פרסומים אחרונים במדור "פילוסופיה ומוסר"

www.LEIBOWITZ.co.il

You really should read articles before responding to them.

I, as an atheist, find this whole idea of connecting reality and dogma very tedious and dull. Some people watch football, some people go clubbing, and some people try to fit science to their dogma.

Weird people.

i can understand people who watch football , well more or less ,,

the Weirdest people are those who collect stamps ,i mean dirty used pieces of paper with a stamp on them !?

yes but i see what you mean

I am not sure you understood what I wrote

Somehow, the survival of one's world-view does not seem to me that much of a high goal. If you're going to uphold your world-view in spite of repeated evidence to the contrary, then go on to a mental institution - that's where people with delusions are normally sent.

It wasn't your world-view I was referring to either. I was using the word "you" in its allegorical meaning, something that I would have thought obvious from context.

Dear Lior Golgher,
I have read your letter (below) and your extended discussion at
Haayal Hakore on the Internet. I am not an internet person, and so I
will
suffice with writing to you personally. Moreover, although you comment
on
the writings of all of us (Schroeder, et etc.), I will limit my
response
to my own book and let the others answer for themselves, if they so
desire.
Now, on to business.
1. I nowhere claimed that I have "proved" anything about the
divinity of the Torah or the existence of G-d. Such claims are absurd!
2. You write that my book is "unnecessary" and "endangers the
future of Judaism." I don't know what Judaism you are talking about.
If you would read the many letters I have received about my book, you
would learn that the writers of these letters most certainly do not
think
that my book is "unnecessary," and they often emphasize how my book has
served to enhance their religious Jewish life.
3. The fact that my book has been translated into nine
languages
(so far) demonstrates that very many people do not share your view that
my
book is "unnecessary."
4. You write that my book is "refutable." Your internet
article
does not present any such "refutation." I await an example.
5. Your interpretation of the verses you quote from
Deuteronomy
(30:11-14) is, to put it mildly, bizarre. These verses simply state
that
it is not difficult, or beyond human capability, to be a morally
upright
person who keeps G-d's commandments. These verses have nothing at all
to
do with the subject of Torah and science, or how to understand the
Torah.
Having said that, I completely agree with your position that it
is unreasonable to claim that to understand the Torah, one requires
knowledge
of Einstein's theories of relativity or of quantum mechanics. You will
note that these two topics are nowhere discussed or explained in my
book.
6. Your article contains a number of scientific errors. I
will
mention only one here. You claim that methods now exist for detecting
earth-sized extra-solar planets, and that "half the nearby stars have
such
small planets." The only extra-solar planets that have been detected
so
far are large Jupiter-sized planets. The detection methods that are
operational to date are not sensitive enough to permit the detection of
small earth-sized planets. Moreover, the large planets that were
detected
have orbit parameters that are in complete contradiction to the
standard
theory of planetary formation. Therefore, these planets are not
understood,
although speculations abound.
7. I would also like to comment on the scientific level of the
discussion of your article on the Internet. The very first response is
by
Ron Ben-Yakov, who claims that "Today, astronomers speak of the
universe
being 50 billion years old, rather than 15 billion years old." On the
basis of that completely incorrect statement, Ben-Yakov makes a
derogatory
comment about Schroeder's books. The correct statement is that recent
measurements have shown that the age of the universe is somewhat
smaller
(closer to 13 billion years old), and not much larger than previously
thought.
I mention this example only to call attention to the level of
the
discussion that one often finds on the Internet.
Cordially, Nathan Aviezer
P.S. If anyone wishes to put my response to Lior Golgher on the
Internet,
they are welcome to do so.

On Fri, 6 Apr 2001, Lior Golgher wrote:

> Greetings,
>
> In an article recently published at Haayal Hakore (haayal.co.il),
> publications of yours and some of your colleagues are discussed.
> I argue that your attempt to settle the alleged conflict between
> science and Judaism is both unnecessary and refutable, consequently
> endangering the future of Judaism.
>
> You are thus invited to post your own arguments at Haayal, explaining
> where am I wrong, and specifically why are your publications
necessary
> and unharmful.
>
> You might wish to lay your view as a full counter article, rather
> than a local reply. In this case I believe your work will be
willingly
> posted by the editor of the site, and I personally would certainly
> be eager to read it.
>
>
>
> Shabbat Shalom & Hag Sameah
>
> Lior Golgher

