Home
Log in / Sign Up
    Private Messages   Advanced Search   Rules   New User Guide   FAQ   Advertise   Contact Us  
Forum -> Interesting Discussions
Chazal, Science, Controversy ... - Slifkin
  Previous  1  2  3  20  21  22



Post new topic   Reply to topic View latest: 24h 48h 72h

HindaRochel




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, Jul 26 2007, 12:59 pm
Motek,

He brings proof from Rabbi's from BEFORE evolution was a theory...so yes, he does support his thesis with Torah scholars for centuries ago.

I don't have time to pull all those he cites from his book. One of my issues with his book is there isn't an index. That may have been deliberate, I don't know...but again, his site lists the arguements against his book and why he believes they are ineffective.
http://www.zootorah.com/
go to the section on controversy and read...
and here is a full article on the subject.

http://www.zootorah.com/contro.....r.pdf


And yes, of course they qualify that they hold by the Torah, but again and again, when the Torah is validated, for lack of a better word, by something in science, there is often a lot of excitement in the frum world, something along the lines of "see the Torah said that" .

Well, in a way, that is what Slifkin's book does...See, it has been in there the whole time.

Now as far as turning to outside sources, that has always been done. The Rabbi's have always consluted various authorities on the subject. For example, sailors about knots.

The Rabbi's of old were quite educated in many spheres of life.

However, and this really is the point in contention, not the age of the earth, because quite frankly I know what I believe but don't care what you believe. Believe in a young earth and G-d created the world to look old...that is fine...but my argument with this is that, as I am following qualified Rabbinic thought on this matter, and don't impinge the honor of my Rabbi's...then you have no say in the matter, neither do you have the right to infer that my beliefs are lacking or less valid than yours.

The book created such a great feeling in me, such a great conection to Hashem and his Torah...sorry, you aren't taking that away.
Back to top

Motek




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, Jul 26 2007, 3:08 pm
HindaRochel wrote:
He brings proof from Rabbi's from BEFORE evolution was a theory...so yes, he does support his thesis with Torah scholars for centuries ago.


Again, not one Amora, Gaon, Rishon, or Acharon held that the world has been around for billions of years, nor that people evolved from apes etc.

The sources Slifkin quotes from BEFORE evolution, are from rabbis who did NOT BELIEVE that we evolved! What Slifkin does is pick and choose selections, some distorted, that support his thesis.

This gets back to the point I've made before - Slifkin (and you) did not search the Torah and Torah sources and arrive at an opinion.

First he arrived at an opinion. Then, he searched for some Torah sources to support it. Do you agree or disagree with this point?

Quote:
Now as far as turning to outside sources, that has always been done.


Of course rabbis consult with doctors, for example, in order to arrive at a psak. But NEVER have secular sources determined how rabbis understand a Gemara or Rishon, yet Slifkin does just that. In fact, in instances where science has contradicted the Gemara regarding what makes an animal treif, for example, we pasken according to what Torah says.

Quote:
I am following qualified Rabbinic thought on this matter, and don't impinge the honor of my Rabbi's...then you have no say in the matter, neither do you have the right to infer that my beliefs are lacking or less valid than yours.


If you have no problem making Torah adjust to science, have no problem
misinterpreting Torah sources to fit your thesis, then you can do as you please. But to claim that this approach is just as valid as the approach that Torah tells us what is Emes, is laughable.

What he does is like the science student who has to present a hypothesis, and experiment he did, and the results, who fudges the results in order to make it look good.

Have you personally looked up his sources to verify that he quoting and understanding accurately, or are you relying on his expertise?
Back to top

HindaRochel




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, Jul 26 2007, 3:29 pm
We disagree Motek... My Rabbenium, Orthodox all, have no trouble with evolution. I am not adjusting anything to anything; I don't have to. There isn't a contest/battle/conflict.
Back to top

faigie




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, Jul 26 2007, 3:49 pm
yes this is a cross post, but it does get to the heart of the matter..... so ill repost.. warning,, its loooooonnnnnnnnnngggggggg.

he Age of the Universe

One of the age-old questions of the world concerns its age and is a matter that involves great social controversy. Some theologians, often lacking a background in the physical and biological sciences, take literally the Biblical text and state that the creation of the universe took place in a 6 X 24-hour time period, bringing the total amount of years from creation to date, 5764. Scientists, on the other hand, rejecting biblical texts, date the earth at 4.6 billion years and the surrounding universe at approximately 15 billion years. Some religious scientists, trying to resolve apparent contradictions, state the reinterpretation of the biblical day as phases or epochs. Midrashic and Kabalistic sources also hint at an older universe in terms of "Divine years", whether they be in physical or spiritual terms.
" In the beginning...clearly states a starting point of creation..."

