Physics and Philosophy
What does the Rabbi say about philosophical claims that are based on *complex* physical claims? (Complexity = claims that are more complex than a simple observation and understanding of reality)
In my opinion, physics and philosophy should not be mixed, especially astrophysics, where every few years some genius can come along and turn our entire understanding upside down, and real excuses and refutations cannot be based on something like that. I don’t understand astrophysics either, so it’s almost like an excuse in Chinese for me, I don’t understand Chinese. In addition, physics at this level includes a lot of unknown and unclear things, and how can theoretical claims about reality be made with such a fluid thing? It’s better to have an excuse that is as theoretical as possible that we can define and diagnose from every direction.
And what’s more – so what, the Rambam who didn’t know about the Big Bang was a ‘fool’ (Ha”v) for believing that the Creator exists while we are so smart that we have telescopes and we know about the Big Bang? And what will they say about us in 500 years? If this excuse is not good for the Rambam, it is also
Apparently not good and true enough for me.
On the other hand – it is impossible to ignore what we think, and completely shelve physics – but it is dangerous to use it
Therefore, in my opinion, all that physics can do is add complexity to our philosophical arguments, which will now also have to solve the physical questions.
But we cannot make philosophical claims using physics (like about creation using the big bang).
What is the Rabbi’s opinion on the matter?
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The question specifically refers to the Big Bang as proof of the first cause of the universe.
I want to say that such an excuse is not ‘interesting’
First, the big bang is not an excuse, nor a reason, nor a proof. It is a physical fact (at least in accepted theories).
As for interests, to each his own.
But how can we give a platform to a physical fact in a completely theoretical world, when we have already seen in the past that physical theories change and change from end to end every hundred years?
I am not saying that it is forbidden, but that it is dangerous. It is better to work with a fully understood explanation, which I can analyze from every direction, than to work with an explanation that has many missing or incomprehensible details
What is more, such an excuse is problematic (from a side perspective) – because you are essentially saying that only those who have this physical knowledge that was only possible in your time can accept this excuse. What would the wise men of previous generations do? Were they just fools who believed without reason?
Excuse me, but this discussion seems crazy to me. We have scientific knowledge, and it's the best we have today. It may turn out to be wrong. Right. So we won't get on a plane? Or will we build planes for philosophical rather than scientific reasons? And is philosophy more solid than science? Previous generations worked with their tools and we work with ours.
As far as I'm concerned, this discussion is exhausted.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer