Judaism vs. science
Sun, 2008-02-24 19:43
#1
Judaism vs. science
Sun, 2008-02-24 19:43
#2
In [url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=21&t=001872]this thread[/url], we saw some references to pro-Islamic "scholars" who try to reconcile science with religious doctrine. Example: Dr. Maurice Bucaille, some of whose thoughts are found [url=http://www.islamicity.com/Science/Baucaille.shtml]here[/url].
Proponents of other religions also try to claim that their views are not in contradiction with science - indeed, like Bucaille, they often go to bizarre lengths to show how ancient texts predicted recent phenomena or scientific discoveries. The irony is that such "prediction" is, in itself, flagrantly contrary to the scientific method.
Just to start off the discussion, [url=http://www.simpletoremember.com/faqs/Science_and_Judaism.htm]here[/url] is a brief example of Jewish biblical "scholarship", desperately trying to reconcile science with Sinai, miracles, creation, etc.
What I find particularly hilarious is that this item (like all others) ridicules the scriptures of [i]other[/i] religions as being unverifiable or unscientific, while boasting about how good "our own" are. Bucaille did exactly the same thing, saying that the Old and New Testaments were really out to lunch, while the Qur'an was Allah's gift to science.
Example from the Jewish site:
quote:
A miracle which someone does by walking momentarily on water far away in the middle of a lake in front of a limited number of people is hardly open to verification. By contrast, the miracle of the manna took place for 40 years in front of the whole nation at extremely close range. Someone who was twenty when the miracle began was sixty when it ended. The Jews, the most skeptical nation on earth, were able to go out every day with their scientific equipment and make sure that what was happening was for real.
Our miracles are better than your miracles!!
[ 24 February 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]
Sun, 2008-02-24 20:08
#3
I see no real purpose of pitting faith communities against each other in this manner . It leads to much animosity.
Sun, 2008-02-24 20:15
#4
quote:
Originally posted by Jaku:
[b]I see no real purpose of pitting faith communities against each other in this manner . It leads to much animosity.[/b]
Exactly. You are absolutely correct. There is no point in pitting them against each other.
Yet that is what Judaism, Islam and Christianity do all the time. Indeed, it's a chief component of their [i]raison d'кtre[/i]. Have you ever heard a Catholic say: "On the whole, I think the Muslims are closer to the truth than we are!"?? You see, it just doesn't work.
If there were only one world religion, shared by all, it would still stand condemned for providing unscientific explanations for real phenomena. But at least it would have lost its character of generating fear, hate, xenophobia, and war.
Mon, 2008-02-25 10:32
#5
The story about Jesus walking on water is very scientific. He inflated his feet so that they would have the necessary buoyancy, thereby utilizing his feet as pontoons so that he could enjoy a pleasant, leisurely stroll on the Sea of Galilee.
Hooray for Pontoon Feet Jesus!
[ 25 February 2008: Message edited by: marzo ]
Mon, 2008-02-25 10:37
#6
The silence here is deafening. I take it that everyone agrees that Judaism is indeed the enemy of science? It's only Islam where the jury is still out?
Maybe it was my Jewish heritage that poisoned me to religion forever. Had I only been brought up by some Imam, I might have pursued a career in science... stopped climate change... cured cancer... explored Saturn...
Could someone please, please tell me what it feels like to belong to the One True Faith?
Mon, 2008-02-25 10:45
#7
Ever read [url=http://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Big-Bang-Discovery-Harmony/dp/0553354132]G... and the Big Bang[/url]? (No, it's not about an orgy with Phil Collins.)
It attempts to reconcile the opening chapters of Genesis (the creation story of Judaism and Christianity) with the Big Bang theory.
I bought it years ago, still have it at home. Haven't read it in ages. I remember thinking at the time (as a believer) that it was kind of neat, but I wasn't all that critical then. I should read it again and see what holes I could poke in it now that I might not have thought to then.
Mon, 2008-02-25 10:52
#8
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]Ever read [url=http://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Big-Bang-Discovery-Harmony/dp/0553354132]G... and the Big Bang[/url]? (No, it's not about an orgy with Phil Collins.)[/b]
[url=http://www.islamicity.com/dialogue/Q62.HTM]This[/url] is from a resource recommended by Cueball (thank you) in another thread, talking about the Big Bang:
quote:
I am not particularly familiar with this theory, or its details. I have watched a television program about it and read an article, but I am not in a position to speak about it in any depth. [...]If Muslim scientists find enough evidence to suggest that the Big Bang Theory explains how the universe came into existence, they would relate that to Allah and His power. They would say that Allah has created the universe by causing a big bang to take place and they would then carry on with their investigations. Their research may lead them to great discoveries, but that does not negate Allah's role. The problem with scientists' research in the West is that it seeks to provide a theory which can be used as an alternative to the fact that the universe is Allah's creation.
