the rabbi you brought), I have several examples of religious figures who did good for the world for example: Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King, Mahatma Gandhi. All these people held a religious belief that was an essential part of their worldview.
It seems to me that you are ignoring it, because on the one hand you are talking about some world government, and on the other hand, you are deceiving religion, when in fact both are kind of the same thing in terms of the consequences for the individual, in both the individual is obliged to do something without having too much of a choice .
Regarding the question of morality, morality does not improve over time, the principle of equality, honesty, and fairness have always stood at the basis of morality and it has not changed. For example, in the Holocaust, the morally sophisticated German nation did not think it appropriate to apply these principles to Jews. And this is just one example to show you that morality in the sense you are talking about is volatile.
The simplest thought experiment you can do is, shut down the police in the country. There is no more phone number 100. Then we will see what will happen in the different neighborhoods, in the different sectors.
point:
Quote fromMy article that I have brought here several times already:
" To the question that is asked from time to time in one variation or another about "But what obliges the atheist to act morally?", I will answer as follows:
In the end - what obliges a secular person to act according to the moral order is very similar to what obliges a religious person to act in this way.
It is a combination of his personal inclination (an intelligent extension of the evolutionary heritage) with the addition of the desire to "look good" in the eyes of others and with the addition of fear of the law.
In fact - all of man's actions are the result of weighing many impulses and considerations, as are his moral and immoral actions.
In this sense - the difference between religious and secular is only in two issues: one is that the "teacher of the law" of the secular is imposed on him by the law and enforcement authorities of the state, while on the religious it is imposed by an ethereal entity that he calls God, and the second is that while the morality of the secular Corresponds to his natural sense of morality and becomes more and more refined as he gains knowledge and understanding, the religious "morality" often contradicts the natural sense of morality of the religious person himself and in fact requires him to act in a way that he dug into his soul (something that religion often suppresses) he would see as immoral.
"
point:
And how did you come to the conclusion that I ignore it?
Michael, you ignore the fact that religion is mainly the way to make people follow certain laws.
The philosophy of religion is just the spices. The essence of religion is its laws. And in this context you can see God as a factor that punishes man if he does not obey the laws.
The state is also a kind of religion in this sense, only that instead of God there is a police.
sympathetic:
Reporter:
"The herd is not a human disease, it is part of the definition of humanity. We are human because we are
A herd and not lonely."
Why did you decide to write this? Someone claimed that the herd is a disease? All in all, I explained that the herd selection process is often the result of brainwashing and I suggested a herd that, in my opinion, is much better than the herds that fight each other.
Reporter:
"Religion is also part of the definition of humanity and humanity"
Do you mean to say that I am not human, that Einstein was not human, that Dawkins is not human, that Weinberg is not human (in fact that the vast majority of scientists are not human)?
I brought this rabbi as a "fresh example". what? Didn't you see I wrote that?
This is an example that is unparalleled, and if you are not ready to accept the clear fact that religion has always acted against science in every arena where science has challenged its explanations regarding the formation of the world, the formation of man, the centrality of man in terms of everything that exists, and so on, then it is clear that one example will not help open up the your eyes
There are, of course, innumerable testimonies to the above fact (which is also logically binding since religion rests its authority to enact laws on the same entity that supposedly created everything and that the discovery of the truth on these issues drops the ground under its feet) but I am sure that you are aware of them and deliberately ignore them.
The fact that religion, murder, psychopathy are part of the spectrum of human behaviors does not justify them.
As I mentioned - there is absolutely no point in discussing the justification of anything without determining the scale of values by which they are measured.
This is what you refuse to do, so the discussion is worthless.
Nir
Is science trying to discover the truth or a certain kind of truth? We as humans are creatures
Spiritual not only physical while science puts the world on the physical only. The models too
The scientific ones are human dependent. In my opinion there is no reality that does not depend on a person who sits and waits to be discovered
her. Man creates an image of reality through the language of mathematics, but this is a translation
And something always gets lost in translation.
It is good and beautiful to delve into something bigger than ourselves in order to pour content into our lives, but our lives are not complex
Just research something bigger than us. In everyday life there are feelings, interpersonal relationships and questions
Morality, the answer to which we will not get from the study of the reality bigger than us. spirituality
Secularism should be able to provide us with answers to our daily lives and that is science
Can't give in my opinion. Science pretends to be objective in its method while I live
Our daily lives are certainly subjective. The fact that a certain percentage of the population will behave
So and so in a certain case does not tell me how I should behave. Religion is conducive to breaking down the assumption
The existence of something bigger than us for everyday life, the challenge in religious secularism is to do something similar.
מ
The herd is not a human disease, it is part of the definition of humanity. We are human because we are
Herd and not alone. Religion is also part of the definition of humanity and humanity. We have a spiritual side and not just a physical one.
I was not clear about the link you brought, that there are one or fifty rabbis who oppose the science of conversion
The religion or Judaism for the bad? There are chemists who make chemical weapons. Is the science of chemistry bad?
Religion, like rational thinking, is part of the spectrum of human behavior
In it evil and possible good and kindness. Religion is not a disease, we have already agreed that it comes fundamentally
To a man his humanity dawns. It seems strange to me to call something so basic a disease. In the same way it is possible
To say that the fact that humans have two hands is a stupid disease and we would be better off
If only we had four hands.
Miracles
You write,
"Is the God of Israel moral in your eyes? Let's leave his own actions, such as supporting human sacrifice, genocide, revenge, racism, etc....”
Surely God is not moral in your eyes because you do not believe. If she believed that the world around us was built logically for
A certain purpose and that the order behind the things we see is determined by God, you would understand that you as a person
You cannot judge God's actions as moral or not. Therefore, in the eyes of religious people, morality is completely based on faith
In the
You, on the other hand, from an external point of view determine that there is no morality in religion and turn to look for another source, in animals and children...but for what
Is this morality based? Do you as a secularist base your morality on that of animals and behave like an animal? do you have to
Basing your morality on that of children? Do you have any non-arguable basis for morality?
You write
who must !!!!! To be moral without religion. By the way, even if you added ten more exclamation points, it would not establish you
your claim Of course there is morality without religion, but it is relative, there is your morality, there is my morality, there is morality
of animals and there is that of children. Who will determine what the correct moral system is? Usually the strongest determines. Only in religion
Morality has a foundation that is not relative, does not depend on the observer, universal morality.
jubilee:
A. I agree with you that there is a weakness among the secular, but it does not belong to your claim that I confused Judaism with religiosity, and that is the context in which I mentioned the double meaning. I am not confused either because of the weakness of the seculars.
