Wednesday, September 26, 2007

A Portrait of a Scientist


[video clip from To Catch a Predator]

The next time you read that an eminent scientist has declared that evolution is a fact, man is an ape and the Bible is a myth, bear in mind that quite possibly that scientist, in spite of his education, intelligence and position, is morally and ethically very similar to the gentleman portrayed in the above clip. Therefore, he may well have a personal agenda for saying what he does.

Question everything. Don’t just accept it on authority.

49 comments:

avrum68 said...

JP, you're too bright to know that every anti-religious fan you have will post articles about all the rabbis who not only diddled children, were protected by other rabbis.

So since this isn't a science vs. religious thing (or vise versa), what's your point?

jewish philosopher said...

"every anti-religious fan you have will post articles about all the rabbis who not only diddled children, were protected by other rabbis"

I'm sure they will, in fact there is already a blog devoted only to that particular topic. The evidence, however, is generally testimony by alleged victims 30 years after the fact, not video tapes of the crime itself. And the number of Orthodox registered sex offenders is per capita way below the national average. So I'm not too frightened.

However I think I made my point quite clear. "He may well have a personal agenda for saying what he does. Question everything. Don’t just accept it on authority."

Josh said...

Torah and Science are fundamentally different. Torah learned by someone who is a rasha like this is in fact not real Torah. Science learned by even the most sick of people such as this one is still Science. Remember the gemmara, if you hear there's Wisdom (science) in the Nation's, believe them.

jewish philosopher said...

"if you hear there's Wisdom (science) in the Nation's, believe them"

But often buried under tons of sewage.

Josh said...

I hate being the devil's advocate here considering I'm a frum Jew but I have to say it. The accepted Torah uMesorah approach is that Rivkah was 3 years old when Yitzchak married her (forget his age, older than this doctor).

jewish philosopher said...

What bothers me most about this "Vice President for Scientific Affairs and Clinical Research" is not the girl or her age or the fact that he's got a wife and kids back home, although that's certainly bad enough.

What really turns my stomach is his whimpering and lying after being arrested. "I didn't do anything." Hasn't this guy got an ounce of dignity and honesty? He should just have said nothing whatsoever regarding the crime except "I want my attorney".

Listen to the clip again. This man is a complete spineless phony. Yet if someone like him would publish a book tomorrow supporting evolution, the New York Times would accept it without question as fact. After all, would an eminent scientist lie? Only creationists do that.

Josh said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dq0sspghVi8
This episode of To Catch a Predator has a Rabbi.

Cameron said...

'There are no God's', and 'the universe is discoverable by reason alone' is in no way equivalent to 'It's ok to have sex with children'.

Yet your own religion has both child marriage and slavery as openly declared acceptable components. But you post about a pedophile scientist as if it in some way disparaged science?

I think the bible had something about 'removing the beam from thine own eye' to describe your logic here.

Craptacular reasoning JP. Even for you.

jewish philosopher said...

He is the former rabbi of a Conservative synagogue.

Probably believes in evolution too.

jewish philosopher said...

"But you post about a pedophile scientist as if it in some way disparaged science?"

It proves science far from equals honesty.

avrum68 said...

"Craptacular reasoning JP. Even for you."

Agreed.

jewish philosopher said...

All that I can say is that if this video clip does not cause you to question the credibility of scientists, then nothing will.

'the universe is discoverable by reason alone' – like this jerk whimpering “I didn’t do anything”? He’s going to discover the universe for me? I’ll discover it for myself, thank you.

Josh said...

He's a scientist for a pharmecuetical company. Not Richard Dawkins.

jewish philosopher said...

And who is Richard Dawkins actually, the next Einstein? He’s basically a popular science writer.

If you think about it, how many truly great scientists have made any definite statements about God, the Bible, Darwinism, etc.? I can’t think of one.

Cameron said...

JP: All that I can say is that if this video clip does not cause you to question the credibility of scientists, then nothing will.

