Friday, December 25, 2009

What Scientists are Really Doing


[a little carried away perhaps]

One statement which I frequently hear made by Jewish heretics is “Do we really live in a world where to admit that the global consensus of academic research might just be right is such a terrible thing? Is that the kind of world we have to live in? Is it?”

In other words, since most professors and scientists are not Orthodox Jews, then obviously Orthodox Judaism is false. I have a feeling this is really the main "argument" which Orthodox Jews who convert to atheism tell themselves to rationalize what they are doing.

First of all, this is a logical fallacy known as an "appeal to authority". The fact that an authority says something does not necessarily make it so. We know from history that most professors three hundred years ago were devout Christians and most professors a century ago were socialists. We know that most of the attendees of the Wannsee Conference which planned the Holocaust held doctorates.

Recently I read something which made me wonder a little more about what our great intellectuals are actually doing. A report from the National Science Foundation says employees were watching, downloading and e-mailing porn, sometimes for significant portions of their workdays, and over periods of months or even years. In one particularly egregious case, the report says one NSF “senior official” was discovered to have spent as much as 20 percent of his working hours over a two-year interval “viewing sexually explicit images and engaging in sexually explicit online ‘chats’ with various women.” Investigators calculated the value of the time lost at more than $58,000 — for that employee alone.

It sounds like a few of our distinguished academics should be checking into Dr. Drew's Sex Rehab.

It remains my belief that any honest, sober person who reviews the evidence will quickly be convinced of the truth of Orthodox Judaism. How many academics that includes may be very few.

93 comments:

Anonymous said...

you are very arrogant in your beliefs
"appeal to authority"=rabbis who have twisted Judaism

jewish philosopher said...

I never do that. When defending Judaism, I never claim "well, what do you think? Our great rabbis could be all wrong? Ridiculous!"

But jewish atheists CONSTANTLY do this. "scientists made the Internet and cell phones? How can you question their religious beliefs?" in fact this is basically the killer argument they use.

Well, I'm not too convinced.

Anonymous said...

The fact that scientists have been caught commitig all kinds of scientific fraud undermines their credibility somewhat.

Anonymous said...

You claim that "It remains my belief that any honest, sober person who reviews the evidence will quickly be convinced of the truth of the Orthodox Judaism." There are many people who look into the evidence, and come away NOT as Orthodox Jews. Every religion makes this argument, as do atheists. You believe that the world's mysteries can be explained by god...basically an easy way out

There are many laws which the Rabbis have instituted which are no longer applicable, or interpretations of the Torah which have no backing. But they are greater than us, so they must be right

Anonymous said...

what scientific fraud have they committed?

Anonymous said...

But jewish atheists CONSTANTLY do this. "scientists made the Internet and cell phones? How can you question their religious beliefs?" in fact this is basically the killer argument they use.

what is this supposed to mean?/trying to say?

Anonymous said...

Oh, where do I start? Let's see, there the use of Haeckel's faked embryo drawings in textbooks for a century. There the Piltdown hoax. There's the global warming debacle. Y'know, all those emails about "tricks." Then there's cold fusion.

Here's some cases I just picked at random from wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwang_Woo-Sukhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_A._Paquette

I just googled "scientific fraud" and got 144,000 hits.

There's just too much to choose. An embarassment of riches.

jewish philosopher said...

"There are many people who look into the evidence, and come away NOT as Orthodox Jews."

Anonymous blogger, I hate to destroy your innocent faith in humanity, however this simply proves that most people are liars and/or addicts.

Imagine if my ultimate, strongest argument for Judaism were "The Vilna Gaon, the Brisker Rov and the Chazon Ish were all Orthodox Jews.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vilna_Gaon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzchak_Zev_Soloveitchik
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chazon_Ish

And they were all great geniuses, as can be seen by the brilliance of the books which they wrote. Therefore, how can anyone question Judaism? What could be more silly?"

Yet, when debating with atheists, this type of logic is constantly employed. "Scientists have cured polio and sent a man to the moon. How can you question their belief in evolution? What could be more silly?"

Well, I'm not too impressed. Their may be some ulterior motives involved.