B. Regarding mental illness - I brought a link that I do not necessarily identify with. Pay attention to the fact that the link also does not talk about religiosity in general but only about religious fanaticism. I think that religiosity is a very big problem, but it is impossible to define a trait that such a large part of the human race suffers from as a disease. Unfortunately this is the norm. It is possible to treat something as an illness only when the patient recognizes his illness and in the current situation this is impossible.
third. Yaron says what is in his heart and has a deep contempt for things worthy of contempt. That may be why he lost a lot of voters but it's better than being elected by defrauding a lot of voters.
d. The herd of humanity is no nonsense at all. It's a question of education. There is a beautiful phrase that says "Don't let who you are get in the way of who you can be". This also applies to humanity. It was also the vision of Einstein who wanted a worldwide government and it is also the vision expressed by John Lennon in his song Imagine. This is undoubtedly possible in terms of the human race, but it is clear that the road to get there is still long.
Nir, thanks for the response.
If your slave is given a laboratory, equipment, and some brown and agile assistants - consider the matter closed.
We will examine not only the Mach principle, but also the subject of the lengthening of the time, the shortening of the length, and more bishin and mirein.
And regarding the article, since the discussion tends towards questions such as psychology, morality, religion, good and evil, I think a question arises that you and I were required to answer ten years ago: how is it even possible to improve a psychologically closed system such as this one, when the second law of thermodynamics rules out the decrease in entropy In a closed system?
And to better understand what I mean, see what has been happening in recent years with our neighbors to the north, south, east and west.
So much for steering. All this could be said in 6 sentences.
And this is regardless of the fact that most of what is written here is exactly the same kind of pseudo-philosophical nonsense that the writer is trying to oppose.
In short, contrary to what the author writes:
Consciousness has no infinite power.
We don't know if there is an intention to the universe or not.
We don't know if there is an organized master plan or not.
We don't know why the universe exists at all.
Repeated use of the word endless does not add an interesting touch to the article.
And in general, the lack of meaning is a psychological matter related to many psychological problems. Partly because the person does not live a complete life but works like a donkey for someone else and feeds himself with garbage that others decide for him and disconnects himself from his real needs.
It can be said that today secular spirituality is expressed in trash series like Big Brother which has a large secular rating.
A: Not because of the double meaning (nation/religion) but because of the weaknesses of politics and the powerlessness of the non-religious public.
B: Seeing religiosity as a mental illness casts a heavy shadow over the vast majority of humanity. Even if objectively true, it makes no practical positive contribution to the solution of humanity's problems.
C: Or's platform is not unambiguous in the distinction it makes between Judaism and religiosity. I remember Yaron Yedan expressing total contempt for things that are deeply rooted in the feelings of potential voters. Yair Lapid was wise not to make this mistake in the brave alliance he made with Bennett.
D: "The herd of mankind" is empty nonsense in a world where man is a wolf. Humanity progresses while destroying and rebuilding. We all kill or are killed by force and belonging to one herd or another will not in the least change this basic human essence.
And regardless of the above, your writing is beautiful and I even found some delightful points in it.
jubilee:
Regarding the herd urge - humans are indeed good at it, but the question is always which herd they choose to belong to and the decisions regarding this matter can and should be influenced.
In my opinion - all the artificial borders that humans put between themselves and other humans are just a pretext for wars.
Religion is one of the most serious of these limits.
Belonging to the herd is neither innate nor chosen - it is simply the result of brainwashing.
Proper education can channel the herdship of humans in much more beneficial directions: what do you think about belonging to the herd of "humanity"?
If everyone associates themselves with this herd, all the resources currently directed to self-destruction could be directed to solving real problems such as diseases, ecological sustainability, defense against asteroids (yes! The maligned atom did in this context save humanity one day from destruction!) and more like that.
Regarding Mata Or - it included the abolition of the rabbinate as a state institution (people can finance with their own money any institution they want to finance).
The rabbinate (financed by its consumers) can be responsible for the conversion, but the conversion will not be relevant to any non-religious matter (that is, it will not interest the state).
jubilee:
I do not mix Judaism and religion at all.
The one who mixes them up is the spoken language where the words are used in two meanings.
Read here:
http://1vsdat.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=562:%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%94%D7%95-%D7%99%D7%94%D7%95%D7%93%D7%99?&Itemid=189
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/31/kathleen-taylor-religious-fundamentalism-mental-illness_n_3365896.html
Nice, Michael. But you are confusing Judaism with religiosity. Religiosity is a psychological need. It is not only human; When it appears in other animals we call it the "herd impulse". Being Jewish means belonging to a certain human group whose average intellect is relatively high and whose contribution to human progress is one of the highest. But despite the relatively high intellect, Jews are also human; And as among many people, among Jews there is also a need to surrender to the urge of the herd. Each cleric takes advantage of the weaknesses of individuals in the herd to further his goals. And that the US Bible Belt is better?
We, in Israel, have a specific problem because the clergy have been given a monopoly on matters of belonging to the Jewish people in general. Say from now on: "It is not Judaism that impairs science and progress, but the Orthodox rabbinate." I don't remember what the bed of light was. Did it include the abolition of the rabbinate's monopoly on conversion?
Israel, Ofer Maged's response is beautiful and so is your idea for testing the equivalence principle!
Who volunteers to pick up the experiment?
sympathetic
1. There is a fundamental difference between science and a religious idea such as the idea of God and that is that the stories we tell in science we try to confirm with experiments. This is how we go outside our stories and try to base them according to nature and the reality we discover in experiments. Our stories or scientific models try to explain the phenomena, unify them and reach the basic laws of nature. By these confirmations we can reject models and accept other models. This way our stories have meaning and they are getting closer to the true description of nature and reality. At each stage we expand the model and improve it. This is the essence of the scientific method.
2. No duplication. I'm not saying we have a predetermined role in the world to develop. I do say that our meaning comes only from within ourselves and therefore it is our personal responsibility to seek meaning for ourselves. This meaning can meet our need for something great so that we feel connected to it. This tremendous thing can be either the capacities of our consciousness or the immense depth that can be revealed when we explore the reality around us.
When I wrote development, I don't mean something pre-defined, but when we choose to delve into our cognitive abilities or the study of nature, we actually embark on a personal journey where we develop as we continue to delve. This development is expressed in the fact that we can look back and see how we have progressed in our journey towards the meaning of ourselves.
Hope I answered
Nir
Just a recent example of Judaism's contribution to the advancement of science:
http://1vsdat.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=725:%D7%94%D7%A8%D7%91-%D7%A9%D7%98%D7%99%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%9E%D7%9F-%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A1%D7%A8-%D7%9C%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93-%D7%91%D7%9E%D7%9B%D7%9C%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%92%D7%9D-%D7%97%D7%A8%D7%93%D7%99%D7%95%D7%AA&Itemid=192
sympathetic:
You are confusing the tools with the motivation to use them beneficially or harmfully.
Science is not to blame for people of different religions exploiting its fruits for war.
In a moment we will see you blaming the laws of nature!
You cannot even begin to discuss the question of the value or harm of something (including - science, religion or anything else) without first defining the concepts of good and evil - i.e. morality, therefore your attempt to put the cart before the horse is unacceptable to me.
sympathetic
Now - after we have seen that there is no morality with religion, let's see if there is morality without reason. They found morality in animals and found morality in children who were not exposed to religion.
