But there are also significant theological problems [with ID]. If God's existence is being demonstrated in phenomena for which there is argued to be no scientific explanation, then what about all those phenomena for which there is a scientific explanation?...and a few papagraphs later:
When I wrote about this issue a while ago*, what Slifkin calls a rejection of ID I called "ID - natural process?" I explained such a view:So where does that leave the rest of the universe? What about all those structures that do not, even by the admission of the ID camp, present irreducible complexity? The unstated implication of their position is that these things do not attest to a Creator. Don't have a grasp of cellular biology? Sorry, you won't be able to perceive that the universe was created by God.
Either God is everywhere or He is nowhere. But He is certainly not limiting His appearance in the universe to the bacterial flagellum and the blood-clotting system.
"They basically feel G-d could have done it with just one ma’amar so surely he did. Why ‘bother’ with 10 ma’amoros?" Slifkin is now also claiming that the ten ma'amaros would mean G-d's design can't be observed in anything else. While I understand why he wouldn't like a theory that sounds like "G-d of the gaps", I have some questions for him:
- How is Slifkin so sure G-d wouldn't want to show directly His continued involvment in the world? How does that minimize evidence of G-d? What does slifkin believe about miracles such as yetzias mitzrayim?
- How does Slifkin explain the Mishna and pesukim about ma'amaros that say G-d created the universe with many steps ?
- Darwinism's primary purpose is to explain how the great complexity of the universe could have happened randomly, taking away the need to believe in a G-d. Eventually, it will have its place in history with theories such as Freudinism and Marxism. Why does Slifkin have so much faith in it?
*(See "Ma'amaros and Miracles". Of some relevence is "G-d and Design".)
15 comments:
To quote Slifkin: "But the religious person, on the other hand, looks at it differently." I think that sentence says it all: a cliche and two redundancies. There is no point in arguing with someone who doesn't have the ability to construct a sentence.
>>'While I understand why he wouldn't like a theory that sounds like "G-d of the gaps"...'
What exactly is your "understanding" of the "problem" of with the "GOTG-theory"? Maybe I should stop believing you exist rather than invoke a theory like the "Glunker of the Gaps". Maybe your blog was created by 1000 monkey-typists.
or maybe it just randomly evolved from the primordial goo in richard dawkins' skull.
slifkin's response (my q's r in italics):
How are you so sure G-d wouldn't want to show directly His continued involvment in the world? How does that minimize evidence of G-d? What do you believe about miracles such as yetzias mitzrayim?
It seems very strange that God would only want to show His direct involvement for a small number of specialists. Miracles such as Yetziyas Mitzrayim were exceptional events that took place for the entire nation. ID is limited for those who study cellular biology. And it has nothing to do with God's direct involvement, just His involvement while creating things. ID downplays and negates the idea of seeing Hashem in other aspects of nature that science can explain.
Even the miracles of yetziyas mitzrayim largely took place within a naturalistic framework. I strongly recommend that you read my new book The Challenge Of Creation for an understanding of why there is a strong trend amongst the Rishonim to minimize the concept of supernatural miracles.
How do you explain the Mishna about ma'amaros (and pesukim) ?
I don't see what this has to do with ID.
Why do you have such great faith in Darwinism? Do you also believe in Freudinism and Marxism?
That's a remarkably strange question. I might as well ask you why you have such great faith in Judaism - does that mean that you also believe in Freudism and Marxism?
If you want to know why I find major parts of evolution to be convincing, I suggest that you read my book, where I lay out my reasons.
To quote Slifkin: "But the religious person, on the other hand, looks at it differently." I think that sentence says it all: a cliche and two redundancies. There is no point in arguing with someone who doesn't have the ability to construct a sentence.
i doubt all my sentences would survive such scrutiny. also, the editors of the Jpost didnt seem to mind.
What exactly is your "understanding" of the "problem" of with the "GOTG-theory"? Maybe I should stop believing you exist rather than invoke a theory like the "Glunker of the Gaps". Maybe your blog was created by 1000 monkey-typists.
for thousands of years, natural processes were explained solely by invoking G-d. as science explained more and more processes naturally, religous people had less things to say only G-d's Hand can explain it! people now have a much greater understanding of natural laws that cause for example, rain or planetary motion.
