The fact that a world-renowned scientist says that the universe is not made according to design somehow surprises a reader of Galileo. This response and the counter-response of the paper's scientific editor are presented here together with a response supporting Weinberg's views. The responses are provided courtesy of Galileo and were published in the current issue that was published these days
Zvi Atzmon
Before the cartagens jump
The article was published in issue 38 "The universe and planning". Before I continue - I say that the article was excellent, and more than that, it was an essential light point in the post-modern, neo-religious landscape. In the midst of the vanity of the New Age era, and the renewed and empty interest in religion - the above article is a spark of clean and clear thinking, which reminded that there are still serious scientists who are not afraid to express their opinion even on central spiritual issues.
It was especially essential to refer to the moral aspect of rational evidence, and to be free from far-fetched and absolute explanations for what is not yet explicable.
At this point, I would like to reply in advance to all those catechists whose letters I have no doubt will flood the Galileo system. The categories will probably be divided into several groups: one will represent the relativistic-postmodern secular public. The second is the believing public in its own right, whether "religious" believers or "secular" believers. It is possible that the group of "secular" believers will be divided into a subgroup that tries to find philosophical excuses for the necessary existence of one or another higher power. This group is faithfully represented by Prof. Yuval Steinitz and I will not expand on it.
I will point out that in relation to the "religious" believers I personally have nothing to say, since the difference of views between us is so fundamental (on the issues discussed in the article) that there is no room for any "constructive dialogue" as the author of the article says. Regarding them, I will content myself with saying that I respect their opinion as long as it does not force me to have any opinion or action, and that my opinion is radically different from theirs.
We will return to the "secular" categories. The first group (the postmodern) will claim the lack of the right to establish any firm/absolute position about the world, whether it is religious, scientific or mystical. The same public will oppose the transmission of clear messages in the education system for the promotion of democratic-scientific thinking, and will seek to give adequate representation to the other side as well (religious, mystical). The harms of this approach are too broad to describe here. Here are the main ones:
First this group exposes us with this relativist statement to the most violent manifestation of fundamentalist religious extremism. Secondly, tolerance towards different opinions is acceptable even within a less extreme worldview than postmodernism, which fights for its nuances, but the attraction to everything that is mystical, esoteric or religious among those relativists, and the rejection of everything that is scientific, logical or well-founded, raises the suspicion that mysticism is simply easy And simpler to understand than a scientific explanation of the workings of the world. Hence the great popularity of these fields among the "almost thinking" secular public.
The second group (believers, lagonia) will claim the existence of faith detached from any scientific/empirical/rational judgment. The more successful claims will be in a Leibovich tone.
Such claims are usually (in the original Leibovich version) indeed immune to any debate - since in fact they exclude the subject of the debate beforehand from the realms of rational debate. However, there is one Leibovich, and many "secular" believers, with whom a long way of discourse and understanding is required in order to reach Leibovich's starting point. Usually their arguments have serious internal contradictions.
After converting the hearts of the believers to these internal contradictions, comes an uprising against the "logical" thinking that is not relevant to this field, and at this point the discussion usually boils down to defining a supreme power that is completely meaningless (that is, there is no necessary way to define it, there is no way to discover the its effect on the world, no such effect is required, and there is no analogy or even elimination that would slightly refine the meaning of the subject of the discussion) almost once again we reach a dead end in the discussion - from smuggling the subject of the discussion out of scope.
There shouldn't be a problem with the above position regarding the existence of force majeure, except for disagreement within the discussion. Those who in practice, adopting it as an "abstract" supreme power into the hearts of "seculars" out of some primal fear, leads to consequences that are not abstract at all. These consequences are expressed in the legitimization of compulsive religious positions under the euphemistic title "Jewish character" of the state. What hides under this title is well known, and ranges from the lack of public transportation on Shabbat, through various pork laws, to the problem of the agonum, religious marriages (for the humiliating purification rituals) and recently to the Kikioni charge for Bible studies also for the minority sectors. Those "seculars" who apparently represent a Leibovich view of the faith, actually give a hand to the phenomena that the late Leibovich would have fought to the bitter end. Of course, the phenomenon is not limited to the local landscape: anti-abortion legislation, contraceptives and other sick evils that could cause a demographic holocaust, or otherwise on all of us - also exist in Christianity and Islam.
Israel simply has another excuse to support it in the worst case, and not to condemn it - in the worst case. We call this excuse "a little 'Yiddishkeit'".
In conclusion, once again I say that in our world the demon-possessed, Prof. Yuval Steinitz's demon-possessed and God's comeback on the one hand, and Dr. Yoav Ben-Dov with the tarot cards, black magic, and drug use together on the other hand - Steven Weinberg's article is the same candle in the darkness that Carl talks about Sigan. May this candle open our eyes.
Ariel Yorosevich, Jerusalem.
Is this science?
In issue 38 you chose in a one-sided and particularly anti-religious way to bring Prof. Steven Weinberg's views regarding creation (in the article "The Universe and Planning"). I would expect you to get the second opinion of Professor Natan Aviezer Which completely refutes all the nonsense of the professor who achieved considerable achievements in his field but does not understand a thing about the formation of the earth. You probably chose the name Galileo only because it was anti-religious and not because of a scientific background, and if you did choose this name from a scientific point of view, then I expect to see ideas that prove creation according to the latest discoveries in physics.
Yossi Blasbelg, K. Bialik
Comment:
I would like to thank Mr. Blasberg for his letter, but the blatant lack of politeness, as well as the almost threatening tone of his letter, unfortunately prevent this.
We do not have in Galileo's system only anti-religious; And the evidence: one of the revered figures of the members of the system is the figure of Yeshiahu Leibovitch, an observant and God-fearing man. And yet: in Galileo we published a fair article (and many claimed that we were overly sympathetic to the information) about the claim of omissions in the Torah.
We do not feel that we should ask for permission or the right to publish opinions that were published in one of the most respected newspapers in the world (New York Rabio), of one of the celebrated physicists of our generation, Steven Weinberg, a Jew whose many family members were murdered by the Nazis.
I admit that I have not heard anything about the activities of the researcher of magnetism and electrical conductivity, Prof. Natan Aviezer (Weiser) from Bar-Ilan University, in matters of science and faith. I would like to take this opportunity to point out that the Galileo system will be happy to review any article that is offered to it, especially one by a physics professor.
Zvi Atzmon, scientific editor