I can ask you the famous question of Socrates - is what God says good? Or good is what God says? If you think about it - you will see that there must (must!!!!!) be morality without religion.
sympathetic
Is the God of Israel moral in your eyes? Let's leave his own actions, such as supporting human sacrifice, genocide, revenge, racism, etc....
Actually - why leave it? God, to the average secularist, is not moral. In my opinion, an average religious person is indeed moral.
And this is what the world really looks like...
Ehud:
There are no scientific inventions.
By the way, I read the link you provided about trying to create morality on the basis of man and only
Then I wrote the response to miracles. What I saw in the link is the beginning of
An idea that, in my opinion, cannot be substantiated, but I am not interested in debating this issue
right now It is important to me that we reach an agreement on the issue of religion, before the discussion changes direction
to the subject of natural morality on the basis of man.
"Beyond Good and Evil" was a pun on Nietzsche's book "Beyond Good and Evil", which discusses morality, but I
I see that the play on words was not understood, Niha. If the criterion for evil is the number of deaths that the idea caused, so be it
Science is the worst of all, the scientific inventions and what was done with them led to the death of tens of millions. the religions
They did not lead to the murder of millions just as science did not lead to the murder of millions. Religions are neither good nor bad
Only suitable for a person and what is done with them depends on the nature of the society.
sympathetic:
And in your answer to the miracles, you show that not only have you not yet read my words about morality, but that you have even forgotten the word about their existence.
sympathetic:
We are not beyond good and bad.
This is all that interests me in the context of religion or any other mental illness (individual or collective).
The religions - as I define them definitely led to the killing of millions of people (although I only wrote masses and the contribution of the millions is yours - but I accept it).
By the way, in my opinion (And not just to me) Nazism is also a religion, and yes, so is nationalism.
All this already appears in the things I wrote to you in previous comments.
מ
I thought we were already beyond good and evil...religions did not lead to killing
of millions of people but human evil led to the killing of millions of people.
Millions of people were murdered in the name of science, nationalism and just politics or
greed. Although religion is neither good nor bad, many have come out of it
Good things: spirituality (the understanding that the world around us is not only
material), kindness and even art flourished mainly thanks to religion.
If you want to take a human idea that is bad, that has caused the death of millions
People, why not fight nationalism? Nationalism caused death, almost
More than any other idea of humanity. I hear no objections from you
The state itself or names people who talk about the state of Israel.
But if you think logically the idea of nationalism is much more dangerous.
Miracles
Morality can only be logically established through factors external to a person. if you
Believes in God, morality is defined by him. The moral way to behave is defined
by the words of God and the way they are interpreted. You have a moral definition
Otherwise it is logically based? I will be happy to hear.
Israel:
Ofer Maged's answer is an unedited version of what I provided in the above link
sympathetic:
If religion is defined correctly, there are many reasons to oppose any religion.
If it is defined incorrectly then each religion must be treated specifically.
Are you ready to point me to a good religion?
All the religions I know have led to the killing of masses of people.
All the religions I know are based on lies.
All the religions I know (well - this is by definition) derive their laws from a transcendent authority and as a result - must sometimes be found in direct conflict with the human conscience.
sympathetic
I understand that you claim that religion is moral. Do you claim that God is moral? Does what God does define for me what is moral for me to do?
Michael, Ehud, thanks for the answers.
For me, an event horizon communicates with black holes and the limit of the universe, not with a polished amber ball that falls off the table.
But as it is written in Michael's link, the issue is not so simple and it is a fact that it is the subject of heated polemics among all the old guard of the quantums.
Ofer Maged's answer is:
"The first question is an excellent question and not easy to answer. Without a doubt a system in free fall is a constant system. Thus, the person who falls with the charge does not see any radiation emitted from it. I have almost no doubt about that. What about an outside observer, a person standing on the ground? Well, his system has gravitational fields so it's clearly not a constant system. From his point of view, the charge does emit electromagnetic radiation. Does this mean that reality is in the eye of the beholder? My answer is no, but only careful accounts will prove it. The momentum-energy tensor in the system of the external observer does not reset, and it has terms related to the electromagnetic field of the charge seen by his eyes being accelerated. In addition, his equations of reality contain the Christopher sign. As it seems to me (and as mentioned, I did not make an exact calculation and I do not know such a calculation), a transformation from the external observer system to the falling charge system will offset all these additions with vigorous precision. To summarize: the falling charge is the permanent system, where there is only electrostatics, no gravity and no magnetic fields. Watching the lab, seeing both a gravitational field and radiation. Between this and that there is an intimate connection and in the transition from the laboratory system to the persistence system (which is in free fall) all contributions should be offset and it is possible even though in the process even gravitons are involved (whatever it is...)"
And the evil one says: What is this work for you? Just drop a charged object from a plane and check if it emits radiation with a radiation meter! Emitter? The principle of equivalence Yuk! Does not emit? The F=mg delete!
מ
There is nothing good or bad about the survival of religion, it only shows that
Religion suits a person, it is basic for him. This is similar to art
Art as a human activity is neither good nor bad, it only contributes
For the survival of art, is art AIDS or just a flu virus?
In my opinion, religion should not be persecuted as it is, the actions of
Religious people or certain groups that can be categorized as good
or evil. Yes, religion has many advantages, for example it is the source of morality
the human
Israel
Regarding the radiation, turn on the radio but the radiation will not reach it
That's the idea on the horizon. An accelerator observer has an event horizon.
Miracles
I claim that it is impossible to establish morality without religion. Without religion morality is
relative. You think this way, I think differently. He determines morality
the hold
Regarding the question of radiation - it turns out that Pavel was wrong and the solution is more complex.
Here is a text that explains the subject (with reference to more detailed sources for those who desire them):
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060911030138AAlGrAL
sympathetic:
This is what I said - there is no evidence in the survival of the religion of something that is good for man - there is only evidence that it is good for the religion.
Therefore, there is no reason to wave the survival of religion as a reason against those who claim that religion is harmful - this should be examined through the harms he is talking about and against benefits that he may not have talked about.
As I said - the AIDS virus also survives and we see it as a bad thing.
In fact, the survival of a bad thing actually increases its evil.
Note that here I actually used the words "good" and "bad".
Why do I allow myself to do this?
What is good and what is bad?
Words do not have transcendental definitions and therefore, apparently, humans do not have to agree on their meaning either.
In the article I pointed you to, I say, however, that although they do not have to agree on the meaning, there is a good chance that they will be able to do so (because of their shared evolutionary background) and that this kind of agreement is gradually formed in practice.
That they should do so is quite obvious if the starting point is that everyone wants to survive.
I think the "good" and "bad" that I used in my arguments above are part of this emerging consensus.
sympathetic
"I'm avoiding your question because I don't have an answer to it, tree
Knowledge or life in heaven????”