Anonymous said...

i searched god fraud and got 28,700,000 hits
JP- I have rarely seen such logic used by atheists

jewish philosopher said...

I get it all the time. Maybe we're not on the same blogs.

Whenever I back an atheist into a corner it's always "What do you think? You are right and all the professors are wrong? LOL"

Well, yeah. That's exactly what I think.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous at 1:11:00

I tried it and got 7570 hits. Didn't you read my whole post? I sited several historical cases of scintific fraud. I guess you've decided that since one thing I said is not an ironclad proof of scientific fraud, then you can disregard the whole post. What kind of logic is that?

Anonymous said...

And I was actually doing you a favor. I was making it easy for you to do your homework. I guess that's atheist gratitude for you.

Anonymous said...

JP-would you be able to point me to a post in which you backed an atheist into a corner? I have seen your comments on many blogs, you are not shy at all on the blogs which you read. I am fairly certain we are reading many of the same blogs

Anonymous said...

Other anonymous blogger, yes, there have been hoaxes in the scientific community. but there also have been in the Jewish Community. Jesus, Shabbtai Tzvi, Jacob Frank...just to name a few

jewish philosopher said...

Well, on this blog I give a link to the apparently very popular XGH. I think if you look around, you'll find this coming up elsewhere.

Here's another example

http://jewishatheist.blogspot.com/2005/06/leading-scientists-still-disbelieve-in.html

Anonymous said...

But all those people were quickly removed from the mainstream of Orthodoxy. The climate fraud was committed by tenured scientists. And Haeckle's drawing were used in text written by PhD's working in universities. I've seen them with my own eyes in the textbooks I used in my biology classes.

Anonymous said...

Remember, any scientist who watches or downloads porn automatically has his or her scientific work falsified.

Rabbis who go a-whorin and a-molestin? That's OK.

Anon1 said...

I must repeat the error that all of you fundies keep on making-- confusing scientists with the scientific method as a why of acquiring knowledge. The skeptics believe in the scientific method, they dont "believe" in the scientists the way that you fundies "believe" in the rabbis. Scientists don't believe in evolution because Darwin said so, they believe in it because the arguments and evidence are compelling (to them at least). Darwin only became an 'authority' because his ideas held up, not because he was Darwin.

Insofar that a scientist's work reflects the scientific method, he has credibility. If he is discovered to be a fraud or incompetent he is neither an authority nor a scientist.

I similarly don't discount religion because of a few bad apple rabbis, like the sex fiend Leib Tropper. The religious claims need to be argued on their own merit, without regard to whether this or that rabbi said it.

jewish philosopher said...

"I must repeat the error that all of you fundies keep on making-- confusing scientists with the scientific method as a why of acquiring knowledge. The skeptics believe in the scientific method, they dont "believe" in the scientists the way that you fundies "believe" in the rabbis."

Excuse me, but isn't it a skeptic I'm quoting here who says “Do we really live in a world where to admit that the global consensus of academic research might just be right is such a terrible thing? Is that the kind of world we have to live in? Is it?” In other words he simply believes in the "global consensus of academic research" (if there is such a thing).

"the sex fiend Leib Tropper"

He's actually probably a total prude compared to Richard Dawkins the leader of atheism who preaches polyamory. (The God Delusion page 184-185)
http://books.google.com/books?id=yq1xDpicghkC&pg=PA184

Almost everything skeptics say is either an "Appeal to Authority" ("Scientists have cured polio and built the space shuttle. Therefore if they say God is dead and evolution created us, I'll believe them.") or an ad hominem argument ("The rabbis are all tax evader or pedophiles; so of course anything they say is probably false.") However I see skeptics don't appreciate a little of their own medicine.

Larry Tanner said...

True to some extent. When it comes to biology, I give more credence to the explanations of trained professionals than to JP or the Bible. But even trained professionals don't get carte blanche; they can't just say anything and the rest of the world will simply assent.

JP, when you use the Bible to back up your points, is this not appeal to authority? If yes, what gives this book any authority on anything whatsoever. If not, what's the specific difference between appeal to authority and what you're doing?

