tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999467500145167346.post7451631115210588736..comments2023-05-11T04:38:06.086-04:00Comments on Analysis of the Post-chareidi Phenomenon : What's Wrong With Rabbi Slifkin's Theology?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger66125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999467500145167346.post-49360743266936206672010-10-31T12:19:47.595-04:002010-10-31T12:19:47.595-04:00Yitz: For instance, I read this paper that Rabbi C...<i>Yitz: For instance, I read this paper that Rabbi Coffer referenced on toriah.com. Does this paper get any feedback from any credible source that holds by Premise A?<br /><br />RSC: Who cares? Are we talking substance or are we talking banalities?</i><br /><br />If the paper is credible, then it should withstand critical review even by antagonists. Has it?Yitz Waxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09626409388081098891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999467500145167346.post-44995777340836992102010-10-27T21:42:34.778-04:002010-10-27T21:42:34.778-04:00Yissacher -
I posted a new Blog Entry as a respo...Yissacher - <br /><br />I posted a new Blog Entry as a response to your question.<br /><br />SimchaSimcha Cofferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01243327012385531727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999467500145167346.post-17511481541616668452010-10-27T10:07:00.357-04:002010-10-27T10:07:00.357-04:00at least for now. I'm working on convincing yo...<i> at least for now. I'm working on convincing you.</i><br /><br />I was working on convincing you to stop trying to convince me, but I hereby give up.Yitz Waxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09626409388081098891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999467500145167346.post-73490260759017254452010-10-27T08:20:34.212-04:002010-10-27T08:20:34.212-04:00Yitz -
Thanks. I don't suppose that I can re...Yitz - <br /><br /><i>Thanks. I don't suppose that I can reasonably expect you to agree with me on anything else.</i><br /><br />I expect that we agree on 99% of the Torah. This website targets a very narrow, albeit important, element of Jewish theology. As it happens, we happen to be on oppostie sides of the fence on this issue, at least for now. I'm working on convincing you. As soon as I do, we can reach the 100% mark! :-)<br /><br /><i>Anyway, I can say without further contemplation that what Rabbi Coffer wrote about nature is indeed beautiful. Yet I fear that perhaps he disregarded my main point. I asked why engage in פוק וחזי to determine the age of the universe?</i><br /><br />I responded to this Yitz. Here's a Rambam in the Moreh - cut and pasted from my Maaseh Beresihis article - which will put things in clearer perspective.<br /><br />"3. The Rambam states in Moreh Nevuchim that every episode related in the Torah is<br />there for one of two purposes. Either it is there to reinforce a hashkafa which relates<br />to one of the fundamentals of the Torah, or it appears in the Torah as a form of tikun<br />olam, a societal infrastructure which facilitates harmony amongst mankind. If so,<br />asks the Rambam, what is the purpose of all the generations listed between Adam<br />haRishon and Avraham Avinu? Here’s the Rambam’s response:<br /><br />“Since it is a fundamental doctrine of the Torah that the world is newly created and<br />that the first [human] creation was Adam and that the time which elapsed from<br />Adam to Moshe is approximately 2,500 years…etc.” <br /><br />and the Rambam goes on to explain that anyone viewing such a diversified world<br />with so many inhabitants belonging to so many different cultures speaking so many<br />different languages spread out over such large geographical locations, might doubt<br />the recentness of creation and the fact that initially, only one man was created.<br />Therefore, the Torah goes out of its way to list the specific generations which<br />unfolded from Adam to Moshe, who their leaders were, what occurred to them, and<br />that they originally all spoke one language as one would expect from a society which<br />descended from one lone man (Moreh 3:50 - Kapach ed. pg 400)<br /><br />So, as you can see from the Rambam, there is a big <i>makom lit'os</i> and imagine - as opposed to what the Torah openly informs us - that the universe is ancient.<br /><br />One of the reasons for a focused study of nature that I supplied in my original post was:<br /><br />"Furthermore, and most importantly, when one studies nature with the right kavanos, he is able to take the abstract knowledge he has learned about Hahsem and internalize it."<br /><br />The study of nature helps us to reinforce in our minds the teachings of the Torah.<br /><br />I hope this clears up my meaning.Simcha Cofferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01243327012385531727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999467500145167346.post-73368367661511414502010-10-27T07:55:08.566-04:002010-10-27T07:55:08.566-04:00Yissacher -
