Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Academic Debate"

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: belaga AT math.u-strasbg.fr
  • To: b-hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Academic Debate"
  • Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 16:36:37 +0100

Dear Yigal and Karl,

Without entering into your particular disagreement, I want to add another dimension to the philosophical foundations of science you discuss: you both omit the dimension of scientist's motivations and sources of inspiration.

Sure, for Yigal there is no such problem, as probably for Yitzhak Sapir (see below a copy of his recent message), with his basic "Lo BaShamaim He", "The Law is not in Heaven": all motivations are ultimately confined to their rational origins.

However, for Albert Einstein it was not so: "Raffiniert ist der Herrgott, aber boshaft ist er nicht". And it is difficult to claim that Einstein was especially religious, in a Jewish or Christian or any other way. The above remark, as many others remaining in the memory of his colleagues, were deeply personal expressions of the motivations and inspirational sources of his scientific enquiry.


Quoting K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>:

Yigal:

On 10/31/07, Yigal Levin <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il> wrote:

In the world as we know it, if a person writes about events that happened in
the past, he either: 1. had written sources, 2. depended on oral tradition,
3. made it up. Possibility number 4, "God told him", does not work in the
world that we live in, which leaves the other three to be discussed on a
case-by-case basis, which I'm willing to do, but not right now.

Yigal Levin

There is a difference between methodological naturalism and
philosophic (religious) naturalism.

The definition for science that I found in numerous textbooks is
according to methodological naturalism: all what we can repeatedly
observe is limited to the physical universe. Furthermore, it is
limited to the present. It does not a priori rule out the supernatural
as an unobserved cause for observed phenomena.

Philosophic naturalism, which is a religion, teaches that the physical
universe is all that exists, therefore only naturalistic causes for
observed phenomena may be entertained. The supernatural is ipso facto
ruled out.

Dave Washburn has well dealt with the problem of studying the past, so
I won't repeat him, but the same demand for accepting only natural
explanations for historical events typifies the religion of naturalism
from an even handed study of history.

On this list we have opted for methodological naturalism and ruled
that a discussion of religion, including philosophic naturalism, is
off limits. That doesn't mean that religious concepts can't be
mentioned, just that we cannot say on this list that our religion is
the only way. However, I find that when people openly admit their
religious bias, like Shoshanna, that it is less offensive than when
one hides it behind openly neutral statements, but still follows it
behind the scenes.

Karl W. Randolph.

Quoting Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>:

I think, especially in light of the ensuing discussion, that perhaps we should
be aware of different theological backgrounds. Foremost, is the concept in
Judaism that prophecy ended in the Second Temple period. Afterwards,
God stopped using prophecy as a method of communicating his will. But
more interesting and relevant, is a small discussion in the Talmud about an
oven. The Mishnah makes a ruling about an oven and a dissenting opinion
from the Rabbis is brought in the name of R' Eliezer. The Talmud purports
to tell us how the discussion took place. R' Eliezer explained his ruling but
that didn't convince. So, R' Eliezer said "If I'm correct, the tree should
prove me right," and appropriately enough the tree was displaced so many
feet at that moment. R' Eliezer continued, and waters in the aqueduct
changed their course, the walls of the building were ready to fall, and finally
when R' Eliezer called upon the heavens to prove him right, a voice from
Heaven rang out and said "R' Eliezer is always right!" To this the rabbis
responded by quoting Deuteronomy: "[The Torah] is not in heaven." The
Torah was given at Mt Sinai, along with explicit instructions as to how to
rule in disagreements, among them "majority opinion." Because the
majority opinion in this issue disagreed with R' Eliezer, this is the way God
wanted it. This is not to say that there aren't other places where a voice
from heaven is instrumental in deciding Halakha, Jewish rulings, but it is
significant in that it illustrates a concept in Judaism that the interpretation
of Torah is to be guided by rational thought, not supernatural phenomena.
Now, my interpretation of Gen 1/2 and Yigal's refusal to take on faith
apparent direct prophecy from God in the Bible is obviously not what the
Rabbis intended in the above, but the above does illustrate the
background from which we come -- one where rationalistic thought is
more powerful than supernatural phenomena.

Yitzhak Sapir


Edward G. Belaga
******************************************************
Institut de Recherche en Mathématique Avancée
Universite Louis Pasteur
7, rue René Descartes, 67084 Strasbourg Cedex, FRANCE
tel.: 333 90 24 02 35, FAX: 333 90 24 03 28
e-mail : edward.belaga AT math.u-strasbg.fr
******************************************************


----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page