CH: If only that were all you would say. Science isn't a guarantee of moral or right conduct, anymore than being a Rabbi or Pastor is. As for credibility, a scientists credibility rests not on her personal moral authority, but on the repeatability and coherence of her results.

Finding a pedophile scientist of weak moral character does nothing to impeach the credibility of science.

JP: 'the universe is discoverable by reason alone' – like this jerk whimpering “I didn’t do anything”?

CH: Actually, 'No', it's nothing like that.

JP: He’s going to discover the universe for me? I’ll discover it for myself, thank you.

CH: And we can all see how well you are doing on that so far.

JP: If you think about it, how many truly great scientists have made any definite statements about God, the Bible, Darwinism, etc.? I can’t think of one.

CH: I think you have been sniffing glue again. Scientists don't typically make statements about God or the Bible (except to note how little evidence there is to support asserting any truth claims about either of them), and 'Darwinism' (or 'evolution' as normal people refer to it), is based on the writings of a scientist, and confirmed by other scientists with overwhelming veracity.

You say you can't find a scientist who 'has made defninite statements about evolution'? I can't find a credible scientist who would say anything against evolution! (See also: the Steve Project).

So whatever the point you were hoping to make here has been lost in that fog of toxic vapors you've been inhaling JP.

jewish philosopher said...

"Scientists don't typically make statements about God or the Bible"

I think the truly greatest scientists are smart enough not to, because they know nothing about it.

I am simply pointing out that the opinion of a scientist is worth nothing more or less than the opinion of any alcoholic. If he can prove it to me, fine. If not, I have no interest. Who knows why he's convinced himself of this or that.

avrum68 said...

"If he can prove it to me, fine. If not, I have no interest."

Ah, a moment of sanity.

It is true that my atheist friends embraced Dawkins/Harris, and with historical revisionism, made it seem like it was their ideas that led them to their conclusions. Their full of poo poo. My atheist pals know/have experienced, as much about religion as my local rabbi knows about warping beats in Ableton Live.

Alas, it is true that both camps should stick to doing what they do best, and not sully the other camp with their prejudice and bias.

Cameron said...

JP: "If he can prove it to me, fine. If not, I have no interest."

Avrum: Ah, a moment of sanity.

CH: I wish. The fact is that proving reality to Jacob isn't possible. He denies it constantly. The very people who are expected to be experts in the reality of our origins as a species are the same people he smears with backhanded charges of pedophilia.

Avrum: It is true that my atheist friends embraced Dawkins/Harris, and with historical revisionism, made it seem like it was their ideas that led them to their conclusions.

CH: I'm sure you will be more comfortable assuming that they are merely in the sway of a cult of personality, but the fact is more likely that they found a clarity of thought in Dawkins or Harris that supplemented their pre-existing thinking. I knew I was an atheist long before I ever read Dawkins.

Avrum: Their full of poo poo.

CH: Well, they are YOUR friends after all.

Avrum: My atheist pals know/have experienced, as much about religion as my local rabbi knows about warping beats in Ableton Live.

CH: I'm sure that holds true for their level of experience with Dengue Fever as well, but that doesn't mean they can't form a rational judgment that Dengue Fever isn't something they want to have. So there is no misunderstanding, I am indeed comparing your religion to a horrific disease.

Avrum: Alas, it is true that both camps should stick to doing what they do best, and not sully the other camp with their prejudice and bias.

CH: We agree. Except that I would radically circumscribe the areas in which I would suggest that religion has any authority to pontificate. Off the top of my head;

- Dancing angels and sharp small metal objects

- Gospel music

-.....

Can't think of any others at the moment, but that doesn't mean there aren't any!

badrabbi said...

This is so funny: JP shows a video of a pervert physician and concludes that all scientific endeavors are forever suspect!

A couple of comments later, someone else points out that in the same show, a pervert rabbi was also cought. Of course, using JP logic, the conclusion should be that all rabbis are full of shit too; but no, JP comes back with 'ya but the rabbi was a conservative'!