Rabbi Coffer - do you only see the Ha...Yissacher -<br /><br /><i>Rabbi Coffer - do you only see the Hand of Hashem in the creation of nature? You don't see it in our lives today - in historical events, in how nature operates, in your personal life? Surely you must be aware that science explains all these things without recourse to a Creator; just in terms of random, blind processes. And I'm sure that you don't deny these scientific explanations. So if you believe that such scientific explanations deny seeing the hand of Hashem, aren't you ruling God out of the picture?</i><br /><br />This question has been answered many times already. The fact that you choose to ignore the responses doesn't make your repeated question any more valid. But instead of answering your question here, I will bl'n make a Blog entry later today. This way, whenever this question comes up again, I can simply refer people to the entry.<br /><br /><i>Sounds like you are doing a tremendous disservice to our nation. We don't need websites like yours.</i><br /><br />No one is forcing you to visit our humble venue. If you think it constitutes a diservice to klal yisrael, you always have the option of leaving(not that I am suggesting this...)Simcha Cofferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01243327012385531727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999467500145167346.post-32485232426943670642010-10-27T06:11:15.429-04:002010-10-27T06:11:15.429-04:00emphasis above on age of the universeemphasis above on <b>age of the universe</b>Yitz Waxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09626409388081098891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999467500145167346.post-2561986211685641602010-10-27T05:48:28.155-04:002010-10-27T05:48:28.155-04:00And you’re right. I don’t agree with you.
Thanks....<i>And you’re right. I don’t agree with you.</i><br /><br />Thanks. I don't suppose that I can reasonably expect you to agree with me on anything else. אל תסמוך על הנס. <br /><br />On a personal note, I would like to share here that I found that I can write (relatively) more coherently at night when I am off-line. We keep kosher at home - no internet. So I will try to digest Rabbi Coffer's response later and respond if need be. I don't regard this as a debate but rather as an opportunity to try to understand a paradigm that is otherwise gibberish to me. If we expect to prove anything to one another here, then again refer to my comment above. <br /><br />Anyway, I can say without further contemplation that what Rabbi Coffer wrote about nature is indeed beautiful. Yet I fear that perhaps he disregarded my main point. I asked why engage in פוק וחזי to determine the age of the universe? <br /><br />Again, I hope to expand on this later...Yitz Waxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09626409388081098891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999467500145167346.post-53343041782069142532010-10-27T05:47:26.602-04:002010-10-27T05:47:26.602-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Yitz Waxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09626409388081098891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999467500145167346.post-49186399261483465472010-10-27T05:44:47.564-04:002010-10-27T05:44:47.564-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Yitz Waxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09626409388081098891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999467500145167346.post-50022931965066725712010-10-27T00:19:24.512-04:002010-10-27T00:19:24.512-04:00Rabbi Coffer - do you only see the Hand of Hashem ...Rabbi Coffer - do you only see the Hand of Hashem in the creation of nature? You don't see it in our lives today - in historical events, in how nature operates, in your personal life? Surely you must be aware that science explains all these things without recourse to a Creator; just in terms of random, blind processes. And I'm sure that you don't deny these scientific explanations. So if you believe that such scientific explanations deny seeing the hand of Hashem, aren't you ruling God out of the picture? Sounds like you are doing a tremendous disservice to our nation. We don't need websites like yours.Yissacherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00731635780596345530noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999467500145167346.post-71740739091805408462010-10-26T23:02:56.018-04:002010-10-26T23:02:56.018-04:00Yitz -
I wrote: You, Yissacher...