[Note: "... According to the master Kabbalist, Rabbi Isaac of Acco (Acre), when counting the years of these cycles, one must not use an ordinary physical year, but rather, a divine year (Otzar Chaim 86b). The Midrash says that each divine day is a thousand years, basing this on the verse, "A thousand years in Your sight are as but yesterday" (Psalm 90:4; see Bereishit Rabba 8:2, Zohar 2: 145b, Sanhedrin 97a). Since each year contains 365.25 days, a divine year would be 365,250 years long. According to this, each cycle of seven thousand divine years would consist of 2,556,750,000 earthly years. This figure of 2.5 billion years is very close to the scientific estimate as to the length of time that life has existed on earth. If we assume that the seventh cycle began with the Biblical account of creation, then this would have occurred when the universe was 15,340,500,000 years old. This is very close to the scientific estimate that the expansion of the universe began some 15 billion years ago." - Taken from Sefer Yetzira, commentary by Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, published by Weiser- 1997, page 186.]

Seemingly paradoxical Biblical and scientific positions like these are not contradictions, but rather, on the contrary, are reconcilable through modern science.

From a philosophical standpoint one might have considered the creation of the universe as having taken neither 15 billion years, nor six 24-hour time periods. An all-powerful and all omniscient creator should not have to be locked into any frame of period of time at all. G-d spoke it, and the universe came into being, instantaneously, without any elapse of time intervention involved. This cannot be, for Chazal makes mention many times in the Gemara, that "The Torah speaks in the language of man". And the universe is described in the Torah explicitly as having taken place in the time span of six creation-days.(Nachmanides, known as the Ramban, in his commentary on Gen. 1:3, quotes the verse "To you G-d is the Greatness and the Might... etc." See commentaries on the verse: I Chronicles 29:11.) Alternatively, the notion of the "Eternity of the universe", mentioned many times in Moreh Nevuchim [work of Maimonides, the Rambam, known in English as "Guide to the Perplexed"] and known as the primary opinion of most early Greek philosophers, states that the universe always has been in existence without any point of creation. This again is as easily rejected when we consider the first word of the Torah which is written "In the beginning", which clearly states a starting point of creation.

Before answering this question concerning the age of the universe, let us first examine a related aspect of this topic. We will then begin to see the importance of correlating two or more reference frames that seem to oppose one another completely, but are actually all equally true, only viewed from different standpoints. Which of the following two opinions is truer to say? According to a perspective based on modern observable astronomy, is the earth revolving around the sun, with the sun having a fixed, unmoving position in relation to the earth, or according to the Rambam who discusses at length in the Mishna Torah (Cf Hilchot Yesodei Hatorah, chapter 3, Halacha 4) a more Aristotelian approach to the makeup of the universe, that the earth is in a fixed unmoving position at the center of the universe, with the sun and other celestial bodies circling in orbit around us?
" Everything in the universe is in motion, including the fabric of space/time itself..."

The answer is not surprising, in fact it will be perfectly understood, when we recognize the proven aspects of the General and Special theories of relativity that concern us with the notion that there is no such thing as absolute rest in the universe. Everything in the universe is in motion, including the fabric of space/ time itself. Science proves this. How? Almost all of what we see in the sky, including the galaxies, and even the quasi- stellar light formations at the most distant reaches of our observable universe, display a red or Doppler shift that suggests that they are in motion away from us, or we from them, or both. [A red/Doppler shift occurs when a light frequency is stretched from one point in the electromagnetic spectrum to another, because of its motion away from the observer.] The Lubavitcher Rebbe, in one of his letters*, explains clearly that the answer to this question, concerning the sun and the earth, is that they are both equally true statements one with the other. Indeed, the Lubavitcher Rebbe gives a third equally true opinion, that they are both circling each other. With no stationary reference point for observation, it is impossible for an observer in a third inertial reference frame to make any absolute conclusion based solely on his own observation point. The Rambam was not in error when he explains the geo-centricity of the universe with the earth at its very center. We will explain shortly another way to harmonize two seemingly contradictory viewpoints. (*Reference is to Emuna U'mada; Iyar 25, 5719 (1959); page 103; chapter 40 "The certainty movement of the sun." See also Igrot Kodesh, volume 18, page 393.)

