Dinosaurs | Imamother

↑ yogabird ↓

Fri, Jan 17 2014, 9:55 am

BlueRose52 wrote:

I was googling for some references to use in this discussion, and ended up on the site of Rabbi Slifkin (the notorious Zoo Rabbi) where I found something he wrote on the subject of intellectual challenges. I thought it was really quite apt, and wanted to share it here.

Quote:

I've met people who have no problem accepting that the world is billions of years old, but would suffer a religious crisis if they were ever shown that evolution is true. I've met people who think that it's the easiest thing in the world to accept that the Gemara is not always scientifically correct, but who go to pieces when confronted with scientific inaccuracies in Tenach. And I've met people who are perfectly at ease with reading the first chapter of Bereishis non-literally, but are extremely uncomfortable with scientific objections to the Deluge. Etc., etc.

Every intellectual challenge is also an emotional challenge. When that which we have been taught by revered teachers, and which is a preciously held-belief in our community, is demonstrated to be incorrect, it's hard to make an adjustment. Modern Orthodox Jews who have no problem with my books are not necessarily more open-minded; it's just that evolution and Talmudic inaccuracies about science are within their societal comfort zone.

Furthermore, because every intellectual challenge is also an emotional challenge, this is why radically overhauling one's intellectual approach can be emotionally overwhelming. There are theological approaches which I am now comfortable with, but which I was only able to reach after a long struggle, due to my long and very limiting charedi yeshivah education. There are ideas that would have been much easier for me to accept, had they not come as such a shock.

We are not robots. We are not solely rational beings. We all have our intellectual comfort zone, and find new ideas to be challenging. Being aware of this can help us be sympathetic to others, and can help us cope with our own struggles.

I'm sure you realize some people may have engaged in equally rigorous research regarding these topics and still conclude that a non-apologetic-to-the-Torah stance is the most intellectually honest.

The attitude that "if you're really honest and open-minded, you'll certainly admit that scientific finding are truer than a literal understanding of the Torah, and thus we must re-interpret the Torah to reconcile with these findings", well, quite frankly, I find it patronizing.

For anyone interested in reading more about why taking a non-apologetic stance to these issues is entirely rational, I recommend "Mind Over Matter" by Profs. Herman Branover and Velvl Greene.

↑ yogabird ↓

Fri, Jan 17 2014, 10:05 am

zaq wrote:

As if the KBH has nothing better to do than plant phony evidence just to trick humankind into thinking heretical thoughts. Humankind is perfectly capable of coming up with heretical thoughts all by itself.

I do believe that the KBH has a sense of humor, though--there is no other way to explain the existence of giraffes and hippos.

Actually, humankind is not able to come up with anything without G-d willing it, and people that live with the constant knowledge that spiritual existence is more real than the physical one we perceive with our senses do marvel at the way some can deny His existence, and his constant interaction with His creation.

↑ BlueRose52 ↓

Fri, Jan 17 2014, 10:14 am

yogabird wrote:

Oh my gosh. No, no, no. That's not at all what he was saying, in fact, the whole point of that quote was to show the very opposite! He was showing that "open-minded" people really aren't that at all. That for most people who subscribe to "progressive" ideas, it's not really about being "open-minded" at all, it's just that their intellectual comfort zone has room for these ideas. His point is that we need to acknowledge that we all have different intellectual comfort zones that allow for different ideas to exist. But as his examples were meant to show, even the most "open-minded" of people are as resistant to hearing ideas that challenge them to step out of their intellectual comfort zone as the people who they might look upon as closed-minded.

↑ yogabird ↓

Fri, Jan 17 2014, 10:19 am

BlueRose52 wrote:

No need to apologize for him. Okay, he's not blaming their lower intelligence levels or something, just their levels of exposure and education. How polite!

↑ BlueRose52 ↓

Fri, Jan 17 2014, 10:59 am

yogabird wrote:

I'm sure you realize some people may have engaged in equally rigorous research regarding these topics and still conclude that a non-apologetic-to-the-Torah stance is the most intellectually honest.

Maybe some people have, I'm not sure. I can't speak for everyone. But judging from what I encounter when discussing these ideas, including the reactions here, no, I haven't realized that at all. On the contrary, I see people saying that they will refuse to read something that might challenge their view, that they don't even want a discussion to take place if it touches on controversial ideas, etc. When they oppose certain ideas, they aren't saying these ideas go against logic or reason, they say these ideas are against torah. So no, I don't find their stance to stem from intellectual honesty, but rather a fealty to what they think is torah dogma.

I'm not saying that's a problem. On the contrary, I think that's something they're proud of, that their adherence to torah faithfully withstands any and all intellectual challenges. But you can't say that you're sticking to your guns despite the intellectual challenges and then at the same time claim it's the result of intellectual exploration that compels you to subscribe to those views. It's either one or the other.

