Chabad’s approach to science – your opinion
I would be happy to hear the Rabbi’s opinion on this article – http://www.yeshiva.org.il/midrash/17447 Have a good week!
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
- What he learns from the various fields can be learned even without it. The lessons seem quite simple to me.
- The claim that science describes what and faith answers the why is a common claim (although I think the Rebbe is actually one of the earliest sources for it) and is also quite correct (although one must be careful about the difference between what and why, because there is a “why” that science does deal with). But as long as this is not demonstrated, it remains a slogan. In my book, I have shown this in detail on several topics.
- Popper is too minimalist an approach to science, no one today takes him seriously (meaning that refutation is the only thing possible in science). Thomas Kuhn usually talks nonsense, and is not a philosopher but a sociologist.
- The truths of faith do not derive from the soul any more than scientific generalizations do. Some of them derive from a tradition we received from Sinai (without the human interpretations added to it), and the other part is all the later additions (and this is almost all we have) that are subject to errors just like all human thinking, and certainly more so than science. Science at least tests itself empirically, while axioms of faith do not subject themselves to empirical testing. That is, they do not even satisfy Popper’s minimal condition. Therefore, when there is a contradiction between a scientific finding and a fact we received in tradition, my personal inclination is in favor of science.
- A lice on Shabbat is an excellent example of what I wrote in the previous section. The Sages decided this on their own accord (probably in light of the scientific knowledge of their time), and therefore there is no reason in the world to assume that they were right and to look for excuses as to why the touch did not show otherwise. If this were a tradition from Sinai, I would consider thinking that science does not know the whole truth on this subject (which of course could be true). But why assume that the Sages knew more? From their own souls? I have no faith in it as a tool for knowing scientific reality.
- His words about animals from the grove don’t really stand up to the test of facts. You need some pretty elaborate excuses to explain the Torah’s words on this matter (and here it’s actually the Torah and not an interpretation by later people, so here I would consider such elaborate interpretations).
- I will not elaborate here on my relationship with Hasidism.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Thank you very much!
How can one even read with deep seriousness a reply that includes the sentence "Thomas Kuhn usually talks nonsense"? How can one respect a writer who does not respect another writer?
Who said you have to be respectful? You have to examine the things themselves (and not the speaker), and even if you think I'm talking nonsense - be respectful and write it down. You are most welcome.
I must add a reservation/correction. Thomas Kuhn also speaks of reason, I did not mean to say that he usually speaks nonsense, but that his main doctrine is nonsense. His words of reason are also spoken within a framework of thought according to which intuition is a sociological matter and has no substantive justification. In his view, as in the view of positivists and empiricists, anything that cannot be positively empirically established is a sociological convention. Therefore, in his view, changing a scientific paradigm is a matter that is essentially sociological (and not just one that involves sociological dimensions, which is certainly true).
Indeed, the wording was not precise. But this is not a question of manners and etiquette, but of truth and falsehood.
Can you elaborate on "His words about animals on grass don't really stand up to the test of fact." Please?
nb
If you come back after a few years and ask something, it is appropriate to quote the relevant passage and my words and only then ask. It makes no sense to send me to reread the entire thread and the article it revolves around in order to answer you on a specific point.
I assume you mean this passage:
A good example of this, in addition to what was cited above, is the passage in the Torah that states that there is only one species of animal that has cloven hooves but does not chew the cud, while there are only three species of animals that have one or the other of these traits, and all other animals – either have both traits or have neither. Even though this statement in the Torah was made about three thousand five hundred years ago, and even though many new continents with all kinds of animals have been discovered since that time, no other species of animal has ever been discovered that would refute this statement of the Torah. A similar situation exists with regard to the mishnah in Tractate Nida, Chapter 6, Mishnah 9. Similar is the rule regarding fish in the sea, and many other rulings of Chazal regarding nature.
It is not true that species that exceed this have not been discovered. There are quite a few claims that they have been discovered, and various excuses have been given for this. See a collection here for example:
https://www.hidabroot.org/question/157485
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