Then Cameron comes and as usual exposes the utter logical fallacy inherent in this anecdote becoming the rule.

JP, backed to a corner, then says something as brilliant as "a scientist's word is the same as an alcoholic's"

Great! I say again, JP, with friends like you to the cause of God, who needs enemies?

david said...

JP, for somebody who constantly champions the virtues of the Jewish people it is often very hard to see a practical demonstration of these virtues in what you write. This man obviously has issues, but to dump every scientist in the world in the same boat as him, with no further proof is ridiculous. There is already an example listed previously of a Rabbi that did the same thing as this scientist, your a Rabbi if I am not mistaken, is it fair to put you in this basket? Using your logic I don't think we have a choise.

If you don't agree with certain scientific theory that is one thing, but do not go making such obscene generalisations, it really does cost you any chance of having your point taken seriously.

jewish philosopher said...

To put it succinctly, it’s pathetic that the naïve masses are being misled by degenerates like this who happen to have some sort of impressive credentials. This rare, candid clip gives us an idea of what they really are.

avrum68 said...

CH: but the fact is more likely that they found a clarity of thought in Dawkins or Harris that supplemented their pre-existing thinking.

Yes, you're right. My point is that their upbringing, not unlike religious folk, reared them for a distaste for religion. So their ideas had very little to do with rational choices, and everythign to do with how they were raised.

CH: Well, they are YOUR friends after all.

To a certain degree, we're all full of crap. So ain't I saying I'm better, but at least I admit my bias. In general, atheists seem to have issues with their own bias and preconceived ideas.

CH: they can't form a rational judgment that Dengue Fever isn't something they want to have. So there is no misunderstanding, I am indeed comparing your religion to a horrific disease.

CH...most people I know are petrified of marriage. Some fear it's the worst decision they'll ever make. And they get married, and admit, on all levels, it's the best decision they've made (I'm one of those people). Religion/God is experiential (in Judaism, some refer to this as Orthoprax) and works best by doing, not by watching Fiddler on the Roof.

Perhaps most interesting is the ex-atheist Philosophy grads I'd bump itno at Aish/Ohr in Jerusalem.

CH: Can't think of any others at the moment, but that doesn't mean there aren't any!

Try Judaism for a year :)

avrum68 said...

" it’s pathetic that the naïve masses are being misled by degenerates like this who happen to have some sort of impressive credentials."

JP,

You don't sound convincing, you sound envious.

jewish philosopher said...

Avrum, just try getting into my hot tub. I'll send you through the wall.

badrabbi said...

Avrum;

Your habit always is to try to analyze orlabel people rather than to deal with their ideas.

Does it make a bit of difference regarding the ideas of theism or atheism whether I had a good or bad childhood?

Is the fact that Einstein was a bed wetter as a child relevant to his ideas of relativity?

avrum68 said...

"Your habit always"

Not always, but back to your point...

"is to try to analyze"

Yes, I find this most interesting.

"orlabel people rather than to deal with their ideas."

To think that ideas are a sum of rational thought and discipline study is to be somewhat delusional. Our bias forms most of how we spend our time, on blogs and other mediums.

"Does it make a bit of difference regarding the ideas of theism or atheism whether I had a good or bad childhood?"

Yes.

"Is the fact that Einstein was a bed wetter as a child relevant to his ideas of relativity?"

I'm not sure. But I doubt he'd be spending time on blogs. As my science/religious oriented friends keep telling me...real scientists don't have time to be blogging about theology and evolution.

jewish philosopher said...

"real scientists don't have time to be blogging about theology and evolution"

Of course not. Most of them are too busy having sex with 13 year old girls. (Sorry, I just had to say that.)

Josh said...

I honestly cannot believe you are a Rabbi. You're an orthadox Jew? That comment is a disgrace and embarrassing at worse; leitzanus at best. Good bye to this blog for me.

jewish philosopher said...

Josh, if you are truly that refined and sensitive, I admire you, however in that case you should not be using the Internet at all. Really.

badrabbi said...