Let us now return to our first question concerning the age of the universe. However, it is imperative to understand first a few basic foundation points that will be the basis for our answer. Rabbi Yitzchak Ginsburgh writes in a letter of his, "One must understand the generalization of the sages that there is true science from the viewpoint of "gavra", which is how the issue appears to man on earth, as well as true science from the viewpoint of "cheftza", which is how the issue appears from without." In other words, there is subjective science (as seen from the observer standing within a reference frame looking out), and objective science (as seen from the observer standing outside of a reference frame looking in).
" The Bible describes the processes and phenomena of nature in terms of the impression they make on the human senses..."

[In the publication B'or Hatorah, #11 - 1999, page 174] Professor Cyril Domb of Bar Ilan University quotes Rabbi Shimshon Raphael Hirsch, of blessed memory, as saying: "The Bible does not describe things in terms of objective truths known only to G-d, but in terms of human understanding... The Bible uses human language when it speaks of the 'rising and setting of the sun' and not of the rotation of the earth, just as Copernicus, Kepler, and other such scientists, in their words and writings, spoke of the rising and setting of the sun without thereby contradicting truths they had derived from there own scientific conclusions. "Human language", which is also the language of the Bible, describes the processes and phenomena of nature in terms of the impression they make on the human senses, without thereby meaning to prejudice, in any manner, the findings of scientific research." (S.R. Hirsch. Collected Writing, volume 7 (New York: Feldheim, 1992), page 57.)

Professor Gerald Schroeder illustrates in his book "Genesis and the Big Bang" a model of the creation of the universe to describe how the two positions, of six 24- hours and 15 billion years, are unified. (Cf. Schroeder, chapter 2, "Stretching Time". See also "Time Dilation" there.)
" The age of the universe...depends on where you stand..."

Let us imagine ourselves standing outside the four-dimensional universe at the point of creation. We speak of a four-dimensional universe, three being of space and one being of time, because they are an integral and interwoven continuum one with the other, as much as transparency is to silicon. No one would consider taking a glass and separating the clearness to one side and the silicon to the other. Silicon in its natural state is clear; that is its molecular and physical make up and structure. So too, time cannot be excluded or discussed separately when dealing with the integral interwoven fabric of space/time, as mentioned before. According to the Midrash and the Rambam, time was a separately created entity on the first day, along with the space of the physical universe encompassing it. Even though one could distinguish between time and space, science considers them as a unified entity. [Cf. Midrash Bereishit Rabba 3:7. Rambam: Moreh Nevuchim, section 2, chapter 13. Gemara Chagiga 12a - and commentary of Maharsha there. Also see commentary of Rav Ovadia Sforno, on Bereishit 1:1. Likutei Moharan, of Rabbi Nachman of Breslov, section 2: 61. The Ramban 1:5.]

So if indeed, we were outside of the universe during the moment of creation, where again time is not in existence and not a relevant concept, from our "objective" frame of reference, the development of the creation of the universe would have appeared to us as having taken six 24-hour time periods, in literal accordance with the text of our Torah. And if you prefer, a "subjective" observational reference frame, as viewed from man from within, where time is a relevant factor and now an influence on our perception, then the universe may have appeared to develop over a period of time consistent with the estimations of modern observable sciences. There is no differentiating between two or more space/ time reference frames. Time dilation, which is the refraction or bending of time, is a scientifically accepted part of the physics that govern our observable universe. Thus, it is equally true to say that the universe is 6 days or 15 billion years. What is the age of the universe? It depends on where you stand and is all relative. [Note: There are many examples of instances, especially in the times of the Gemara and antiquity, where individuals had the ability to transpose the boundaries of time. - See Midrash Rabba; parasha 3, section 9.]