I agree totally with the reply that Prof. Natan Aviezer sent to you. I
can add very little to what he said.
Recently, I had the good fortune of sharing several meals with
Prof Goldhaber of UC Berkeley, one of the scientists most active in revealing the
amazing force that somehow seems to be causing an increase in the rate
of expansion of the universe. The net result of this effect is to indicate
that the age of the universe is somewhere between 13 and 17 billion years.
Most important of all is the discovery that our grand universe had a
creation, one that appears to have marked the beginning of time space and matter. Before that there was only the metaphysical. The question that remains
is whether or not this metaphysical whatever is or is not active in the
creation it brought into existence.
As to whether or not there is need for these types of works, about
once a month, thank G-d, I get a hug from a person thanking me for solving
the questions with which he or she had struggled. Plus a flow of letters.
My books are now in six languages. And the sales in six figures.
All the best,
Gerald Schroeder

Idiot savant as I am, I must have confused the time remaining before the universe will start collapsing, in 50 billion years.

Nevertheless, If current estimates put the age of the universe at up to 17 billion years, how do we do the 6 days math?

In addition, these estimates are based on The Hubble Constant, and its current value is under debate. Every change in the constant will change the calculated age of the universe anywhere between 9 to 17 billion years.

However, I am not a scientist and have neither intention nor enough knowledge to refute the beautiful works demonstrated by the authors.

One shortcoming of those who produce plausible scientific interpretation to events described in the Bible is that they will not re-evaluate their premises should their theories be proven wrong. According to Popper, a theory can be labelled scientific if it is refutable. Mainstream science holds every theory as reputable in principle and does not shy away from discarding failed theories and adopting new, more successful ones. One must ask what will Prof. Aviezer’s and Dr. Schroeder’s attitude be should new scientific research prove their premises wrong? What if new research shows that the universe is 40 billion years old or perhaps only 10 billion years old? Will they say, oh well… in that case the Torah must be wrong? (after all, they have shown how nicely it correlates with the Big Bang taking place 15 billon years ago). I suspect not. To a religious person, religion is not refutable. A religious person’s attitude is that when science appears to confirm certain religious beliefs, then well and good. But, when science appears to contradict religious beliefs then their answer would be that we don’t ‘understand’ it all.
The fundamental question is: Is there any conceivable scientific discovery that will convince a religious person to abandon his/her religious beliefs? If the answer is none, then one is not justified in using science to corroborate religious beliefs.

Nathan Aviezer replying to Shlomo. As will become clear,
Shlomo has not the slightest idea of what I wrote in my book, but
this does not prevent him from making fun of me by asking as follows:
"One must ask what will be the attitude of Professor Aviezer ...
should new research prove ... that the universe is 40 billion years old
or perhaps only 10 billion years old? After all, [he] has shown
how nicely it [Genesis] correlates with the Big Bang taking place
15 billion years ago."
From these words of Shlomo, the reader would never imagine that
in my book, I never - repeat, NEVER - claimed that the text of Genesis
supports or requires a 15-billion-year-old universe. In fact, I wrote
precisely the opposite. See pages 1 and 2 of my book (English version,
"In the Beginning").
Shlomo also asks - and answers for me (Shlomo loves to give my
answers for me!): "When science appears to contradict religious belief,
what then? Their [Aviezer's] answer would be that we don't 'understand'
it all." The truth is that my answer is very different. My answer
is to adopt the position of Maimonides, who dealt with precisely this
question, back in the 12th century, in his "Guide for the Perplexed"
(Part II, Chapter 25). I leave it to Shlomo - and other interested
readers - as a homework problem (we professors love to give homework
problems!) to read Maimonides' answer and thereby learn something about
the true Jewish approach to Torah-and-science.

At first let me apologise to Prof. Aviezer for attributing to his book comments that are relevant only to Dr. Schroeder’s book. I’m sorry. I did actually read Prof. Aviezer’s book, but that was way back in 1995. At no stage did I intend to “make fun” of anyone. I asked what I deemed to be a legitimate question. All I wanted was friendly discussion but that’s not to be.

‏¹ http://haayal.co.il/reply.php3?id=425&rep=16843

The biblical account of animal life's development, which amounts to a mere eight verses(!), will have no problem with the final understanding of how animal life evolved.