

Religion vs Science - shliachtx
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/2827/jewish/The-Torah-Science-Debates.htm

======
shliachtx
This is really about Judaism (Torah) vs. science, but I think it applies to
the general religion vs science debate.

------
moocowduckquack
_We want to retain some kind of Jewish institution, a synagogue or temple, if
only because the Gentiles have their churches and look with suspicion on the
unchurched._

Eh? I can tell I am not the intended audience, but perhaps a little bit more
nuance wouldn't go amiss here.

~~~
shliachtx
As you pointed out, the intended audience is Jews, but I think the point made
in that line is obvious - not so much that _if only because the Gentiles have
their churches and look with suspicion on the unchurched_ , rather read _we
feel that the Gentiles have their churches and look with suspicion on the
unchurched_. I.e. the point is in the psychology of the Jew, not to determine
what everyone else is thinking (as that would be pretty ridiculous).

~~~
moocowduckquack
I think I get you, I did take the more ridiculous meaning first time round.

I still think the second version is still a bit ridiculous, as most gentiles
don't have churches. It seems like this is maybe a specific use of the term
gentile. I dunno, about the only thing I know of the word is it means someone
who isn't jewish, which is a very wide range of people, so I find it hard to
believe that jewish people in general are worrying that gentiles in general
are looking with suspicion on the unchurched, I mean, what about all the
buddhists, for instance? They aren't going to care, and there's loads of them.

edit - I do agree with him that there is no general problem between having
articles of faith on the one hand and following processes of knowledge on the
other, there can sometimes be specific instances that create problems of
course, such as if you believe the universe to be younger than the rocks you
are studying. That said, I am not religious by inclination, but I do not think
that religion and science are exclusive subjects so I have much I agree with
him on. I just found some of the tone of the writing a bit odd and thought it
seemed maybe a little shuttered.

~~~
shliachtx
Well, you have a lot to learn about a Jewish mentality :-).

I hope no one takes this offensively (as I am a "Chassidic" Jew), but Jewish
people do (and I am generalizing here) have a certain inferiority complex
about being accepted by people around them. This probably has a lot to do with
being such a minority, and the fact that they have been persecuted many times
over the generations, from the Cossack pogroms to Nazi Germany.

I think, again, that you can take the point about churches per se in context,
that is many Jews have lived in mostly Christian countries for most of recent
history, so the church is just an illustration as far as the article is
concerned.

Concerning the age of the universe, it would seem that an honest person can
take a theoretical approach, where science remains in the lab, and religion
affects one's personal life. Science is after all, the study of truth. It
would be paradoxical for someone to claim to be a scientist, while imparting a
religious bias on everything he studies. I think that is the point the article
is trying to make.

~~~
moocowduckquack
I am always happy to learn. I find belief fascinating, especially since I
normally don't stretch much further with faith than expecting the sun to rise
tomorrow, although even that in itself is a bit of a shot in the dark,
especially if you try and take a long view.

I get what you are saying about the use of gentile in this context. I guess
the guy is used to living around non-secular Christians in the US, so is
presumably using the word to mean the non-Jewish culture local to him, rather
than all non-Jews. I just found it a bit jarring because I was relating it
back to my own experiences in the UK, where church going is something of a
rarity, even among those who class themselves as Christian.

I know very little about Chassidic Jews, indeed I only just realised after
looking it up that it is apparently the same thingy as Hasidic, which I also
know very little about, though I at least knew the term Hasidic and now also
now know one more thing about that, namely that it is apparently the same as
Chassidic. I also think it might have something to do with big fluffy hats,
and everyone likes big fluffy hats. I should probably seek to expand my
knowledge in this area as it is a little bit sparse. :)

Back on the article subject, I think that for me one of the best examples of
the religious scientist has to be Georges Lemaître, who really should have a
space telescope named after him at some point, given that he came up with the
Hubble constant before Hubble did. His arguments with Pope Pius XII over Pius'
use of Georges' cosmology to try and provide justification for Catholic
theology seem to be astute, especially his point that it is a very bad idea to
tie your faith to a scientific theory that may yet be disproved, especially
when you are the leader of that faith.

I actually had an argument about all this very recently with a mate of mine,
who does not study science, but likes to take its side (I am not sure science
cares for sides though). He takes the view that science and religion are
rationally incompatible and that anyone who says they practice both is lying
or mad. On the other hand, I take the view that anyone who says they are
completely rational is either lying or mad anyway and that it is far from
unusual to be immersed in religion as a faith and science as process. One is
to do with your feelings towards the things you cannot discern and the other
is a method of discovery for the things that you can.

The nearest I get towards spirituality is the distinct feeling that many of
the complex archetypes have some deeper pattern and existence, though I
strongly suspect that nobody on the planet has ever got close to working out
what those patterns actually are or what they represent and I certainly see no
reason to regard them as conscious, at least not in any kind of way that we
know how to use the term. Then again, perhaps Philip K. Dick is right and some
kind of alien-god is communicating with sci-fi authors using beams of light. I
would probably bet strongly against that last one though.

~~~
shliachtx
Concerning Chassidism, yes it is the the same thing as Hasidism. The Hebrew
alphabet has a letter called "khet" which can probably best be transliterated
as "kh". It is sometimes interchanged with "h" when writing in English, e.g.
"Chanukah" vs "Hannukah", etc.

I am not trying to proselytize in any way (Judaism discourages proselytizing),
but you mentioned that you would like to learn more about Chassidism.
Chabad.org ([http://www.chabad.org](http://www.chabad.org), the website the
article is posted on) is the website of the Chabad-Lubavitch movement (an
"implementation" of Chassidus) and has a huge amount of content (disclaimer -
I interned there this summer as a developer :-)) that can explain more about
Judaism, Chassidus, and Chabad in particular.

Concerning the furry hats, chassidim do wear hats when praying (besides a
skullcap (Yarmulkah/Kippah) worn all day), but Chabad chassidim generally
(myself included), wear fedoras. Sorry if I disappointed you :-).

~~~
moocowduckquack
Don't worry, I am almost impossible to proselytize to anyway.

I will have a bit of a dig though Chabad and see what I find interesting. Is
about time I went and had a bit of a study on Judaism, given it has had such a
major influence on our world and my knowledge is evidently so poor. Thanks for
the heads-up and may your fedora always be secure in a strong wind :)