I meant to wr...Yitz - <br /><br />I wrote: You, Yissacher...<br /><br />I meant to write: You, Yitz...Simcha Cofferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01243327012385531727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999467500145167346.post-71948962111092221342010-10-26T22:54:03.767-04:002010-10-26T22:54:03.767-04:00Yitz -
You wrote: With this Truth in mind, why w...Yitz - <br /><br />You wrote: <i>With this Truth in mind, why would one engage in פוק וחזי in the physical world to determine its age? We are starting with the incontrovertible Truth! Any observations must perforce fit into this reality. Indeed, I deem scientific investigation under this constriction to be without value if not a complete farce.</i><br /><br />Nothing could be further from the truth. First of all, Chazal themselves many times indulge in פוק וחזי in order to demonstrate the truths of our traditions. I recently was learning the beginning of perek chelek and the gemara there demonstrates <i>tichiyas hameisim</i> with <b>two</b> <i>puk chazi's</i>, not just one.<br /><br />R' Saadya Gaon. Rabbeinu Bachya ibn Pakuda, The Rambam, The Ramban, Rabbi Yehuda haLevi; all of them wrote seforim supporting our Torah from empirical evidence. This was Avraham Avinu's way, this was Dovid haMelech's way, and in fact, Rabbeinu Bachya considers it superior to the Torah way (at least in one respect).<br /><br />The reason you have this attitude is because you have not been properly trained to understand the significance of the study of nature. Perhaps the following statement will put the study of nature in proper perspective for you.<br /><br />Nature is the Will of Hashem as expressed in the <i>asarah ma'amaros</i> whereas the Torah is the Will of Hashem as expressed in the <i>asseres haDibros</i>.<br /><br />When you study nature, you are studying the Will of Hashem. You are studying His Wisdom. You are studying His Might. And you are studying His Kindliness. This is the constant theme of Sefer Tehilim and is reiterated in Tanach countless times. If one does not understand this, <i>pesukey d'zimra</i> is a meaningless exercise every morning. He may as well just sit and learn.<br /><br />Furthermore, and most importantly, when one studies nature with the right kavanos, he is able to take the abstract knowledge he has learned about Hahsem and internalize it. He can <b>see</b> Hashem. He can <b>feel</b> his presence. It is palpable. It is real to him. This is what is referred to as <i>emunah chushis</i>. There is no <i>emunah</i> more powerful than that because the reality of Hashem registers in the same part of his mind that all other empirical realities do. <br /><br />At this time I would like to take the opportunity to make an official declaration regarding my issue with Rabbi Slifkin's approaches. You, Yissacher, as most people, assume that my oppostion ot Rabbi Slifkin's views arises chiefly from my estimation of their heretical nature. And although I do not necessarily deny this, it is by far not a chief consideration of mine. My primary irritation with his <i>shittos</i> regarding <i>maaseh beresihis</i> is that they are anti-Jewish. They undermine Avraham Avinu's way of studying nature and seeing the hand of Hashem. They eliminate this great facility of emunah and render the hundreds of pesukim in Tanach which discuss the wisdom, might, glory and kindliness of Hashem apparent in nature, entirely meaningless. Rabbi Slifkin – and anyone who preceded or follows him and who promotes such a doctrine, i.e. The Blind Watchmaker Thesis – is doing a tremendous disservice to our nation. We don't need books like that.Simcha Cofferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01243327012385531727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999467500145167346.post-79557316765999854882010-10-26T20:55:49.947-04:002010-10-26T20:55:49.947-04:00Yitz - October 26, 2010 4:43 AM
Dear Yitz,
Nicel...Yitz - October 26, 2010 4:43 AM<br /><br />Dear Yitz,<br /><br />Nicely written post. And you’re right. I <i>don’t</i> agree with you. But it’s not as simple as that. Unfortunately, this website is not the proper venue for an exhaustive discussion of my views on the issues you broach. However, I have chosen certain statements you made which I feel are pertinent to the mandate of this Blog and have responded accordingly.<br /><br />You wrote: <i>Rabbi Coffer has a different agenda that is indeed simpler and clearer. He subscribes to the clear massoretic Truth about ex-nihilo creation of the universe that occurred about 6000 years ago and this included ex-nihilo creation of all life forms. To deny this is to deny the existence of the Creator and his Torah.</i><br /><br />Wow! I sound like a red-faced, vein-popping, bible-thumping, lectern-pounding evangelist. I love it! :-)<br /><br />In all seriousness, although the thrust of your description is generally accurate, you got several facts wrong.<br /><br />First of all, you wrote “creation ex-nihilo”. Personally I can’t recall very many places in Chazal where this topic is discussed openly (Bereishis Rabbah 1:9 is the only place that comes to mind now) although I do agree that it is an indispensible part of our general tradition as revealed openly many times in the various works of the Rishonim. However, I never <i>stated</i> that its denial is tantamount to the denial of the Creator and His Torah, although I personally think it is. The reason I don’t go on record with this personal view though is because, as it happens, the Rambam’s shita (Moreh 2:25) is that it is not. I personally do not go with the Rambam’s shita in this regard but in deference to him, I never state openly that a denial of creation ex-nihilo is in open contradiction to the Torah. <br /><br />Second, you wrote “creation ex-nihilo of all life forms”. This for sure I never said. In fact, Chazal say just the opposite. Everything was created on the first day and was established in its proper place during the five subsequent days of Creation (see MR 12:8). There <i>is</i> a <i>shita</i> in the medrash that CEN actually occurred every day of <i>maaseh bereishis</i> but the Rishonim don’t go with that <i>shita</i> when explaining <i>maaseh bereishis</i> and I was <i>mikabel</i> from my Rabbaim that CEN was a one-time event as the <i>medrash</i> is <i>mashma</i>.