That was the choice facing Adam and Eve, wasn't it? Happy eternal life in paradise but without the knowledge of good or bad, or death or banishment.
The choice should be simple, especially in retrospect when you already know the bitter results of their unfortunate choice: Heaven must be! But it is interesting that not only is there a debate as you can see from the hesitations of Michael and yours, but that many even choose opinion and not garden. All the religious people I asked this question (quite a few) chose heaven. The secularists debated or chose an opinion, depending on the degree of secularism.
Conclusion: even if heaven is ten, the knowledge is ten times better.
And regarding the charge: it is easy to detect electromagnetic radiation. So what's the problem with doing an experiment and seeing if it exists in free fall? You just take a charged body, drop it and turn on a radio, right? I thought the results were known and I just don't remember. I didn't know this was a question in the World Physics Championship.
sympathetic
Do you claim that there is no morality without religion?
Israel
I'm avoiding your question because I don't have an answer for it, tree
Knowledge or life in heaven????
Regarding the charger, what I wrote to you is that it will crash, but not all of it
system we will see the radiation because of the horizon therefore in an accelerating system
With the charger we won't see the radiation because of the event horizon. on point
This is me disagreeing with Pavel, M's friend, who believes that we will see radiation without it
Let the cargo accelerate relative to us.
Miracles
I'm not going against your idea, I'm just trying to show you that it can't be substantiated
Secular morality. Any principle that seems simple and natural to you can be argued about and therefore
In the end the belief or disbelief in him will be based on the sentence "everything
What I say is simple and natural." This is not logical reasoning and what is simple and natural
For you it is not necessarily simple and natural for me. What's more, the amount of resources in the world
is limited and therefore a moral principle must determine how to divide it. To whom of our children are we?
worry? Should we be exclusively vegetarian or vegan? should we worry
For an animal like a person? Should we take care of our relatives first (work hard
to leave them money) or donate all our possessions. One principle too
If it seems natural it is not a basis for a complete moral theory. If we want to establish
Secular morality should be based on much more, which I am not
I see how it can be substantiated logically (I must mention that I contributed
read the link of M).
מ
I still remember what I wrote but barely. I did use the word good and you
I was corrected and accepted the correction for further discussion. I do not claim that religion is good
Or bad, I argue that it suits a person, like science or art. Religion therefore
In itself it is not good or bad, but good or bad content can be poured into it.
Similarly, in the name of science, the greatest crimes that humanity has ever committed were committed, mother
Does this make science bad? By the way, his scientific development, whatever it is, is not good either
Only the use made of it is bad.
Michael, thanks for the reply.
Although I'm still not sure, will it or won't it? After all, you can detect the radiation easily, right?
Regarding the question of preferences: you write: "What would I want if it wasn't me".
So what would you want if you were a Rothschild?
Tovia the milkman lists a series of items: a stone house, a yard full of chickens, servants - but the thing he would like most of all is:
And I'd discuss the holy books with the learned men, several hours every day.
That would be the sweetest thing of all.
And you?
Ah…
Good.
Yubby dibby dibby dibby dibby dibby dibby dum.
Israel:
Even when I sit on my throne (on Earth) I am in acceleration/gravitation. I didn't claim otherwise but it doesn't change the fact that a falling body is also in acceleration/gravitation.
The GPS watches are a completely measuring body that these different accelerations are taken into account and that's why they work.
As mentioned - gravity waves are also a result of the acceleration and even though they were not measured directly - the expected energy loss in the blades was measured.
Regarding the subject of electromagnetic radiation - I spoke with my friend Pavel Radziblovsky who is one of the coaches of the Israeli national teams for the physics olympiads in the world and he told me that since a system in free fall is not an inertial system - it is possible for a charge to explode without us seeing it accelerate. The laws of physics are formulated on the assumption that the system in which the measurements are made is inertial and are only valid for systems of this type.
Regarding the question of your preferences, this is a difficult one.
One of her interpretations is what I would like if it wasn't me.
Obviously I can't answer this kind of question.
The thing is, even if I'm me - I can't answer the question because then the question is whether I prefer the way I feel over what I would feel if I wasn't me, and I can't answer that either because I don't know how I would feel.
sympathetic
Please think about the meaning of what I am saying. Don't hang on every word and don't look for what's wrong with the idea. Everything I say is simple and natural. It requires very little effort. You can live your life in almost any way. Be religious or secular, it doesn't matter. Simple - basically, make sure you're not just destroying. We know there is global warming - so turn off the light when you leave the room. Eating meat causes a huge infection - so you can eat a little less meat. Don't throw things out of the car window. Don't have many children.
Imagine what our ancestors would have thought of us……
sympathetic:
I use the word "good" - not because you refuse to use it - but because you opened this whole discussion by using it.
See this comment:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/secular-spirituality-240513/comment-page-1/#comment-431780
I am qouting:
"According to evolution religions are a good thing see how long they are
survived Doesn't this point to a grain of truth?
That is, they fit the character of the person."
This is also the spirit of all your words so far, for what was they said for if not to protect the religion.
So it's true - she fits the human race - otherwise she wouldn't have succeeded at his expense.
As I said, other viruses are also suitable for the human race. AIDS, for example, is particularly suitable.
If you go back on your intention to claim that religion is a good thing, then there is no argument between us because there is nothing in your words to defend religion.
By the way - the fact that Maimonides was a doctor does not make Judaism or religion a fan of science. Nor is Leibovich holding several scientific doctorates.
The fact is that throughout the history of science - those who worked to prevent its development (especially in the Middle Ages when they almost eliminated it, but also nowadays) were religious factors.
Miracles
"Do you want to live your life as an egoist? Good luck if that. I see no point in continuing to discuss something like that
Simple and understandable."
You have degraded to the ultimate reasoning, my arguments are simply clear beyond them and there is no point in arguing with them. In addition
You slander me as an "egoist" and this is how you intend to base your morality...
To worry about those who come after us? To everyone, does it mean anything about those who live with us today, does it
Should those who try to destroy what you perceive as the future be resisted? Are we allowed to worry too?
For ourselves, to have fun, or just worry about the future? How will we know exactly what shape it will take in the future and what actions will bring
A better future? Will learning Torah bring a good future for our children? Maybe study science? maybe come back
to nature so as not to harm the environment? You are right, your words are simply self-evident, there is no need to elaborate
Or explain and whoever doesn't think like you is simply an egoist.
Dear Lanisim, I don't know what lies beyond the universe, when and if the universe stops expanding we will know its center, at the moment it is simply irrelevant because it is clear that it is still in the process of expansion and growth, therefore our point of view regarding the center of the universe is also misleading. Regarding the law of conservation of energy, you are right in any case, even if the universe expands to infinity it will still have a certain amount of energy depending on its size and rate of expansion.
sympathetic
I compared religious faith to a tail on purpose. You're just pulling from the hip.