You and your readers might be interested in how/why I became an Atheist.http://larrytanner.blogspot.com/2009/12/how-i-became-atheist.html

Anonymous said...

I usually don’t post in Blogs but your blog forced me to, amazing work.. beautiful …

Anonymous said...

When people talk about the scientific method, I get a little confused because I encountered a number of different versions of the scientific method in the different textbooks I taught from.

And scientiicn consensus is used to destroy the careers of people who question the prevailing orthodoxy as much as it is used to determine the truth. So why should we believe it?

jewish philosopher said...

Larry, my point is that the fact that an authority says something does not necessarily make it so. Many so called skeptics however honestly believe that if most professors believe this or that, then it is so, and any further discussion is religious fanaticism.

"when you use the Bible to back up your points, is this not appeal to authority"

It's a document which is evidence of something. When you use your driver's license to prove who you are, that's not an appeal to authority.

Larry Tanner said...

Would you agree that just because the Bible says something does not make it so?

jewish philosopher said...

Well, I would say that the Torah is validated by Jewish tradition, just like your birth certificate for example is validated by the government.

Larry Tanner said...

Would you agree that just because the "Jewish tradition" says something does not make it so? After all, just because the government says something doesn't make it so.

Now, what about those claims of the biologists and paleontologists? Don't the fossils and the molecular biology, the chemistry and the genetics - doesn't the diverse and abundant body of evidence from these and other scientific sources validate (to use your word) the general claim of evolution, which is that life developed and diversified by a complex array of dynamic natural forces interacting?



On the other hand, I fail to see how a six-day creation story is validated by Jewish tradition. I don't see how Jewish tradition validates a global flood, or the sun and moon staying put. I have never hear a validation through Jewish tradition of the murder of Aaron's sons, or the earth-swallowing of the rebels (along with their wives and little babies) in the desert.

Indeed, Jewish tradition cannot validate the existence of a historical Moses. http://larrytanner.blogspot.com/2009/12/historical-exodus-sorry-but-probably.html

Larry Tanner said...

"It remains my belief that any honest, sober person who reviews the evidence will quickly be convinced of the truth of Orthodox Judaism."

Nice belief, but this honest and sober person has reviewed the evidence and bocame convinced that Judaism was man-made. It borrowed from other ancient mythologies and revised and re-interpreted its own myths over time. Judaism was many things in ancient times before rabbinic Judaism became "orthodox."

I believe that most intellectually honest and courageous people see that this scenario is more probably true, and they also realize that life goes on happily nonetheless.

Anon1 said...

"Almost everything skeptics say is either an "Appeal to Authority" ("Scientists have cured polio and built the space shuttle. Therefore if they say God is dead and evolution created us, I'll believe them.")

I don't know which skeptic you're quoting, but you got that wrong. We say that "science" has brought about the polio cure and space shuttles. Not the scientists. Its the method. The people are just agents. Its not an argument by authority. Methods of DNA sequencing have revolutionized genetics. But we're not appealing to the authority of Crick and Watson.

Having said that, I do agree that we should not have knee-jerk blind faith in every new statement that comes out of scientists. A healthy dose of skepticism is in order, and only something that stands the test of time and peer review should be accepted.

"When you use your driver's license to prove who you are, that's not an appeal to authority."

Drivers licenses can be fabricated, bought on the internet for 10 bucks. Yet current law enforcement and organized government keeps it in check. But tradition is a much weaker mechanism for validating claims. it has to be corroborated by other independent evidence.

Anonymous said...

If the scientists are spending so much time looking at on-line porn when they are suppose to be working, I have to questionthe quality of the work they are doing. They must be doing really bad science. So why should I believe them? It's the result of shoppy work habits.

jewish philosopher said...

"Would you agree that just because the "Jewish tradition" says something does not make it so?"

Does Greek tradition make the Peloponnesian War so? Most people seem to feel it does.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2009/07/is-history-bunk.html

"Don't the fossils and the molecular biology, the chemistry and the genetics - doesn't the diverse and abundant body of evidence from these and other scientific sources validate (to use your word) the general claim of evolution, which is that life developed and diversified by a complex array of dynamic natural forces interacting?"