JP are you a rabbi?

jewish philosopher said...

Yes.

Chad said...

Mr. Stein,
I couldn't find a contact page or I would've asked you this question there. As such, I feel I must apologize for posting it to this thread.

In the book of Genesis, there is the age old question, “Where did Cain get his wife?” Bible scholars the world over have answered that question by ascribing to a monogenistic paradigm to the genesis account. The problem is monogenism violates the Levitical Laws governing sexual behavior. Scholars have tried to explain this away by stating that the previous order was abrogated later on because of the genetic defects subsequent to the fall. If that is the case, there is no hint of it in Leviticus. To the contrary, it states that it is “wickedness” to have sexual relations with those who are “near of kin.” Near of kin is defined as a parent, sibling, niece, nephew, granddaughter, or grandson. Based on what is outlined in the Law, a monogenistic paradigm is impossible without violating the immutable character of God as embodied in the OT laws governing sexual relations. To keep God from being inconsistent a scenario involving polygenism would have to be necessary. However, the Biblical narrative offers no explanation as to how this is possible.

From a Christian perspective, an additional problem exists: A polygenistic model would seem to be at odds with the doctrine of original sin, and thus the peculiar genetic defect inherited by the descendants of Adam. Can you help?
Chad

Cameron said...

Avrum: "real scientists don't have time to be blogging about theology and evolution"

JP: Of course not. Most of them are too busy having sex with 13 year old girls. (Sorry, I just had to say that.)

CH: And here I thought it was you JP who advocated sex with children based on both biblical and Judaic tradition?

jewish philosopher said...

Cameron, I am too busy battling infidels, slicing them to pieces with my razor sharp mind, to advocate sex with anyone.

Seriously, you are correct that Talmudic law does not have a concept of "age of consent" or "statutory rape". To the best of my knowledge, these are Christian concepts unknown in other cultures. On the other hand, Jews do not have sex outside marriage and in modern times Jewish women marry over age 16, following the Christian custom.

jewish philosopher said...

Chad, according the Talmud, Adam and Eve had daughters as well. Cain married one of them. Although ordinarily this is forbidden, a special dispensation was made by God in this case since no other choice existed.

Josh said...

I said I was going to leave this blog but my curiosity forced me to see how the remainder of this thread would play out before I departed. And I'm glad I did. I've finally figured it out. JP is not a Jew. He's an atheist disguised as a religious Jew in order to make us all feel embarrassed about our religion. My proof?

"Cameron, I am too busy battling infidels, slicing them to pieces with my razor sharp mind, to advocate sex with anyone."

JP, this blog was meant to advocate Judaism expose atheism etc., etc., all it has done is make us look like a laughing stock to everyone. Cameron has torn you apart. I would say quit while your ahead but you've been left in a different country, behind a different realm of existence in the theoretical multiverse.

Chad said...

Thank you Joseph for your reply. I feel like asking if that is your final answer. I don't wish to appear obtuse, but the answer you gave is precisely the pat answer I was talking about in my earlier comment. There was a time when that answer was enough to satisfy me. But those days are passed. Like many of our searches for truth, there comes a time when we have to rework our theology, or reformulate our theories to fit the available data. Part of my objection to monogenism with regard to Leviticus 18 is my belief in the immutability of God. A special dispensation would mean that God would somehow have to deny his very being, since his Holiness, and thus his morality, are inherent in who He is. Such a suspension of self would be at odds with the absolutely moral character of God. Also, if what I am positing is true (God's immutable character) then it becomes inexplicable why God would violate himself morally, with a monogenistic paradigm. Sorry to be so hard headed about this. I really am searching for an answer which will satisfy my rational mind. But my search so far has been fruitless. I respect the fact that the standard answer is sufficient for you. In a way, I wish it was enough for me. But what I need is an answer which will put MY mind at ease and the "pat" answer no longer does the job. If you don't mind, I may come and visit from time to time. Thank you for indulging me.

jewish philosopher said...