↑ BlueRose52 ↓

Fri, Jan 17 2014, 11:14 am

PinkFridge wrote:

Years ago, like 15 maybe, when there was discussion about this, names like Dr. Spetner, Dr. Schroeder, R' Slifkin and others, there was this attitude of, oh, very fascinating but the upshot? Won't effect my mitzvah observance and hashkafos and how I live my life one iota.

You know, I actually feel the same thing. These are intellectual conflicts about issues totally unrelated to practical life, and have zero bearing on how we actually live our lives. So why do some people make such a big deal about them?! Why are people put in cherem for saying that the world is billions of years old? That dinosaurs existed? That evolution is a fact? Why must people be attacked that their views are anti-torah? There are mitzvah observant Jews who believe that the world is 5774 years old and there are mitzvah observant Jews who believe that the world is 13 billion years old. Why can't we just let people have their ideas? If it doesn't at all affect our daily lives, why is it necessary to label such people as "chutz l'machaneh"?

↑ PinkFridge ↓

Fri, Jan 17 2014, 11:37 am

BlueRose52 wrote:

Because for some people, it's not just about the praxis, it's about the bren too.
I'm sharing debating some thoughts here but I don't know if it'll be hijacking or not. I may do it on another thread. Not much time to decide as I have to leave for work soon and wrap up Shabbos first...

And BTW, I had the same question and reaction Yogabird did about the R. Slifkin quote. I do appreciate that there are other ways to read it.

↑ yogabird ↓

Fri, Jan 17 2014, 11:41 am

PinkFridge wrote:

Pink, I agree with you. Our thoughts and beliefs shape our actions, even if not in tangible, measurable ways.

↑ BlueRose52 ↓

Fri, Jan 17 2014, 11:59 am

yogabird wrote:

For me, a literal understanding of the Torah and Chazal doesn't present a challenge to my faith, nor my intellect.

And it's not because I wasn't exposed. And it's not because I think science is worthless, shtussim, heresy, meaningless, bittul torah. It's because I think science is fascinating, and is moving in the right direction, but is not quite there yet. It's not Truth with a capital "T" the way the Torah is Truth with a capital T. Science has catching up to do.

Anyone who has a proper understanding of how science works knows that science never claims to be truth with a capital T. It's always only the best understanding we have from all the available evidence, and by it's very nature, is open to being modified based on enough contravening evidence.

Of course, that doesn't mean we can't use the word truth when it comes to scientific ideas. It's true that there is a force of gravity. It's true that light travels at the speed of 186,000 miles per second. It's true that a buttered slice of bread which falls will land butter-side down. We can still speak of these things with a strong measure of confidence in their "truth", while acknowledging that they can be changed, and this openness to revising its truths isn't a weakness in the scientific method, but rather a strength.

↑ yogabird ↓

Fri, Jan 17 2014, 12:05 pm

BlueRose52 wrote:

All the examples you bring here are phenomena observable every day. In one example, all science did was measure it, and in the other, simply named it. None of this is comparable in methodology to branches dealing with the distant past; paleontology, astrophysics, etc.

And the bit about science not claiming to be the truth, that's exactly the point. Why is it intellectually honest to adopt a view that might swing to the opposite side tomorrow over one that I know is a meta-Truth?

↑ yogabird ↓

Fri, Jan 17 2014, 12:47 pm

BlueRose52 wrote:

What exactly does meta-Truth mean? And I'm confused, I thought you believed the literal account of the torah is Truth-Truth, not meta-Truth. Am I wrong?

I'm no good at semantics. (I don't even know what meta means.)

I meant absolute, unchanging truth.

Look, I'm not trying to change your mind. I think approaches that seek to reconcile Torah and Science are fascinating, wonderful and amazing. (except they might be debunked tomorrow when science changes its mind yet again...)

↑ gold21 ↓

Fri, Jan 17 2014, 1:16 pm

BlueRose52 wrote:

Ok, so based on this I'd answer your original question of, "Why is it intellectually honest to adopt a view that might swing to the opposite side tomorrow over one that I know is a meta-Truth?"

To me, it seems self-evident that if one admits they believe in something because it's required of them, then they are inherently acknowledging that they aren't acting based on logic or intellectual honesty.

Um, no.

Maybe it's not seen as logical or intellectual honesty in YOUR brain, but your brain is just that- a brain. A physical part of your body. Not something I'm going to live my life according to. The Torah is a lot more trustworthy than a human brain.

↑ yogabird ↓

Fri, Jan 17 2014, 1:17 pm

BlueRose52 wrote:

My choice to believe what my religion requires of me is definitely not based on logic, but that does not mean that my rejection of so called scientific facts is based on the opposite...