GOTG is when s/o says "i can prove G-d exists b/c scientists can't explain why birds fly south in the winter" but based on the history of science, it's likely that will one day b explained, and then theres no 'proof' left.
thats all for explanations of how nature works now. but what about how it all came about?
slifkin and others feel to invoke G-d in explaining how s/t came about is the same flawed GOTG argument.
i feel there's a diff. btwn nature now and creation. nature, by definition, doesnt require the mention of miracles to explain it.
creation on the other hand, is miraculous in itself. although G-d could have created the world with one ma'amar, he chose to create it with 10 to show His existence and involvment. the trend in science actually shows greater proof of G-d: the determinstic atomists were disproved by quantum mech., those who believed in an eternally existing universe were disproved by the big bang, we now see more design in the universe than ever b4.
which brings up a final point: just b/c nature can b scientifically xplained doesnt take away the proof the universe was designed. on the contrary, if u can xplain how a car works, u c more evidence of design than just observing a "magical" car.
(to b cont.?)
(i added numbers to help my response. i dont have much time or knowledge to write full responses.)
(1)It seems very strange that God would only want to show His direct involvement for a small number of specialists. Miracles such as Yetziyas Mitzrayim were exceptional events that took place for the entire nation. ID is limited for those who study cellular biology. (2)And it has nothing to do with God's direct involvement, just His involvement while creating things. (3)ID downplays and negates the idea of seeing Hashem in other aspects of nature that science can explain.
(4)Even the miracles of yetziyas mitzrayim largely took place within a naturalistic framework. (5)I strongly recommend that you read my new book The Challenge Of Creation for an understanding of why there is a strong trend amongst the Rishonim to minimize the concept of supernatural miracles.
1)many miracles happened in front of only a few people. read tanach. anyways, the idea of ID can b understood by e/o, even if u claim the proof cannot.
2)scientists can't say "it can all be explained, there is no need for G-d" if there is proof of His involvement.
3)How? do miracles? they show there's a G-d in a way thats hard even for an atheist to deny.
4)im'H to b discussed in the future.
5)I've reserved the book at the library and hope to read it soon.
How do you explain the Mishna about ma'amaros (and pesukim) ?
6)I don't see what this has to do with ID.
Why do you have such great faith in Darwinism? Do you also believe in Freudinism and Marxism?
7)That's a remarkably strange question. I might as well ask you why you have such great faith in Judaism - does that mean that you also believe in Freudism and Marxism?
If you want to know why I find major parts of evolution to be convincing, I suggest that you read my book, where I lay out my reasons
6)read post on it. the mishna is responding to those who say "G-d couldv done it with one ma'amar so He must have."
7)many people say "all those scientists cant b wrong!" and therefor believe in darwinism. but look at the other influential ideas of many decades ago. they were accepted by millions and now r obviously known to be idiotic. (though still believed in by some)
a theory proposed by atheists to explain how the full complexity of the universe came about entirely randomly is ridiculous.
R' Slifkin didn't say his reason for believing in Darwinism is that scientists can't be wrong, so why should he believe in Freudism and Marxism?
You haven't given any nebachcase awards yet (see second post on this blog).
I slightly clarified by 2nd and 3rd q's.
#22 Evolution - Does it Make Sense?
To many of us the issue of belief in the Creator boils down to logic against faith. As if from a purely rational, intellectual point of view it would appear that the world evolved, and we who believe have to hold on to our faith against the onslaught of logic and scientific discoveries.
In this Shmuz we are asked to look at matters from a very different vantage point, namely: that which passes in the media as popular science, is neither popular nor science. And the reality is that from a dispassionate position of pure logic, the basic premise that the world just occurred on its own, is so implausible as to make it almost untenable. In the end we are brought to the question: Does Evolution make any sense?
LISTEN TO THIS SHMUZ FREE! ITS FUNNY, CAUSE I JUST DID BEFORE I SAW THIS BLOG! I AM HOOKED ON IT.
Post a Comment