Nope.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2008/03/evolution-science-hijacked-by-atheism.html

"On the other hand, I fail to see how a six-day creation story is validated by Jewish tradition."

Check this out.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2008/09/how-i-understand-genesis.html

"I don't see how Jewish tradition validates a global flood"

Not a problem.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2008/10/biblical-deluge.html

"this honest and sober person"

Can you offer any means of verifying that? Bear in mind that the most vile criminals generally describe themselves as being extremely nice so your own claims about yourself have no value.

"But tradition is a much weaker mechanism for validating claims. it has to be corroborated by other independent evidence."

No problem.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2009/06/holocaust-clear-evidence-of-gods-hand.html

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2009/06/gods-wisdom.html

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2008/08/miracle-of-jewish-community.html

Anon1 said...

The "evidence" which you supply of tradition, supporting the Bible's claims, are no more valid than the tradition claims of any other faith. Every Christian and Muslim can bring "examples" of god's justice--according to their own theology. The other examples of supposed "wisdom" pre-dated the Torah.

In science we would call this level of evidence D-- unsupported by evidence, other than "experts".

JP, as I suggested earlier-- you should give up on your silly "proofs" of Judaism, just settle for making a choice of values and lifestyle. Although that can be disputed, too, it still seems much more rational than arguing divine justice based on the holocaust or musing about the mysteries of snakes entering women's sex organs.

jewish philosopher said...

"no more valid than the tradition claims of any other faith"

What evidence is there of the Holocaust? The Apollo moon landings? Alexander the Great? Merely hearsay, tradition, no repeatable, exact laboratory experiments.

If similar evidence were presented for alien intelligent life, I'm sure it would be considered to be very acceptable.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2009/07/ayers-rock-and-mount-sinai.html

Anon1 said...

"What evidence is there of the Holocaust?"

I truly regret that you are unable (or maybe, unwilling??) to make the distinction between evidence for WW2 and supernatural religious claims. Talmudic scholars pride themselves in making distinctions, so I am surprised...

If you wish to expose that kind of thinking, just say, "hey, everybody should be just believe what they want, without regard for reasoning or logic" and just leave it at that. Its actually easier to swallow that then the distorted/contorted logic that is written here.

As Yehoshua Leibovits said, belief is an act of will, not of logic.

I repeat-- you should stick to values and lifestyle arguments...a bit of friendly advice...

Anonymous said...

Larry:

If by molecular evidence you mean the molecular clock, well, there are big problems with that.

jewish philosopher said...

Anon1, I am not surprised that you deny the Torah in spite of clear, overwhelming and irrefutable evidence.

In this video, a young man who is so alcoholic that soon after this documentary was finished, he died of alcoholism, tells the interviewer that he has no drinking problem.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rvkqa29kJa8&feature=youtube_gdata

In this video you can see Iranian intellectuals deny the Holocaust.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7kqpY8KtKI&feature=youtube_gdata

jewish philosopher said...

My point of course is that once a person has a strong bias in favor of a certain point of view, no evidence will matter to him. Since accepting Torah would mean an immense sacrafice for most people (Larry for example would have to divorce his gentile wife) the easiest thing to do is just lie and deny it.

Anon1 said...

OK.
Hypothetically speaking, what evidence would convince you that the Torah was written by men?

You and I apparently disagree on what evidence is.

Larry Tanner said...

"My point of course is that once a person has a strong bias in favor of a certain point of view, no evidence will matter to him."

I think this is probably true. JP, you have a clear bias to accept Torah as presenting actual events as they happened and depicting beings such as God, Abraham and Moses as real. No amount of argument, logic, or evidence will convince you to see the Torah otherwise. Indeed, it's a religious point of pride to maintain belief before mountains of contrary evidence. Religion is irrational for people today, and this is not an insult but merely a fact.

I have to disagree with you on one thing. Accepting Torah would not be as immense a sacrifice for me as you seem to suggest. Yes, I'd need to divorce my wife, which would be very sad and difficult, but it certainly could be done. Living a Torah life is no different than living any other life, and if one finds it rewarding living that life becomes all the easier. Heck, some surviving prisoners of Auschwitz even reported that they were able to get acclimated and experience moments of happiness.

jewish philosopher said...