Many contradictions in Torah, like the variance between the House of Study of Shammai and House of Study of Hillel on the "heavens and the earth", are unified when we discover the words of the sages when they state "These and these are the words of the living G-d". It is the emphasis and main objective, in reconciling the two ages of the universe, to recognize a principle in Torah, that whenever we have two or more seemingly contradictory matters opposing one another, in many cases, they may be brought together using the means and technique stated above.

Simcha Tzvi Koretz is an American oleh, now a resident of Safed, learning in the koll
Back to top

Lechatchila Ariber




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, Jul 26 2007, 5:42 pm
Motek wrote:
Have you personally looked up his sources to verify that he quoting and understanding accurately, or are you relying on his expertise?


Please answer the question hinda rochel
Back to top

HindaRochel




 
 
    
 

Post Fri, Jul 27 2007, 2:27 am
That is really a nonsense question.

I haven't gone back to verify all but some yes.... Do you always look up every resource listed in every book you read? I have read support for his views, in particular, and support for his views, though not as stated by him, in various other texts. I have also learned some of this stuff previously. There were a few things that were new to me, most of the stuff I had read before in other places, or had learned before in other settings, but he tells it in a way that is exciting and, at least as far as I'm concerned, not apologetic...(which really means a defense. Apologia science usually referring to Xtians who promote creationism, or intelligent design.)

I have to rely on the wisdom of others, as does everyone else. We aren't allowed to simply "think" our own way (about the Torah) and compose our own theories, willy nilly, without having the education and knowledge required. Slikin, for the most part, did not impart anything new, or revoulitionalry, he imparted wisdom found in other texts, from Rabbi's of the past. I read his book, and the other one, The Hidden Face of G-d" which hasn't had the same negative reaction.

I have discussed it with others, and I have read verification of many of his resources from other resources.
There are links on his site as well.

This is really a fight about Rabbi's...who do you trust? I could tell you the Rabbi's I wouldn't trust, but that to me is a disgusting type of habit. I won't. Why denigrate someone else? Why pull down someone else's Rov?
Why denigrate another community? Until the Rabbi's that I trust make a declaration about a subset of the population, I wouldn't condemn.
Back to top

Motek




 
 
    
 

Post Fri, Aug 03 2007, 5:46 pm
HindaRochel wrote:
That is really a nonsense question.


Apparently you see it that way because to you, it's a matter of who do you trust.

Quote:
This is really a fight about Rabbi's...who do you trust?


Maybe for you. I don't see it as a trust issue, and I explained why in numerous previous posts which did not say, "Because my rabbi said so."
Back to top

gryp




 
 
    
 

Post Fri, Jan 23 2009, 10:07 am
Bumpety-bump-bump
Back to top

amother


 

Post Thu, Dec 03 2009, 9:06 am
http://www.rationalistjudaism.com
Back to top

amother


 

Post Mon, Dec 21 2009, 12:29 pm
Quote:
In 2004, Tropper was a main force behind the ban of Rabbi Natan Slifkin's books which explore the relationship between traditional Judaism and modern science



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leib_Tropper

All this for that...
Back to top

DrMom




 
 
    
 

Post Mon, Jan 04 2010, 2:04 am
I just wanted to add that I have had the privilege of hearding Rabbi Slifkin speak at our shul several years ago. He was a brilliant and captivating speaker. I enjoyed his shiur very much and would buy his book.
Back to top
Page 22 of 22   Previous  1  2  3  20  21  22 Recent Topics




Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum -> Interesting Discussions

Related Topics Replies Last Post
Well paying jobs that don't require math, compute or science 13 Tue, Mar 26 2024, 5:58 am View last post
Kosher food near liberty science center with sukka
by amother
6 Mon, Oct 02 2023, 10:15 pm View last post
Good science books or other resources for sheltered boy?
by amother
6 Mon, Jun 12 2023, 10:05 pm View last post
Woodmont college degree in computer science
by amother
2 Tue, May 30 2023, 3:01 pm View last post
I wish Chazal weren’t gozer
by amother
29 Wed, Mar 08 2023, 12:41 am View last post