<br /><br />Third of all, I’m generally uncomfortable with your depiction of my beliefs. Here’s the way I would have depicted them. (I copied and pasted your formula and left the parts I would have deleted in parentheses so you can clearly see what it is I am deleting and italicized what I am adding) <br /><br />“Rabbi Coffer (has a different agenda that is indeed simpler and clearer. He) subscribes to the clear massoretic (Truth) <i>description regarding the</i> (about) ex-nihilo creation of the universe that occurred about 6000 years ago (and this included ex-nihilo creation of all life forms.) <i>and the meta-natural formation of all life-forms in the subsequent 5 days of Creation</i>. (To deny this is to deny the existence of the Creator and his Torah)<br /> <br />Notice that I deleted the last line entirely. It has nothing to do with a description of my beliefs regarding <i>maaseh bereishis</i> and was inserted by you only because it is in line with, and helps facilitate your “agenda” of exploring the “the paradigms that people work from when engaging the issues at hand.”<br /><br />Gotta run to <i>ma’ariv</i>. More to come bl’n.Simcha Cofferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01243327012385531727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999467500145167346.post-90717524327527349582010-10-26T09:31:47.579-04:002010-10-26T09:31:47.579-04:00anyone wishing to exchange messages with me privat...anyone wishing to exchange messages with me privately can do so at this ridiculous but discreet email:<br /><br /><a href="mailto:mialpouhte@garrifulio.mailexpire.com" rel="nofollow"> mialpouhte@garrifulio.mailexpire.com </a>Yitz Waxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09626409388081098891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999467500145167346.post-79533540065532811642010-10-26T04:43:43.081-04:002010-10-26T04:43:43.081-04:00You missed a logically prior step. Where is "...<i>You missed a logically prior step. Where is "here"? In other words, what are you setting out to accomplish "here" by endeavoring to latch onto your idea?...<br /><br />Who cares? ... Why do we keep on getting sidetracked by irrelevancies?<br /></i><br /><br />Rabbi - you and I are not going to agree on this, and that is OK.<br /><br />Indeed, Rabbi. I concur that we must aspire to a more ambitious agenda. While you endure this track with suffering, I embrace it as the solitary productive intercourse at our disposal and I thusly thank you for your indulgence. <br /><br />My agenda is to understand the issues at hand as best I can. These issues are as contentious as they are fundamental to our core beliefs. We have wide disagreement accompanied by antagonism amongst literate and intelligent persons that otherwise share commitment to both Torah and understanding of the physical world. I aspire to understand why this is, and only then to delve into the particulars of the issues and only where there is value in doing so. <br /><br />Rabbi Coffer has a different agenda that is indeed simpler and clearer. He subscribes to the clear massoretic Truth about ex-nihilo creation of the universe that occurred about 6000 years ago and this included ex-nihilo creation of all life forms. To deny this is to deny the existence of the Creator and his Torah. <br /><br />With this Truth in mind, why would one engage in פוק וחזי in the physical world to determine its age? We are starting with the incontrovertible Truth! Any observations must perforce fit into this reality. Indeed, I deem scientific investigation under this constriction to be without value if not a complete farce. I emphasize that I am not judging the Truth itself. For me that is a separate and certainly important discussion.<br /><br />Here Rabbi Coffer and his colleagues fervently disagree. They place supreme value in delving into the minutiae of scientific observations of the physical world in order to independently confirm the Truth. They do not regard this as bias, but rather as being fully and correctly informed. They are evangelists in this endeavor, excited to share their findings with others who they deem less informed. Rabbi Coffer goes as far as to evangelize the very endeavor. This is why he continues to attempt to persuade me to engage him in what he considers “substance”.<br /><br />I, on the other hand, am an evangelist on engaging the paradigms that people work from when engaging the issues at hand. Perhaps we can call this the “issue with the issue.” I suggest that this is more important than anything else. Neglect herein causes people to get frustrated and angry with one another. I see it clearly here on this thread:<br /><br /><i>let’s be honest</i> – you are trying to deceive me.<br /><br /><i> Your assertion is incoherent</i> - insult returned, tit for tat. <br /><br />Gentlemen – if you concede that you are working from different paradigms then you will be able judge one another favorably! <br /><br />Look at <a href="http://www.achieve-goal-setting-success.com/images/combinedwoman.gif" rel="nofollow">this diagram</a> at decide what you see. More likely than not, you have done this exercise. Perhaps you have even read the 7 habits book. Now is your chance to apply it.