Genesis 5:3 mentions the daughters of Adam. Clearly the first generation of men had to marry their own sisters. There was no other choice since only a single couple, Adam and Eve, were created. Personally, I don't see any reason why God cannot change the rules any time He wishes to.

jewish philosopher said...

Josh, I don't know how to break this to you, but I'm actually Hillary Clinton.

BTA said...

You are a deeply conflicted fool. You quote science when it suits your pathetic psycho-convert-zealot needs.

Do you pay attention to the Rabbis- Mondrowitz, The Tendlers, Kolko, and hundreds of others hidden by their communities?

BTA said...

You must be a perv to even watch that show. Don't think the beard and alleged conversion is fooling anyone.

BTA said...

Btw, the very guy who made the mistake of approving your conversion (Moshe Feinstein) was grandfather to two adulter-Rabbis and Aron Tendler had sexual interactions with underage girls. Both were molested by a frum relative. Wonder who that is.

You must be so proud of your baseless faith and self-contradictory zealotry.

jewish philosopher said...

BTA, can you give me the name of any leader of an ultra-Orthodox Jewish congregation who was ever proven to have done anything sexually improper?

BTA said...

How "ultra" is ultra? Bnei brak only?

Williamsburg? Anyway, we would never know because they keep things pretty quiet, now don't they?

However, we know the leadership of Ger chassidim in Israel have protected Mondrowitz for years. We know Kolko was protected by R. Sheinberg and the other "ultra" at Torah v'daas.

Anyway, your specious argument was to slander all scientists based on some medical researcher being caught. What he wanted to do was legal in talmudic times, as you've acknowledged elsewhere. You could have sex with a 3 year old with simanim.

BTA said...

"The evidence, however, is generally testimony by alleged victims 30 years after the fact, not video tapes of the crime itself."

Classic double standard! You seem to have no problem basing your whole life and many prejudices on the "mesora"- the most laughable "evidentiary" standard if ever there were one.

You haven't got video of Sinai, or solid evidence of just about anything you believe.

The reason so few rabbis were caught, compared to catholic priests was a) there are 1/1000 as many rabbis as priests and b) the ultra orthos hold by medieval mesira halachos which punish the victim. Cover-ups are rampant. Apparently, the evidence was good enough for the police and the District Attorney. You have no moral compass.

jewish philosopher said...

BTA, first of all, please post on your blog comments that I make there if you expect me to allow you to post your comments on my blog. That's only fair, isn't it?

I wonder how many other comments you don't allow to appear on your blog because you can't deal with them.

Second of all, read the earlier comments for answers to some of your questions.

"How "ultra" is ultra?" Check here if you need a definition.

"Cover-ups are rampant." Any proof you would care to share with me? Or do you just know Jews are evil? There is a word for that, you know.

jewish philosopher said...

"You haven't got video of Sinai"

May I watch your video of evolution?

BTA said...

You haven't got video of Sinai"

>>May I watch your video of >>evolution?

Nice selective quoting, you left out the further factor of there being no "solid evidence" for your beliefs.

THere is solid evidence for evolution. You can rant and rave all you like against the 99% of professional biologists and PhD professors in the field of biology.

Besides, who needs a video of evolution when we can reproduce it in the lab with fruit flies, bacteria, viruses. We see everwhere.

Your sole complaint would be with macroevolution (formation of new species from prior species).

Apparently the five finger bones in mammals like bats and whales (and the pelvic bones in whales) don't do much for you. But there is of course very specific evidence in the genetic data, however you have don't no investigation of that evidence, now have you?

Even Collins, the fundie christian believes in the vast fact of evolution. He just rationalizes that god made evolution, which is classic god of the gaps.

YOu don't want to go that route, rather you stick to the 2 or three versions of creation in the fairy tale book called torah.

jewish philosopher said...

Oh, my little BTA, how wrong you are. The proof of Torah is irrefutable, while evolution is clearly a ridiculous myth.

What if 99% of professional biologists are thinking with their penises? Has that possibility ever occurred to you, my naive little reader?