What I said is very simple. I think we should take care of those who come after us. I knew you wouldn't understand it - and I tried to explain that I was taking care of my children. I thought you would understand that.
Do you want to live your life as an egoist? Good luck if that. I see no point in continuing to discuss something so simple and understandable.
Eran
It's hard for me to think that the universe is finite.
What is outside the universe?
If the universe is finite then it necessarily has a center. If we are not in the center then why do we seem to be in the center?
What does the principle of conservation of energy have to do with the finitude of the universe?
Michael
In my understanding, according to Einstein when you are sitting safely on your throne, precisely then you are accelerating according to the principle of equivalence (otherwise where does the pressure on the....), while in free fall you are not accelerating.
But it is difficult to argue about radiation, because it can be absorbed, hence the question.
Anyway, thanks for the answers. Another tiny question that actually relates to the topic of the article: spirituality, secularity, meaning, superficiality, rurality:
As man and woman at that time the choice was before you: paradise without the tree of knowledge, or a tree without a garden. What would you choose?
Paradise Pack includes: Eternal Life, Extreme Health, Farm(s), Apples, Snakes, Games, Parties, Dances, All You Can Eat, and more choppers.
Moreover: it is also allowed late in the evening to study the Torah, Parshiots, masks, and even argue about the fate of an egg that was born on Yom Tov!
Without a doubt, first class paradise.
What is forbidden? Learn math, physics, science, evolution, and other tricks.
The alternative is an ordinary mortal life, but one is allowed to engage in anything.
What do you choose?
מ
Israel asked how it could be that an observer accelerating together with the charge would not see radiation
Whereas an observer at rest in the lab system would see Kirna, if I understood him
Right.
מ
You keep coming back to the term "good" which I refuse to use. I just argued that religion is appropriate
To man as well as science and art and therefore it is natural to us in a certain sense. I also believe that people
Religious lives, more satisfied or complete lives, more carefree and therefore it has effects
Positivity according to your criterion. Beyond that, Western morality grew out of religion and the idea of law
And religion was also linked to scientific developments in both medicine and astronomy. Maimonides
For example, he was a doctor and calculating the passing years was important to religion, so astronomy won
to a place of honor (just a few examples that popped into my head, I'm sure I can find more
dozens easily).
I hope to read the link you directed me to soon because I'm interested to know how
You want to establish a non-transcendent morality.
Also according to Einstein - the body is accelerating and not at rest.
It may appear to be at rest in its own system of axes, but to an external observer it is in acceleration (or in a gravitational field, which is considered).
After all, bodies that fall in free fall also create, according to the theory of relativity, gravitational waves (which are a result of the acceleration).
The existence of acceleration/gravity is also taken into account in the GPS clock calculations
Israel
As a non-expert in the field:
According to the theory of relativity you must specify which reference system you are talking about. You can also ask about luggage
Normal that accelerates what will happen if we move to a frame of reference that is at rest with respect to the charge will it collapse?
The answer for an observer at rest is that he will see radiation for an accelerated observer relative to which the charge is
At rest the answer is no he will not see radiation, because of the event horizon.
Ehud, Michael, one minute of your time for burning matters of headquarters:
A question about accelerated electric charging. As we know, it emits electromagnetic radiation. The question is: what will happen to a charged body in free fall? According to Newton, it is accelerating. According to Einstein, at rest. So will he radiate or not radiate?
Viruses also survive despite all our attempts to eradicate them and that does not make them good.
Religion "infects" people when their rational immune system has not yet developed and thanks to its self-preservation they remain sick with it all their lives.
Life can be extended in many artificial ways. In fact, nowadays technology makes it possible to keep the whole body (and certainly certain tissues of it) alive indefinitely.
Therefore an important question is what kind of life is involved and if the price is to be a zombie at one level or another then it is bad.
Beyond that - religion in general shortens life.
It is true that to some extent it prolongs the life of the believer, but because throughout history religion has opposed science, it can be said with certainty that it has stopped (and continues to stop) the improvement in the lifespan of the human race.
Regarding morality - I wrote an article about it, and if I'm not mistaken I already referred you to it, but just to be sure - here is the link:
http://1vsdat.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=564:%D7%A2%D7%9C-%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A1%D7%A8&Itemid=189
מ
I'm saying something very simple, I don't know what to be mad about.
The fact that religion survives is because it fits human nature
Just as science and art correspond to human nature. Therefore religion
It is natural to man. Another question is if they will see that faith
Religious leads to a longer and better life, mother yet
Would it be irrational to believe in any religion?
Regarding morality, I am not clear what the criterion you propose is
For morality if it is not transcendental?
Miracles
Again the comment above is for you, with you the forgiveness.
If we compare religion to some evolutionary product then it is
in the head and not in the tail. A head cannot be a marginal organ that has no use
About the goals of life
I do not understand the meaning of Kant's claim.
Why would all humans do the same thing? This is a mother's claim to the grandmother
There were wheels. Why should all humans do the same thing, if not all humans have
the same desires and they do not have the same abilities. So buy
The extent of what will happen if everyone acts a certain way is far-fetched though
Niha Why with your method the world will go and improve I did not understand
Do you only care about your children or everyone's children? You worry about the world
Now or are you just interested in the future world (the next world) world
Hypothetical-the future?. Who decides what is better and why? what do you mean
And we wouldn't get to be born, we're already here, so the claim is empty
of content. Is the right to be born the most important meaning important
Survive at all costs no matter what?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-OwXdGaE-s
For miracles, simpler is not necessarily more correct, your arguments about a beam that is a finite eyn are correct, but you forgot just a small detail, the beam remains at a constant speed all the time in outer space as long as eyn causes a method or shields it. The universe is not a static ray or its velocity wave accelerates over time, so the comparison to a ray is fundamentally wrong. Only based on this, it is possible to understand that the universe is not infinite, but very large, and we have not yet reached the point where it is possible to understand why it behaves in this way and what the future consequences will be. The law of conservation of energy, as I mentioned, is another proof of the finality of the universe and points to a predetermined pattern with clear fiscal laws.
Big... and also very polemical.
This discussion is starting to sound idiotic
And the most reliable is Idi
The most relic is Yossi
Questions in evolution.
Who is more a remnant:
The capo or the Jew who refuses to be a capo?
The Jew who is led to the gasses, or the Sonderkommando who leads him?
The fighting Golanchek with the 97 profile or the whole in Afsnaot?
The praying dos or the warrior fighting to protect the praying dos?
Yehuda Ken Dror who volunteers to draw the fire, or the soldiers he saved?
Jumping on the grenade or running away from it?
The men drowning with the Titanic or the women and children in the lifeboats?
And in general, the one who goes head to head or the one who goes in the groove?
sympathetic:
I am quite shocked by your words.
I didn't say there was anything wrong with self-preservation. I said that survival - contrary to your original claim - is not necessarily a good thing.