<br /><br />There is much more to say on this and it will wait for future postings be’h.Yitz Waxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09626409388081098891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999467500145167346.post-44659954524414100302010-10-25T17:08:34.606-04:002010-10-25T17:08:34.606-04:00Your assertion is incoherent. How can I possibly r...<i>Your assertion is incoherent. How can I possibly reach a conclusion regarding the status of evolutionary claims before studying evolution?</i><br /><br />Okay, let me rephrase: Your opinion regarding the status of evolutionary claims was firm and settled before you began studying it. It did not change at any point. I'm not talking about bias; everybody is biased. I am talking about something way beyond bias - being entirely committed to a certain viewpoint. As you said above, the Torah supplies you with your clarity.Yissacherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00731635780596345530noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999467500145167346.post-87808712828620061892010-10-25T15:28:56.100-04:002010-10-25T15:28:56.100-04:00Come on, let's be honest. Your conclusions wer...<i>Come on, let's be honest. Your conclusions were reached before you even began.</i><br /><br />Your assertion is incoherent. How can I possibly reach a conclusion regarding the status of evolutionary claims before studying evolution? <br /><br />Perhaps you mean to say that my conclusions are biased? If this is your issue, please make pretend I don't exist. I have no time, nor inclination, to engage you, or anyone for that matter, regarding this issue. If you are incapable (read: unwilling) of taking the time to research the pertinent material and assess the situation objectively, it would, IMHO, behoove you to refrain from commenting.Simcha Cofferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01243327012385531727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999467500145167346.post-13955553010720566482010-10-25T14:12:23.349-04:002010-10-25T14:12:23.349-04:00I studied the material at length and then came to ...<i>I studied the material at length and then came to my conclusions.</i><br /><br />Come on, let's be honest. Your conclusions were reached before you even began. As you said above, the Torah supplies you with your clarity. It's not as though before studying evolution, you weren't sure as to how old the world is, and whether life evolved!Yissacherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00731635780596345530noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999467500145167346.post-7947445291412179802010-10-25T07:10:53.953-04:002010-10-25T07:10:53.953-04:00The progress here is that I am reaching clarity on...The progress here is that I am reaching clarity on where we disagree. More later b'eh!Yitz Waxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09626409388081098891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999467500145167346.post-61817879339805759512010-10-25T06:43:32.836-04:002010-10-25T06:43:32.836-04:00Yitz -
I think that we have some progress here.....Yitz - <br /><br /><i>I think that we have some progress here...</i><br /><br />??? Please explain...<br /><br /><i>Given that I am not a scientist and will (b'n) never be one, how can I even pretend to evaluate the scientific evidence?</i> <br /><br />I've answered this several times already Yitz. You need to read. You need to do research. For instance, take a look at my conversation with Ari on the Q & A thread. It's a sheer pleasure! Ari <i>never</i> resorts to non-substantive issues. He consistently stays on point. Now I ask you; how do you think we can carry on such a conversation? Am I a scientist? Hardly. I never even went to college! You know what I did? I read! I researched. I studied the material at length and then came to my conclusions. I have dozens and dozens of books at home on evolution (I'm not proud of that by the way...evolution is kefira). I have countless papers and per-reviewed journals. I frequently check the internet for new developments. It's not hard. You just have to be committed. If you sincerely want to understand the issues, I am willing to help you. I can give you a crash course in evolutionary theory. Or you can buy a "for Dummies" book explaining the fundamentals. Take a look at Rabbi Slifkin. He also didn't go to college. He is self-taught! Take a look at the sheer volume of information he managed to acquire. He is practically an expert in zoology and has often times used his expertise to (properly) elucidate Torah issues. (We happen to have bumped into each other several years ago at the Royal Ontario Museum. I took my family to check out the dino exhibit and he happened to be there making a presentation. He moved from the Dino’s to a large horn exhibit. Needless to say, I followed the crowd to hear what he would have to say. Of course, I was interested in “shlogging” him up! “Unfortunately”, he gave a very nice shiur on the various species of horns that were permissible for shofar blowing and foiled my designs!) You know what he did? He read! If you are reading this comment, you can do the same.Simcha Cofferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01243327012385531727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999467500145167346.post-37657516700460183712010-10-25T05:41:35.972-04:002010-10-25T05:41:35.972-04:00I think that we have some progress here...