"what evidence would convince you that the Torah was written by men?"

If the fossil evidence would strongly support, rather than contradict, the Darwinian theory of evolution, I think that would convince me that Judaism is false and atheism is true.

http://www.ucg.org/booklets/ev/fossil-record-expectation-fact.asp

"JP, you have a clear bias to accept Torah as presenting actual events"

Actually, my motives are clearly very honest.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2009/01/motives.html

"I'd need to divorce my wife, which would be very sad and difficult, but it certainly could be done."

Are you even capable of committing to a healthy diet, in spite of the unquestionable life threatening consequences of obesity?

http://larrytanner.blogspot.com/2009/07/take-load-off-fanny.html

If not, how would you be able to sacrifice your entire life for the sake of some rabbi's arguments? It doesn't seem likely.

Anon1 said...

Forget evolution for the moment. I asked about evidence regarding the authorship of the Torah. What would convince you that it was written by men?

Larry Tanner said...

There are many resources you could read to get this point: The fossil record - among other lines of evidence - absolutely establishes evolution as a fact. To deny this evidence and the fact of evolution is delusional and irrational for you.

But you make it very clear that your motives are to protect your bias and anti-intellectual prejudice. It's fine, but your reliance on Torah and rabbis is all "Appeal to Authority." That's all any religion is, when we get down to it.

Thanks for your concern about my weight and health. As I have mentioned before, I am quite lean and healthy these days. I'll be running the Bay State Marathon next October, as I have before. If you're dedicated enough perhaps you can join me.

jewish philosopher said...

"I asked about evidence regarding the authorship of the Torah."

The fossils clearly validating evolution would demonstrate that the Torah is false.

"The fossil record - among other lines of evidence - absolutely establishes evolution as a fact."

Actually it merely establishes that life was different in the distant past, nothing more or less.

"But you make it very clear that your motives are to protect your bias and anti-intellectual prejudice."

Where?

"I am quite lean and healthy these days."

Loosing is easy, maintenance is almost impossible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesity#Management

Even with surgery, long term results may not be good.

http://www.webmd.com/diet/weight-loss-surgery/features/weight-loss-surgery-long-term-results

"I'll be running the Bay State Marathon next October"

I hope you're going to put a video of that on youtube. I want to watch you crossing that finish line.

Anon1 said...

And what in the fossils would "prove" to you that evolution is true?

Anonymous said...

Well, JP, when your kid takes his next dosage of meds or uses his wheelchair equipment, please don't thank the porn-addicted scientists and researchers who made that possible.

jewish philosopher said...

The problems are very obvious and well known. Since Darwin, Darwinists have been desperately trying to explain why the fossils are not really a problem. I don't buy it.

Click on this for a little detail.

http://www.ucg.org/booklets/ev/fossil-record-expectation-fact.asp

jewish philosopher said...

"Well, JP, when your kid takes his next dosage of meds or uses his wheelchair equipment, please don't thank the porn-addicted scientists and researchers who made that possible."

I think you forgot your meds this morning.

And I hope when you put your pants on you're thanking the Chinese Communist Party who make them possible.

Larry Tanner said...

"http://www.ucg.org/booklets/ev/fossil-record-expectation-fact.asp"

How interesting that in your appeal to authority you choose a dubious organization (the "United Church of God") with no actual connection to anyone who actually specializes in the fossil evidence.

Here, do you want to learn about fossils from Niles Eldredge (a name you've brought up before)? Try this: http://www.cornell.edu/mediavolume/events/2008/20080725-niles-eldredge.mp4

So, you have not shown that fossils "disprove" evolution, and it is rather that the fossil evidence establishes evolution as a fact.

Now, let's talk about the Bible, which is the single biggest source of evidence that god and religion is man-made fiction.

What do you make of 2 Kings 2:23-24? In the name of "the Lord" Elisha has 42 children killed by she-bears because two "small children" jeer at him.