So you tried to argue that if the religion survived then there must be something good in it and to that I replied that what causes its survival is simply self-preservation and it does not indicate the same good thing you alluded to.
You always abandon the previous line and move to another line and force me to chase you.
Regarding science as a religion - this is simply a joke.
Read HERE.
Nothing of what I said in the above article to defend science against the slanders is valid regarding Nazism.
Religion is a set of rules of conduct: Nazism is like that, science is not.
Religion derives its authority from a transcendent factor (God in Judaism, the supremacy of the Aryan race in Nazism, nothing in science - well, this is not wisdom, it does not define laws of behavior and therefore has no need for authority)
Religion claims to define morality and many times (in fact in all the cases I know of - including, of course, Nazism) the religion's definition of morality does not fully correspond to what we naturally perceive as moral.
And the science? Well - we already said that he does not define laws and does not refer to morality.
I wonder where the discussion will go now.
Safkan
First, there is no need for you to apologize for typos, comments
Mine are full of them and I think the main thing is that they understand
the writer's intention.
Regarding the mutual understanding, I think you did not understand my intention. nothing
I have no time or desire to see what different experts write about his experiment
of Rossi as long as there is no experimental evidence that it is energy
of nuclear origin. Those dealing in the field of cold fusion
dividing (from the first moment the results were published)
For chemists trying to show from the considerations of the energy released
Because the process must be nuclear because chemical energy is not enough
Explain the amount of energy released. with such arguments
I cannot argue, I am not a chemist and I am not in a position to judge
the claims. On the other hand, there are these physicists who will tell you that liberation
Nuclear energy has a very distinct handprint. energy release
Nuclear must be accompanied in this case by the release of neutrons and release
Gamma radiation. As long as no radiation of a certain type is reported in the experiments
The laws of physics state that this is not a nuclear reaction and no
All the reasons of the chemists will be useful. I am only interested in the research of Rossi and his ilk
If they have evidence of neutron emission or gamma radiation, then maybe I will
try to judge his claims and try to evaluate the opinion of the experts
in the field (although I am far from an expert).
Nir
I read your words again and saw that I must have misunderstood
Your words, the forgiveness is with you. You claim that "meaninglessness and superficiality are both."
One of the biggest problems of our time. "Because we lost the framework
The religious and I also agree with that.
As a result, I continued to read the article and I have several questions that I would like to ask
If you can answer them for me. You write ” Nietzsche understood that God is more
an idea of the human mind and now we have reached the point where we realized that it is only
An idea and not a real and existing being."
My first question is what do you think about science, isn't science just
Another idea of human consciousness?
In connection with the answers you give to the basic question "what are our roles in the world"
I believe that the solution you propose based on development is an illusion
The biggest we complete ourselves. Man tends to define himself
As better and thus he sees his success. We believe that we are good
More than the people who preceded us in human history, this is true from the point of view
Technological but only in this respect. Spiritual progress is an illusion.
In my opinion, spirituality is like art, modern art is not developed
More than ancient art is simply different. We only see meaning in our lives
If we have evolved, that is, we are better, smarter than we were,
Again a dangerous illusion in my opinion.
Again I read carefully and saw that you write "we were not created with souls to develop"
And a few lines later ” there is no longer an easy solution that gives instant meaning, this
It is our responsibility to find meaning for ourselves and embark on a journey of development. ".
I find this a contradiction. I would appreciate it if you could explain this duplicity to me.
I see that I have gone on, so I will end here, I would love to hear from you
your reply.
sympathetic
I definitely agree with what you say about religion - it is a result of evolution. But that doesn't mean it serves anything. There is a concept in evolution (of Gold) called a spandrel. It is something that is created indirectly. I will give you an example - the tail of vertebrates. The tail is formed because the hind limbs are not at the end of the spine. Why is it like that, I don't know. But the tail was created, and has no function. But - it is used for many things. Examples: in kangaroos it is a third leg and a tool for balance, in birds it is a rudder, in whales it is an engine, in a giraffe it is a fly swatter, in monkeys it is a fifth hand, in a dog it is a tool for communication and in the peacock it is a tool for courtship (and there are more and more uses...).
But - the tail was not created for a specific purpose. The tendency to believe in God was not created for a specific purpose either. But it does have uses: controlling the community, explaining morality, protecting the family, etc.
Now about the purpose of life. Kant said at the time that everyone should think about their every action - what will happen if everyone does this. Imagine that everyone behaves like me and imagine that everyone behaves the way you described. With my method, the world will go on and improve - according to your method, you and I would never have been born.
מ
I read the link and did not understand what was wrong with the ideas
Who only preserve themselves? Is there any sanctity to life?
themselves? If I'm not mistaken (and I very well may be, since I'm not
expert on the subject) but our gardens are not "interested" in conservation either
The person who carries them only after their survival. in the Kafi religion
I wrote for miracles there are many things that are basic to us
As it satisfies a basic human need to be a part of something
Great, to believe that there is order in the world
and someone or something that determines it. To believe in good and bad and to believe
In reward and punishment." These feelings and ideas can be exploited
For good things and bad things. By the way, I do not agree with the inclusion
Your generalization that Nazism and Marxism are religions, but if
Yes, then surely science can be called a religion since it is based on faith
that there are universal laws of nature fixed in time.
Nissim The last comment was intended for you. Baside that
I was amazed to hear from you that you don't believe in miracles (I just had to).
My claim was mainly addressed to the claims of "M" Hamansa
If I understand correctly, base human behavior on evolution.
Those who believe in evolution cannot claim that false behavior ie
Behavior that does not correspond to reality can survive for a long time, because
She just won't survive. When I refer to religion I am not referring
to the mythological story she tells, so I don't see a significant difference
between religions. My claim is that religion in any form satisfies a basic need
of man to be part of something big, to believe that there is order in the world
and someone or something that determines it. To believe in good and bad and to believe
in reward and punishment. I personally do not share all these beliefs but I
Believes that they correspond to something basic in our personality.
In the previous comments I asked you about your response and you probably missed it
my questions but I would love to hear your answer. You write
Is every person obliged to leave a better world for his children? I wanted
You know, who said I have to leave something behind? who said
Should I have children? Isn't it my job to worry?
For the present and not for the hypothetical world that I don't know much about, i.e. the future?
Do I have to worry only about my children or everyone's children?
sympathetic
Regarding your comment of May 26 regarding rossi's ecat facilities.
I don't currently have time to answer you in detail, I may find time in a few days. I will only give a limited response at the moment. (The response took longer than I intended.)
First, I came across the subject of ikat about two years ago and my impression of the information at the time was that the matter was very dubious. But in the last few days when I read about the last experiments that were, I think, in October 2012 and March 2013 - - - I got the impression that the matter is much less dubious and worthy of interest because of the far-reaching consequences in case the discovery is real.