Why is...I think that we have some progress here...<br /><br /><i>Why isn’t this conversation about the substance of Dr. Ostroff’s paper?</i><br /><br />Because I have neither the background nor the aspiration to pursue a scholarly scientific debate. For the good or the better, I need to delegate this to the professionals. <br /><br />It could be that the helige Torah has opened your eyes to clear thinking. I have no idea. I could just say that since the Torah says the world is less than 6k years old, then certainly your evaluation of the objective evidence must be correct and the goyim are misguided. Better yet, I can just ignore what both of you say about science and look to the helige Torah for my objective evidence. <br /><br />Given that I am not a scientist and will (b'n) never be one, how can I even pretend to evaluate the scientific evidence?Yitz Waxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09626409388081098891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999467500145167346.post-53832695749225910892010-10-25T05:19:04.105-04:002010-10-25T05:19:04.105-04:00Yitz -
I am latching onto the idea that the key ...Yitz - <br /><br /><i>I am latching onto the idea that the key here is to detach premise from conclusion.</i><br /><br />You missed a logically prior step. Where is "here"? In other words, what are you setting out to accomplish "here" by endeavoring to latch onto your idea? I'd like a clear response to this so my future comments can be geared towards a specific goal. <br /><br />In general I am beginning to find that much of the conversation in the comments section ends up degenerating to a discussion of banalities, at best. I don't do banal. I'm simply no good at banal. I need substance. And I need a goal. Otherwise, I am totally out of my element and lose interest quickly. <br /><br />So, once again Yitz, what are we setting out to do by proposing these two premises? What is our goal? What are we trying to achieve?<br /><br /><i>Premise A - the physical laws of the universe have remained constant going back in time indefinitely.</i><br /><br />Standard Big Bang Cosmology claims that the laws were constant back in time 13.7b years but that's it. They had a specific point of origin. They <i>don't</i> go back indefinitely.<br /><br /><i>Premise B - the physical laws of the universe were set in place about 6k years ago. Prior to that they we only know that they were different.</i><br /><br />In theory, the same applies to the Big Bang. The point of origin was an infinitely hot and dense state in which the current laws of nature as we know them did not function. In fact even in the first few fractions of time from the inception of the Big Bang, laws of nature were different. <br /><br />I still don't know where you're going with these premises but I think you need to tighten them up a bit in order to avoid ambiguity. <br /><br />You wrote: <i>Perhaps the CT camp has obtained a clarity of thinking somehow that has eluded the mainstream scientists for whatever reason,</i><br /><br />You know, it just dawned on me that I am trying so hard to be politically correct I end up compromising my true ideals and opinions. We haven’t attained clarity of thinking for “whatever reason"! It's the <b>Torah</b> which supplies us with our clarity! If it wasn't for the Torah, I probably would have never investigated the claims of the evolutionists; never researched the assertions of the geologists, never analyzed the allegations of the physicists, and never questioned the findings of the scientists. But thank God we <i>do</i> have the Torah. The Torah opens our eyes (if we allow it to) and sets us part from the erring...<i>especially</i> the academicians...<br /><br />You wrote: <i> For instance, I read this paper that Rabbi Coffer referenced on toriah.com. Does this paper get any feedback from any credible source that holds by Premise A?