Forget about the horrible immorality - the murderous, tyrannical, maniacal streak - of both Elisha and God. The very thought that one could curse other people and so cause wild animals to some out and murder the people and their neighbors is absurd. It's clearly a story that's either been made up or greatly exaggerated.

A passage like this is one reason that any honest, sober person will conclude that (a) the Bible is made up and (b) the character God may be many things, but all-good is not one of them. Any honest, sober person will reject the appeal to the Bible's authority on moral or historical matters because the Bible has no credibility.

jewish philosopher said...

Everyone admits that the fossils are a major problem for evolution. If asteroid strikes once caused life to advance, why don't evolutionists applaud global warming today? The whole thing is nonsense.

Scientists love evolution for a simple reason: if there is no God then they, not clergy, are society's leading intellectuals.

About murder, murder means killing innocent people. If God killed someone He knew he was not innocent,

Larry Tanner said...

JP, this non-sequitur reasoning is a new low, even for you. Please try again.

God murdered children and it wasn't murder? Wow, utter, utter failure on your part - total moral and intellectual bankruptcy.

Looks like I've smacked you down good once again.

Anonymous said...

Evolution means that species change into other species over time. The fossil record does not show this. Only different species living at different times.

And what, Larry, what is your basis for saying that the Torah is immoral? What is your basis for syaing anything is immoral, or that morality even exists. It seems to me that you are borrowing the morality you were taught by your theistic parents and teachers. Without G-d, moral arguements don't even start.

And I, for one, find it difficult to be Orthodox. I'v lost out on job opportunities because of my yarmulka. I sometimes skip lunch becuase kosher food is hard to find in the neighborhoods I work in. MY co-workers bring in food that looks real good for parties. I have to refuse. My supervisor gave me a hard time over leaving early for shabbos. I left early anyway. And there are movies I'de liek to see, but they might have scenes that are inappropriate. And sometimes I had to leave for work before Zman tefilla in the morning. I had to put on my tallis and tefillin in the teachers lounge. My colleages' stares were a little embarrasing. Why would any person choose this lifestyle if he didn't think it was true?

Anonymous said...

This is interesting:


http://www.nature.com/nphoton/journal/v3/n11/abs/nphoton.2009.189.html

Just another example of how nature is smarter than scientists.

Anon1 said...

"Everyone admits that the fossils are a major problem for evolution."

That's quite a clever and deceitful reversal-- fossils are THE MAJOR EVIDENCE for evolution (along with the remarkable similarity of various forms of life), although not all of the details are known. To turn it around and say that that the missing pieces make fossils evidence against evolution-- well, only you, JP, could say that.

"About murder, murder means killing innocent people. If God killed someone He knew he was not innocent,"

Like the orthodox rabbis who went into the gas chambers.

Brain science research is close to cracking the mystery of the mind and consciousness, after which all of your "soul" arguments will sound totally silly. Furthermore if and when (and I think we will) we find life on another planet, it will be interesting to see what excuses you come up with the reconcile it with the Bible (other lost worlds, etc). Just like your strange and forced arguments explaining away fossils and irrefutable evidence of the existence of the planet for millions of years.

"Scientists love evolution for a simple reason: if there is no God then they, not clergy, are society's leading intellectuals."

This is a definite advantage. I would concede that evolution makes atheism credible, although skepticism was already beginning before Darwin. But, many Christian creationists have found a way to reconcile the two. Frankly I don't see why you reject that, while accepting other kinds of odd reconciliations (like with fossils, holocaust was justice, etc).

Oddly I consider you more of a skeptic than me-- rejecting the concensus in favor of strange theories, of lost worlds, special creations, angry gods who kill millions, conspiracies of world scientists to silence clergy, etc. Do you think that the Jews were behind 9/11?

jewish philosopher said...

"JP, this non-sequitur reasoning is a new low"

Why?

"fossils are THE MAJOR EVIDENCE for evolution"

How?

"Brain science research is close to cracking the mystery of the mind and consciousness"

Where?

"it will be interesting to see what excuses you come up with the reconcile it with the Bible"

It will be interesting to see what excuses you come up with the if they believe in the Bible.