Secondly. A significant part of the skepticism is not based on claims of contradiction to the laws of physics but on the fact that Rossi's scientific activity is a secret activity and this raises objections in the scientific establishment. The opposition is from the scientific establishment that expects open scientific activity, exposed to sharp criticism, as is customary in institutional scientific research. This expectation is not realistic because if it is a real discovery it is economically worth imaginary huge sums and worth no less from a security point of view. I would also say that if the discovery is true, then Rossi will be in danger of his life after a detailed discovery of his whereabouts, because one of the powers can eliminate him to prevent leaking information to a competing power. Therefore Rossi's behavior is reasonable.
Third. Some of the counterarguments you put forward are not as strong as you thought. I cannot elaborate on the subject at the moment because it is complex.
quarter. I did not ask you to do your own scientific review of the subject, but to read expert reviews and summarize what you find interesting and weighty.
What is clear to me is that those involved in the experiment did not confuse chemical energy with nuclear energy, they are high level experts. According to the measurements in the last two experiments I mentioned, energy was apparently produced in an amount that cannot be produced by any known chemical compound. According to my recollection, another experiment of running a facility continuously for approximately 6 months is planned to rule out with greater certainty the possibility of chemical energy emissions. Assuming that a 6-month experiment will be conducted and crowned with success - - - the only plausible possibility that nuclear energy will be ruled out is that some of those involved in the experiment are complicit in fraud (fraud by the fact that during the experiment conventional energy is provided in a hidden form).
Hope not many typos crept into the response, can't do more proofreading.
Glamor
The first solution I proposed is indeed related to Buddhism, but not completely. According to Buddhism you should not feel craving, because it leads to suffering. Here there is no reference to that, only a reference to understanding on an experiential level that you have infinite possibilities. Practicing meditations can be very helpful in this experiential understanding.
But there is also the second solution I proposed that is not related to Buddhism at all. There you have meaning with the help of the longing to understand nature and its infinity. Longing to reveal more secrets of nature and thus touch infinity for a moment. I don't think Buddhism would agree with that approach
sympathetic
Line after line where you stopped reading is written "even if we are not aware of the existence of the problem and do not know how to name it, we feel it on an experiential level". In my opinion, even before modern times, people felt this problem and that is why religions developed. As an example of this you can take the stories of Galgamesh, the first written story of human culture from the Sumerian kingdom. This whole story revolves around the fear of death and trying to achieve eternal life and meaning.
sympathetic:
Read This link
sympathetic
There is no shortage of false ideas that survive for a long time. Any religion that is different from your religion is false - isn't it?
Religious belief is not based on lies alone. It has important social values, for example. But the premise is wrong. There is no creator, no miracles and no life after death.
Eran
Slowly…
There is no obstacle in creating something from nothing. More than that - the "nothing" is not stable and therefore something will immediately be created.
I don't understand why the universe (supposedly) has a beginning - do you conclude that it is finite? The fund also has a beginning…..
And from the fact that it spreads you conclude that it is final?????
No - it is much more likely that it is infinite. Much simpler.
מ
If so, delete the reference to good from my previous response. There is something in religion that allows you
her survival. It suits a person, it comes to him as naturally as desire
produce works of art. Do you think that if religion was based on
Only lies would she have survived this long?
To the anonymous who wrote "The truth that there is scientific evidence for the existence of God":
The truth is that there is scientific evidence that you are a troll:
You give the title of "scientific" to "proofs" that the scientists do not accept:
http://www.interacademies.net/File.aspx?id=6150
sympathetic:
Many things can be based on the theory of evolution and identifying "survival" with "good" is not one of them, and this is because the theory of evolution does not deal with values at all (such as good and bad) but with natural laws.
Miraculously, if time is a fourth dimension created in the big bang then we can determine a starting point, and the conditions that existed at that starting point were different from the laws of physics today, and we don't have enough understanding to know what happened there. I agree with the premise that nothing comes from nothing, and it could be that you and I are wrong. Regarding the assumption that the universe is infinite, I think it is finite for two reasons - one, because it had a starting point. Two, because the universe is accelerating its expansion and is not static, which shows me that the expansion process is still in progress and has not ended, and there is no preventing it from being final at some point in the very distant future. This is why the law of conservation of energy is very relevant and also points to a finite universe.
The solutions you described are pure Buddhism which actually aims at 'spiritual development that begins with a person and ends with a person' and all his studies are tools that help with this and only this. It's a bit strange that you claim some kind of innovation because if you invalidated all the teachings and religions that preceded our times, it can be assumed that you have researched them (and there is no need to deepen research to know what I mentioned before). You even made a lot of use of his language, images and ideas.
Michael.
Morality is simply in my hand bam bam bo
Those who can't here steal a bone for themselves
oh bye bam bam
He will never see the tip of his tail here
oh bye bam bam
Bam Bo
Safkan
Unfortunately I don't have much time and if I were to write an article it would not be on the said topic.
Being cold is a fantasy that defies the laws of physics. I'm not sure that
Those who practice it are charlatans or simply chemists who have no idea about physics.
It is possible to produce energy in the cold fusion experiments, but it is energy
chemical.
I would appreciate it if you could show me a cold fusion experiment where something was damaged by radiation or an experiment
Cold fusion in which there is minimal shielding from radiation. I'll even settle for a fusion experiment
Cold where they measured radiation at a level that is above the background.
The interest in cold fusion is marginal if there was even a tiny kernel of possibility
To achieve cold fusion all the governments in the world were working on the issue and all
The scientists would devote their time to dealing with the subject. This is his topic
If it were true it would change the face of the world completely, clean energy
(without greenhouse gas emissions) and cheap. The matter that the subject raises is marginal
I am sure that there is also an interest of the same magnitude in the subject of a time machine
Although the chance that they will build a time machine is greater.
Miracles
The religious approach is not necessarily selfish and cruel, not all religions
They are missionary and in addition religions have different phases this is an idea
Dynamic changes and his attitude to the world changes. if religions
It would not have changed how they would have survived.
Why do you write that every person is obliged to leave his children a good world
More? Who said I have to leave something behind? who said
Should I have children? Isn't it my job to worry?
For the present and not for the hypothetical world about which I don't know much about the future?
מ
According to evolution religions are a good thing see how long they are
survived Doesn't this point to a grain of truth?
That is, they fit the character of the person.
The truth is that there is scientific evidence for the existence of God:
http://creation.com/qa#Biology
Listen to Dawkins in the video attached to the news
Safkan
Religion is actually one of the worst roots of evil in the world.
I do not know what you call spirituality, so I do not refer to this matter.
Spring
I don't want to respond to your words because the very reference will give grounds for the continuation of the discussion.
I will only add that paranoidism is also a boring matter. Religion and spirituality are not the root of evil in the world, there are much worse things.
Israel:
Read the blog I pointed to and you might find your tail.
What is certain is that you will find my tail there 🙂
Joseph:
Does morality as a supreme value have to stay here?
So who has the authority to define it?
By what authority do you state that certain "moral" laws are dark and others are "really" moral?
I offer a solution to this, but the solution - what to do - is based on evolution.