Please let me know how well this compares with the Jewish "explanation". I'm inaugurating a faith-physics Olympics.
Mon, 2008-02-25 11:00
#9
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]Please let me know how well this compares with the Jewish "explanation". [/b]
OMG, do I have to? Is this going to be on the test? What's it worth on the final? [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
Mon, 2008-02-25 11:02
#10
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]OMG, do I have to? Is this going to be on the test? What's it worth on the final? [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img] [/b]
You mean, what's it worth on the Final Test?
Everything.
Mon, 2008-02-25 11:04
#11
Ah. Yes. I'd forgotten THAT.
Mon, 2008-02-25 11:21
#12
remind
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]I'm inaugurating a faith-physics Olympics.[/b]
Oh I may so need a new keyboard!
[img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
Mon, 2008-02-25 12:13
#13
Pogo
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]I'm inaugurating a faith-physics Olympics.[/b]
My God can make a boulder so big that your God can't pick it up!
Mon, 2008-02-25 13:07
#14
Obviously your God is on steroids. Disqualified!!
Mon, 2008-02-25 14:19
#15
Pogo
We will need to have to two categories. One for gods who are limited by logic and one for gods capable of overriding the rules of logic. It would be folly to allow the 'best of all possible worlds' gods compete the truly omnipotent.
Mon, 2008-02-25 14:44
#16
If your god were omniscient, he would know better than to take on my god.
Mon, 2008-02-25 14:47
#17
My god loves your god and just wants to be friends.
Mon, 2008-02-25 14:56
#18
quote:
Originally posted by Coyote:
[b]My god loves your god and just wants to be friends.[/b]
A likely story. Sorry, I never genuflect on a first date.
Mon, 2008-02-25 15:00
#19
Well, it can't be all missionary all the time . . .
Mon, 2008-02-25 15:03
#20
God, you're really on top of your game!
Mon, 2008-02-25 15:52
#21
Ahthankyouverymuchly.
Tue, 2008-02-26 05:47
#22
quote:
What I find particularly hilarious is that this item (like all others) ridicules the scriptures of other religions as being unverifiable or unscientific, while boasting about how good "our own" are. -unionist
And how do you find the attitude of someone who qualifies a Muslim country's practice of oppressing, torturing and killing people today as "far worse than Nazi Germany" but does not apply that qualifyer to a Jewish state that pursues the same practice against Palestinians today ?
Tue, 2008-02-26 06:35
#23
quote:
The irony is that such "prediction" is, in itself, flagrantly contrary to the scientific method.
You've got it. Science will define what it 'believes' (theories) by what it observes while religion will define what it observes by what it already 'believes'.
I enjoy this line in particular:
quote:
The Jews, the most skeptical nation on earth, were able to go out every day with their scientific equipment and make sure that what was happening was for real.
Not only are our miracles better but, we being the most skeptical and scientific nation, means ours are the most 'provable'.
Tue, 2008-02-26 07:17
#24
quote:
I see no real purpose of pitting faith communities against each other in this manner . It leads to much animosity.
More than that, unionist is deliberately stirring discord amongst Babblers, with cheerleading from his "clique" who, while tripping on each other to support him, found no qualm with his partiality and his double standard.
Muslim Saudi Arabia's "oppression, torture and killing of people today is far worse than Nazi Germany", said unionist. When asked whether he can also qualify Israel's same practice today towards Palestinians as "worse than Nazi Germany's", he never replied. (Nor did any of his cheer leaders).
Open season on Muslims but criticizing a Jewish state is taboo, unionist and his cheerleaders seem to imply.
[ 26 February 2008: Message edited by: adam stratton ]
Tue, 2008-02-26 07:38
#25
quote:
Science will define what it 'believes' (theories) by what it observes...
Not to quibble but, that isn't really the way it is done. No theory can spring unblemished from mere observations. One has to start from a theoretical insight, hypothesis, framework. Everyone observes phenomena but to create theories/science, people need to fashion hypotheses and test them with further, controlled observations. The hypotheses that could be infirmed but aren't then define a body of yet-undisproved truths, in a limited domain, that are fashioned into best-yet theories and constantly on the block for refinement and eventual replacement.
[ 26 February 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
Tue, 2008-02-26 07:51
#26
quote:
No theory can spring unblemished from mere observations.
Need an apple to hit you in the head? [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
You are right, I left it as a simplified one liner... But ultimately the theories are defined (and disproven) by observations.
quote:
that are fashioned into best-yet theories and constantly on the block for refinement and eventual replacement
I beleive all theory falls into that category, no?