</i><br /><br />Who cares? Are we talking substance or are we talking banalities? Dr. Ostroff doesn’t make a single assertion on his own. Every assertion is supported by an appeal to the published scientific literature! Where is your Jewish backbone Yitz? Where is your stiff neck? Why are you caving in to the global scientific community, like RNS? If Dr. Ostroff’s paper makes sense to you, why is this conversation about the fact that it isn’t published? Or the fact that (supposedly) it doesn’t get any “feedback from any credible source that holds by Premise A?” Why isn’t this conversation about the <b>substance</b> of Dr. Ostroff’s paper? Why isn’t it about his scientific assertions? Why do we keep on getting sidetracked by irrelevancies? <br /><br />You need not worry about arguing with the goyim. We’ve been doing it for thousands of years. Our function is to be a light onto the nations, not a mirror.Simcha Cofferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01243327012385531727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999467500145167346.post-46834982499963892262010-10-24T12:48:14.759-04:002010-10-24T12:48:14.759-04:00SC said: In general this whole "bias" ca...<i>SC said: In general this whole "bias" card the Slifkin camp keeps pulling drives me nuts. </i><br /><br />I am latching onto the idea that the key here is to detach premise from conclusion. Both sides claim ownership of clear thinking leading to clear conclusions and for essentially the same reason - lack of either "bias" or "unfounded premises." Both terms are pejorative and I suggest that there is little if any difference. <br /><br />I propose that we rather adapt the neutral term "premise" without "unfounded". Just say that scientists have a premise that is not shared by the CT camp. I also assert that the reverse is very much true!<br /><br />Premise A - the physical laws of the universe have remained constant going back in time indefinitely. <br /><br />Premise B - the physical laws of the universe were set in place about 6k years ago. Prior to that they we only know that they were different. <br /><br />Now go and argue about which premise is superior if you like. <br /><br />Perhaps the CT camp has obtained a clarity of thinking somehow that has eluded the mainstream scientists for whatever reason, and perhaps not! <br /><br />Rabbi Coffer suggests that nothing would suggest an old universe even if we entertain premise A. I suggest that nobody accepts this that does not already believe in premise B. For instance, I read this paper that Rabbi Coffer referenced on toriah.com. Does this <a href="http://www.toriah.org/science/big-bang/big-bang.pdf" rel="nofollow">paper</a> get any feedback from any credible source that holds by Premise A? Is this why the paper has not been published in any journal or mainstream magazine?Yitz Waxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09626409388081098891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999467500145167346.post-2809505924502649472010-10-22T11:51:03.252-04:002010-10-22T11:51:03.252-04:00Rafi -
OK, now we're getting somewhere. Anot...Rafi - <br /><br /><i>OK, now we're getting somewhere. Another question: do you see a possible hiluk between halakha and hashkafa? I've heard such a hiluk made by several rabbis, such as in this article from R' Carmell, which I don't expect you to agree with :-).</i><br /><br />Yes there is a chiluk between halacha and hashkafa. It's a long discussion Rafi. Most notably the Rambam in pirush hamishnayos distinguishes between the two regarding the concept of "pesak". But without getting into particulars, this distinction has its limitations and cannot be used when the ma'amarei chazal in question are clearly unambiguous, are unanimous, and refer to historically based facts.<br /><br /><i>Also, just some reminders as these comment threads are starting to branch out: you haven't yet responded to my responses to your answers to my questions about pedagogy :-), or my latest comment regarding prehistory in the Q&A thread. Obviously you choose what you respond to and when.</i> <br /><br />Been there, done that (I think). Correct me if I'm wrong.<br /><br />Good ShabbosSimcha Cofferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01243327012385531727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999467500145167346.post-74129708664427251082010-10-22T11:42:08.830-04:002010-10-22T11:42:08.830-04:00Yitz -
I am understanding this accurately?...hid...Yitz - <br /><br /><i>I am understanding this accurately?...hidden agenda (bias) to promote atheism.</i> <br /><br />Yes.Simcha Cofferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01243327012385531727noreply@blogger.com