Skeptic, the philosophical discussions about religion vs. science vs. spirituality etc. - are in my opinion boring and pointless in the eyes of those who want to eliminate the freedom of speech of the rationalists because supporters of religion and spirituality of their kind have endless means of communication and control over the main means of communication as well.
An older dog sees a young dog chasing its tail.
why are you walking around Who are you running after? he asks the young man.
There's no time to answer, I'm busy - gasps the puppy. I came to the conclusion that the tail is the meaning in life, and when I catch it - I will be happy!
You are undoubtedly right, replies the older and experienced one. I also came to the same conclusion at your age. But I noticed that as much as I chase my tail, it always runs away from me. But when I stop chasing him and turn to my occupation - he always chases me.
A world without morals, and without a legacy, what will happen in the end. I'm not talking about the dark religion that discriminates against men and women and the spectacle we saw in London. But morality, not as an evolutionary justification, and not as a mathematical justification, but as a supreme value, must remain here. Not evolutionary altruism (I bought the book). The symbolic act of suicide by that scientist was actually very spiritual. The world is full of cults that are new substitutes for the old religions. This knowledge exists in the old religions, the problem is that the majority distort it. I find my satisfaction in the old religion. Our great thinkers say things that the enlightened person can listen to: Rambam (teacher of the perplexed), Ramchal (straight paths), prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel), and even the Gospel according to John, even though I am unequivocally an Orthodox Jew. Other peoples also deserve abstract monotheism.
And in the new era: Yeshayahu Leibovitz. I don't have to agree with him on every corner, but I appreciate him as a thinker. Lately there has been a boom in his books which are very difficult for me to read. In Western philosophy I respect Socrates, Plato, Aristotle in that order, despite the contrasts between them, and both Kant and the moderns. There were flaws in the lives of the thinkers but I respect their theories.
sympathetic
Can you not write a review article on Russian and ecat on this site
You don't have to believe in Rossi or ecat to review the current state of affairs on the subject (after the preliminary article published in May of this year on arxiv).
The philosophical discussions about religion vs. science vs. spirituality etc. are boring and pointless in my opinion.
Even if ecat is an act of fraud, the attention it arouses has value
scientific; Because - - - he raises the issue of hypothetical nuclear processes (which have potential economic value).
sympathetic
I got you. Still - I think the described problem is real, although it is not necessarily new.
And as I already wrote - I think there is one primary meaning to life...
This meaning is clearly anti-religious - because the religious approach is selfish and cruel. And it doesn't matter what the religion is.
Miracles
I didn't claim that religion only existed for a hundred years, I only claimed that the average person
Started looking for meaning in his life since he was partially released from society
the traditional In my opinion, our "freedom" today is also an illusion, we
We are born into a society and defined worldviews and our thinking
Defined by them, we have no freedom to choose the meaning for our lives
Exactly we do not have the possibility of a scientific description of the world. Our news
is based on a lot of previous assumptions that we are not aware of.
Eran
We do not know whether time had a beginning and whether it was created out of nothing. There is no obstacle to the formation of something from nothing - on the contrary. The state of "no" is unstable and cannot exist.
I would appreciate it if you could explain to me what the "law of conservation of energy" is in a universe that is infinite. Or do you know how to prove that the universe is finite??
By natural miracles I meant a general God that can be described as the physical laws operating in our universe since the beginning and the creation of time. The very fact that the universe started from some point from which time was created or time itself began according to our universe can be considered as a creation from nothing. If we try to understand what was before the beginning of our universe, a theory that is also possible, we will again reach the same point that from some place the universe was created and time began from which it is infinite. Regarding the law of conservation of energy, I think that if you cannot add or subtract energy from the creation of the universe, the balance between the energy and the existence of the universe must be perfect and deep throughout the fabric of the universe, and therefore points to proportionality and essentially to a closed system with a predetermined pattern.
sympathetic
I don't agree with you. Religion has existed for tens of thousands of years and maybe much longer. Cave paintings were drawn tens of thousands of years ago. I had the chance to visit the site where the dead were cremated 23000 years ago.
The problem with the article is real and it does belong to the modern era.
I could not read more than a few lines. The article begins with
"Lack of meaning and superficiality are one of the biggest problems of our time"
Indeed, it is all full of superficiality. A few lines later appears
The claim. Thought "I suspect that most acts in human history
They were made in order to answer this paradox." I'm not a historian though
It is clear to anyone with an understanding that the common man started thinking about questions
Great since he has leisure and freedom, when you are in a traditional company
Your role in the world is defined. The questions that arise in the article started to occupy me
People are only simple when they are given the time and freedom to do so
Maybe in the last hundred years. Just as the analysis of the problem is trivial
So wrong and trivial are the solutions presented, too bad...
In the video at the beginning of the article, it is interesting to see the unconscious abduction that Karini tries to make in the concluding sentence and Dawkins' attempt to correct the distortion in the zero time she did not leave him.
This event demonstrates well what Dawkins said when he was asked about the connection between the terrorist events of the recent period and religious extremism (and what every reasonable person has been saying since time immemorial) and that is that many learn from their childhood that religious belief is a good thing and religious extremism is only a result of this fact.
It's interesting how ideas spread.
Once they didn't recognize the problem at all, but after I started talking about it and even started a blog designed to deal with you - others are trying too.
Those looking for in-depth references to the subject are invited to visit the blog "From the wheel of a secular” on the website “One against all religion”
The article is a bit long - and misses the real meaning (in my opinion) of life. Every person must (again - in my opinion) take care of leaving behind a better world for those who come after him. Sit down, what would have happened if our ancestors had thought like this? What wonderful world would we live in today?
And look at the world we are going to leave to our children……
What is more important than that????
J
You can believe in God. But there is no reason to believe in God.
Eran
The law of conservation of energy does not prove anything of what you said. In general, as soon as you say "it goes without saying" - a sign that you haven't thought about it deeply...
Zebulun
This is not true. On a certain level, there is really no concept of "free choice" (probably). But - this does not mean that a person should not be punished for bad deeds.
The section in the article that states "we have the freedom to choose to be bad or good" is contrary to information in brain research
which states that there is no free will or free choice at all (see Professor Haim Sompoliansky's lecture
from the Hebrew University "Physics, Mind and Free Will" or the article in Science "A weekend of skepticism: questioning all the way to the truth")
An old conflict: religion versus science
There must be something, it goes without saying, even Einstein said "there is a higher power that comes into effect in the laws of the universe"
Even if theorizing about infinite multiverses there is still a law that will exist in each of them and they too will have a beginning from which time will begin for it. The law of conservation of energy also proves the finitude of matter that only changes form but never disappears or lacks from its initial quantity only changes form. "General God" is a necessary derivative of the behavior of matter and the fact that time is a dimension.
It is possible to believe in God without being part of a religion and worship, the article presents outdated, New Age views, which are dangerous to society and man in particular