Why this story and not another?

quote:

---

So what do you say when you hug your girlfriend (or wife)? I love you but there is 0 facts that I do...? My love for you is a big... Blank?

---

But there are naturalistic explanations for what you are feeling when you hug a loved one.It's quite well understood, actually, what happens in the brain and body when we experience different emotional states.

quote:

---

Using the language of metaphor, Kabbalah (Zohar, Volume 1, 6:44 - 65) identifies these three forces as Right, Left and Central Columns. Right correlates to the positive [+] force, which manifests physicality as the proton. Left signifies the negative charge [-], manifesting as the electron. Central is expressed through the neutron, the force that bridges the positive and negative poles.

---

So, this is what the Middle Eastern nomadic desert tribesman who wrote about the firmament meant?Or, are you doing what is called post hoc reasoning to shoehorn our current knowledge into what the Bible says?Now, honestly, isn't it much more likely that the nomadic desert tribesman looked up into the sky and thought that it was a giant dome that had little twinkling lights fixed in it?

What about my point, The One?Message #15, please.

quote:

---

As you might of noticed by now, I believe in God. I also belive that Torah is the word of God, transmited through Moses.

---

Are you saying that because you believe in God, you therefore also believe the Torah?

quote:

---

It is not necessary for someone to mean anything while writing down what is being transmited.

---

Transmitted? So God took over the bodies of those who wrote the Torah and the people didn't mean what they were writing? That's pretty wild.Since we do not have any originals of these writings, and since much of it was also written down from oral traditions and/or decades or more after the events in question, and since there have been different translations, how can you know that what you are reading is actually what was meant?Lastly, if it didn't matter if the "receiver" understood or "meant" what he was writing, why didn't God just write about protons and neutrons, or use other scientific terms, if this is what he was "really" talking about? Why not be perfectly clear? THAT would be impressive evidence of God's existence; that illiterate, uneducated nomadic desert tribesmen suddenly understood atomic structure.

quote:

---

Now, honestly, isn't it much more likely that the nomadic desert tribesman looked up into the sky and thought that it was a giant dome that had little twinkling lights fixed in it?

---

quote:

---

More than likely. That is why they were given Torah. Which says what it really is. Right after they accuired Torah, they began studying it. Even up to this day.

---

The torah doesn't talk about protons and neutrons, nor does it talk about galazies, atmospheres, nor the fact that all the lights in the sky are stars and planets. What is given is the notion that the sky is a hard dome that has little lights in it. All of your after-the-fact extrapolation doesn't change this.

quote:

---

What I quoted you is book called Zohar, it was written way before let's say Newton's time. Which means, it's written even before the knowelege of electricity (and no I'm not saying Newton discovered electricity). I added things about protons and electrons to help explain a concept, that's it. Zohar only states Right (pure) Left(impure) and Central (neither). Pure we can compare to something that is positive, impure to something that is negative. And thanks to physics now we can go even deeper and ad protons, electrons and so on, to explain things better.

---

OK, now I'm confused.Are you talking about protons and neutrons to make a comparison, or are you trying to say that what is written in the Torah it actually about protons and neutrons?And wouldn't "pure" and "impure" be rather poor (at least, odd and ill-fitting) descriptions of positively and negatively charged particles? There's nothing "pure" or "impure" about either one.

quote:

---

That's why Judaism never had any problems with science (maybe with exception of some fanatics). Whatever is in Torah can only be explained better with science. Unfortunately it doesn't work the other way too well. But after all, Torah was never designed as a Chemistry or Quantum Physics "suplementary study". However, every single science is a "suplementary" or "additional" study for Torah. That's how I see it.

---

Well, it certainly seems to me that you are going way out there in your extrapolations and interpretations of what is meant by the writers.Remember, if you get to decide what it means after the fact, then you can make it mean whatever you want.[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 08-04-2003]

quote:

---

First of all, I believe there is God (regardless of any specific religion). Why? Because, I believe in right and wrong.

---

I believe in right and wrong, but I don't believe in God.

quote:

---

What I mean is, if according to science everything is just a product of random reactions and mutations then how can I (or anybody) complain about what is right and what is wrong, how can I complain about unfairness?

---

Wow, do you ever have a strange view of science. It's all messed up. Let me try to help.First of all, it seems like you are talking about the Theory of Evolution. Mutations are random, yes, but natural selection is not. Selection is the exact opposite of random, no?Second, please explain why randomness in nature precludes our notions of right and wrong?

quote:

---

But it is in my essense to want to be treated fairly. As my school teacher used to say "Life is unfair, get used to it". Well, I'll get used to it, no doubt about that. But why do I feel it in the first place? According to science it's a concept which does not exist.

---

Wrong. You hold a cartoon image of science. Science says no such thing.

quote:

---

There are just physical laws of nature. Nothing else.

---

Science deals with naturalistic explanations for naturalistic phenomena.It does not comment upon the supernatural, the ethical, the aesthetic in order to place value. That is not it's realm.

quote:

---

So how can science explain right and wrong?

---

Science doesn't explain right and wrong. It is not designed to answer such philosophical or ethical questions.

quote:

---

How can it even begin to EMPIRICALLY approach right/wrong behaviour? Who establishes the moral laws? Society in which you grew up in? Or communist society in which I grew up in? Which one is right? Prove it with science. Which science are you gonna use? quantum physics? chemistry? biology? social behavior? - but the last one is just a study of social body, or individual in a society, things of that nature. Can it prove that when Stalin killed 15 million of his own people, he was doing a bad thing? There are some people (and I personaly know a few) that think he did the right thing. WHO IS RIGHT?

---

I feel for your struggle, but you are putting blame in an inappropriate place.Science does not attempt to determine what is right or wrong.Science can describe behavior, but it does not proscribe behavior on a moral basis.

quote:

---

WHY DO WE EVEN HAVE A CONCEPT OF RIGHT (OR WRONG)? IT'S ALL JUST A PRODUCT OF RANDOMNESS.

---

We have concepts of right and wrong because it is in the interest of society to have them. It makes things more pleasant and productive for everyone if there are rules that we follow most of the time. It's good for the group, in other words, and, evolutionarily speaking, makes sense because there is safety in unified numbers.

quote:

---

And that's what makes me believe in God. Because, there are underlined moral laws (and concepts of right and wrong) which transend all gender, race and age. To me that is what RELIGION IS. But how can you EMPIRICALLY TEST THESE LAWS? What FACTS DO YOU WANT?

---

It seems that you are angry at science for not answerning questions it is not designed or intended to answer. It also seems that you reject parts of science for making you feel uncomfortable about purpose and meaning.One can hold moral values and still accept that random mutation results in genetic diversity through natural selection. One can accept that "nature is probably all there is" and still hold moral values.I don't think most of our prisons are filled with Athiests. In fact, the opposite is true.------------------
"Evolution is a 'theory', just like gravity. If you don't like it, go jump off a bridge."[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 08-04-2003]

Just so you know, The One, I'm waiting for a reply to message #33.You made several errors in your representation of science which I addressed.There's no rush, though, if you are busy. Just let me know if you intend to answer.