"This is a definite advantage."

And as a result the 20th century was by far the most violent in history.

The fact is that the more science progresses, the more it demonstrates atheism to be false.

The Big Bang is a big problem for atheists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Religious_interpretations

The vestigial organs have pretty much all been found to be useful.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Wiedersheim

The fossils unmistakably show catastrophism, not evolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catastrophism

Embryology is no longer a "proof" of evolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recapitulation_theory

Quantum mechanics contradicts determinism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle#Critical_reactions

However for certain classes of people, primarily whore mongers, drug addicts, Communists and scientists, atheism will remain the religion of choice for obvious reasons. Facts will be ignored, fantasies will be concocted and, at least partly fueled by Internet porn, the insane cult of death will march on.

I don't believe that I can stop this catastrophe completely, however as someone once said "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

Anon1 said...

"Just another example of how nature is smarter than scientists."

Another meaningless statement. What does that mean? That the scientific method is invalid?

If you mean that people are limited and can be wrong about things, nu? whats the chiddush?

"Evolution means that species change into other species over time. The fossil record does not show this. Only different species living at different times."

And in different places.

You were a biology teacher, right? Evolution, like other scientific theories, involves inductive reasoning to explain the observations. Nothing can proven 100% by direct observation since our senses can be fooled. But, we use the best explanation that we can, and evolution (punctuated or not) is the best explanation for the fossil data, genetics, and other biological information that we have, and the theory holds up. I wonder how the "torah theory" explains fossils and biology. Does the "torah theory" explain the existence of sulfur breathing worms on the ocean floor, or blind lizards living in caves? It doesn't. Because there are too many contradictions and it can't make predictions, which evolutionary biology most certainly can.

You know, the germ theory of disease couldn't be observed directly until a few decades ago. It was based on inferential reasoning. We could see that a person was exposed to a certain germ. We could see that he got sick. Sometimes we could see the germ in his body. But how do we know that the germ caused the disease? Could we actually watch the germ making the person sick? Maybe something else caused it and the germ was just coincidence. Maybe it was a bad spirit or punishment from the devil, and the devil had germs on him. But we knew-- from inductive reasoning-- the germ theory gave the best explanation for the observations.

Most of science uses inductive logic. So stop insisting on seeing an ameba turning into a human to verify evolution. Fossils are a static picture, not a movie, so don't expect 3-D Dolby images. To demand that shows a poor understanding of scientific reasoning.

I think that a misuderstanding of what scientific reasoning means, underlies the debate between skeptics and JP. I think he simply doesn't understand scientific logic.

Anon1 said...

Mining for links doesn't help you. We can have a link war that doesn't lead anywhere. Bombastic statements don't help you prove your point either.

What in your view is the definition of "evidence", with regards to learning about the physical world (not legalistic)?

jewish philosopher said...

Speaking of logic, it's my experience that atheism is supported by a mountain of logical fallacies.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2009/06/post-about-comments.html

New Orthodox Philosopher said...

Scientists are human. So they have sexual organs as well. Like emmm.... TROPPER

jewish philosopher said...

Larry Tanner has left a new comment on your post "What Scientists are Really Doing":

Nathan,

If you want to have a conversation with me, post a comment over at my site, http://larrytanner.blogspot.com.

JP needs a break. He has reverted back to familiar canards about atheism and atheists that have been demonstrated false again and again. Instead of sticking to something he knows - he claims to be a "great Talmudic scholar" - he brings in crackpot science, quote-mines, and ad hominem and ad hoc reasoning.

I guess he feels a deep need to preserve the special complex he has about atheists. Anyone who has such a fascination with atheism is probably struggling with it himself, in my humble opinion.

So, time to leave JP and let him lick his wounds. Other folks' blogs (incuding mine) offer more dialogue, better reasoning, and civil argumentation. No disrespect meant to JP, but I cannot see that this blog has helped him grow, learn or develop in any way. If it has, maybe he will tell us about it.

Publish this comment.

Reject this comment.

Moderate comments for this blog.

