Does anybody here live a frum lifestyle but not believe...

gp2.0

Sun, Feb 15 2015, 12:13 am

yogabird wrote:

The bolded is so true and that makes me wonder why so many theories are accepted as fact when even science itself barely makes that claim.

Just because a prediction turns out to be true doesn't mean that extrapolation into the distant past will be true as well. Who know if conditions were the same back then, and if the same laws and logic applied under those conditions?

I am more inclined to trust an institution that says "here's what I think happened, here's what I can prove happened, and here's what I'm not sure about yet" rather than one that says "here's what I think happened, I have no proof, and I am 100% sure, there is no room for doubt."

You don't find it interesting that the same people laughing at science for not having enough proof some of the time, are the same people who believe in religion which does not have enough proof all of the time?

As someone religious, who believes in an entity which has not been proved, I should be more open-minded, more willing to take a leap of faith when science does not yet have all the answers. And yet we find the opposite occurring more often. I wonder why?

yogabird

Sun, Feb 15 2015, 12:18 am

Of course from the bottom up, it makes more sense to trust science. But from the top down, it's laughable, because science is a human construct, same as all of reality that exists within its Creator.

Science is by definition limited. G-d is not. But of course you have to first believe in G-d to believe he is limitless.

gp2.0

Sun, Feb 15 2015, 12:26 am

yogabird wrote:

By saying science is a human construct, you make it sound like science is a fun fairy tale we tell ourselves for entertainment, rather than serious study and observation of nature surrounding us.

G-d created nature, with specific laws. Essentially, G-d created nature to run itself. Science is not attempting to study or understand G-d. They are attempting to study and understand His creation, which is a fixed system, governed by specific laws, and can therefore be studied and understood.

yogabird

Sun, Feb 15 2015, 12:32 am

gp2.0 wrote:

I know, but the next question is, was creation a physical or metaphysical event? In my understanding, it was a meeting of the two, and can not be explained in physical terms only.

causemommysaid

Sun, Feb 15 2015, 12:34 am

I believe in God because existence had to come from somewhere. Even if the Big Bang is true and it can be just as true as any other theory including Creationism, there is still no answer for where the particles that caused the Big Bang came from. Until science can adequately explain that, I am going to go with the God theory because that is the only belief system that allows for unexplained variables.

amother

Sun, Feb 15 2015, 12:49 am

gp2.0 wrote:

Thr Atlantic article I referenced upthread says essentially that science is just as much a refuge from facing the futility of human existence as is religion.

IOW, it is a human construct to avoid acknowledging how little we understand. The difference is that science says we don't know yet, and here's what we are planning to do to figure it out, while religion says we know that God knows, and however much we will know of His wisdom, understanding Him will always be beyond our grasp.

amother

Sun, Feb 15 2015, 12:52 am

causemommysaid wrote:

I get that, but is it just a coincidence that the god that created the world happens to be the god that you were trained and raised to believe in when you were young? Going from intelligent design to Judaism as it is today is yet another huge leap of faith.

dimyona

Sun, Feb 15 2015, 12:53 am

gp2.0 wrote:

This.

amother

Sun, Feb 15 2015, 1:21 am

gp2.0 wrote:

Not at all. This point twists the religious viewpoint.

I acknowledge my system doesn't have absolute visual or mathematical proof, and that's ok with me because I believe in a higher truth.

You Mr. Scientist claim to need tangible evidence and yet you rely on less than that?

Aren't you a believer in science, as I am a believer in God?

The irony is that the reason you reject religion ought to be the reason you reject science... yet you don't.

marina

Sun, Feb 15 2015, 1:23 am

amother wrote:

The Atlantic had an article a few months ago titled "why God will not die". The author basically expands on this premise, that the more science discovers the more we see that we don't know. Believing in science is acknowledged today by many thinkers as just as much a belief as religion, another way to make sense of the temporary nature of our existence and a way to find meaning in the vast universe.

(Of course, the author left religion when he was young, but his point is basically, hey religion is not stupid, and scientists may be the biggest blind believers of all. We should acknowledge the value religion provides in answering existential questions in a meaningful way to many, even if for a particular atheist it doesn't.)

I was especially struck by his statement that most people do not understand all that is understood by science today, they rely on the understanding of other greater minds who do. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

Scientific conclusions are based on a lot more evidence than religious conclusions.

And yes, of course we all rely on the understanding of other greater minds. But some of us rely on greater minds that support chemotherapy, for example, while others rely on "greater" minds that support cleansing diets for cancer. Just because we rely on others' explanations doesn't mean those explanations are all equally valid.

marina

Sun, Feb 15 2015, 1:26 am

amother wrote:

Yes, questions are good.

But the motivation behind the questions will determine whether the answer will be found satisfactory or rejected. Does the person want to believe and is searching to solve their confusion, or is the person already determined that the truth is not in the Torah and nothing will dissuade him?

Because there is no one answer, as you said. If there were it wouldn't be a choice, there'd be no free will in this area.

So the questioner needs to accept either that
A - there are some Divine truths that we humans are not privy to, and can only learn about and ask about as far as a finite human being can
or that
B - there is some ultimate scientific truth that is still in the process of being discovered, and is understood only in bits and pieces by various brilliant minds. (No single person has a complete understanding of all branches of all sciences, including all the latest research and discoveries, so we rely on others' understanding of their areas of expertise and accept their conclusions).

Personally, I pick A. I believe ultimately science will prove that Hashem is, was, and will be.

That may be the day that "all the world will know Hashem".

Why on earth would you think that knowing these answers will eliminate free will? Adam and Chava lived in Gan Eden and were closer to God than anyone else and yet.... they still managed to mess up. Same with so many others.

amother

Sun, Feb 15 2015, 1:38 am

marina wrote:

Belief in Hashem wouldn't be a choice.

If something can be proven in black and white beyond a shadow of a doubt (which science hasn't so far), it's not a choice to believe it.

ETA: let me rephrase that. If something can be proven beyond etc, it wouldn't be a nisayon to believe. It would still be a nisayon to be true to that belief, ie keep the 613 mitzvos, but God's existence would be a matter of fact, not belief.

Adam and Chava didn't question God's existence. Their free will was about eating forbidden fruit...

Their act of rebellion caused confusion about everything else.

gp2.0

Sun, Feb 15 2015, 1:39 am

amother wrote:

Huh? I Mr. Scientist have made scientific assertions without evidence? When? Where?

(and what a funny thing to say!)

marina

Sun, Feb 15 2015, 1:39 am

amother wrote:

Belief in Hashem wouldn't be a choice.

If something can be proven in black and white beyond a shadow of a doubt (which science hasn't so far), it's not a choice to believe it.

Adam and Chava didn't question God's existence. Their free will was about eating forbidden fruit...

Their act of rebellion caused confusion about everything else.

Ok, so what would be the problem if we knew about God? Why do we need that free will in your estimation? Who cares if we have no choice but to believe in God?

gp2.0

Sun, Feb 15 2015, 1:42 am

amother wrote:

There are certainly people who choose not to believe things even though they have been proven in black and white. Have you read any vaccine threads lately? LOL

amother

Sun, Feb 15 2015, 1:46 am

marina wrote:

Ok, so what would be the problem if we knew about God? Why do we need that free will in your estimation? Who cares if we have no choice but to believe in God?

See my edit, but it seems God does. This world is one of hester panim, and apparantly if He wanted it to be simple He would make it so.

But as I mentioned earlier, the basic premise for this argument is that God exists, here's why it's not something easily proven, if at all.

If you don't start with this premise, it's hard to have a conversation about faith. At least for me. Wink

amother

Sun, Feb 15 2015, 1:50 am

gp2.0 wrote:

Huh? I Mr. Scientist have made scientific assertions without evidence? When? Where?

(and what a funny thing to say!)

Did you read the article?

Mr. Scientist (not you, gp.2) believes in science's ability to provide all the answers, even though the more answers are presented the more questions are raised. So evidence that science will one day have the TRUTH is not yet here. It's a matter of belief.

Oy I'm not as eloquent as that guy. What