Posted by Larry Tanner to Jewish Philosopher at Monday, December 28, 2009 8:57:00 AM

jewish philosopher said...

I accidently rejected the above comment. Sorry.

Now allow me translate it:

"I am sick of being humilated constantly by this smart alek rabbi, so I'm going back to beer and porn for a few days."

jewish philosopher said...

Scientists are human. So they have sexual organs as well. Like emmm.... TROPPER

but is anyone saying "how can you question Judaism? Rabbi Tropper says it's true." I don't think so.

Anonymous said...

Many sources in the Torah canon discuss cycles of creation and destruction. The fossil evidence fits that explanation better than evolution.

Anonymous said...

Anon1:

Bling lizrds living in caves are a result of devolution. They lost sight after they were created. No species to species change necessary. And blind cave fish are considered the same species as the sited cave fish.

Now, a lot of the predictions made by evolutionist didn't pan out. They talked a lot about vestigal organs. Turns out that they serve various purposes. Same thing with junk DNA. The Id people said it wasn't. The ID people called that one right. The evolutionists predited that a link between dinosaurs and birds would be found. They found the archaeoptryx, and were happy. Now, it turns out that the archaeopteryx can;t be a bird ancestor, and birds could not have descended from dinosaurs. Now Michael Behe predicted, based on ID, that the malaria parasite wouldn't evolve a way around sickle cell disease. He got that right, so far. And he predicted that HIV virus wold not be able to develope resistance to a three drug cocktail. So far, so good.

And what's the evolutionary exaplantion for sulfur eating worms?

jewish philosopher said...

I personally love debating with Internet atheists - I call them Kefirah Klowns.

"But how can you believe in God! Darwin proved that chemicals, plus radiation plus time makes people, no God needed. And the chemicals themselves, just popped out of a Big Bang of course. Don't you know science?"

I know science, and I know a self serving fairy tale when I hear one too.

Anon1 said...

Anonymous/Nathan

So much of what you said is blatantly wrong. There are vestigial organs and there is "junk" DNA. Nobody can make predictions based on ID, since who can know what god will do?

Go and study evolutionary biology and its quantitative methods, you will see that it contains models that make predictions.

As far as the worms, the answer is contained in your question-- if life is possible it just happens, and evolves to adapt to its environment. No other cosmic purpose needed. Like trilobytes. They're not even part of a food chain. Much more logical than thinking "god" put them there to serve Him or man.

As far as the "sacrifices" of your orthodox lifestyle-- being a member of any "clan" has its benefits, especially in a tolerant society. Your not practicing orthodoxy in a vacuum by yourself. I actually find being a skeptic harder than it was when I was a true believer, when I just had to listen to what the rabbis say about any question and possessed simple truths. Now, when I suspect that humans are just an insignificant and passing part of the cosmos, with no afterlife, and no God making sure things work out OK-- this uncertainty is much more difficult. But it broadens my horizons. It makes life that much more amazing and wonderous. Kind of like taking the pink pill in Matrix. (or whas it the blue one??)
And it gives man MORE, not LESS responsibility.

jewish philosopher said...

"And it gives man MORE, not LESS responsibility."

Rationally, what type of responsibility does a minute, soulless bag of chemicals, possessing no free will or choice, have?

Anonymous said...

Anon1:

They found most of the vestigal organs do serve a purpose. The appendix now is know torestock the colon wih bacteria. They now do't even bother calling it junk DNA, but rather non-coding DNA. It serves lots of vital functions.
I suggest you keep up with the current research.


And the sacrifices I made to be frum are real and material. It caused real hardship. That's a lot harder than being forced to think for myself. You yourself said that your life is now "wonderous."

Behe's accurate predictions were based on the fact that organism contain structures and function that consist of interdependant parts. It is hard to explain how this coiuld have come about by a random process. It is also hard to explain how you can chaneg it wihtout destroying its function because you have to change all the parts at once.

And, if you are an atheist, you can choose to have no responsibility at all. You can choose to do drugs all day. You can assume rsponsibilty if you want to, but there is no good reason to do so.

And trilobytes were part of a food chain. They ate debris, and were eaten by anomalocaris,

Anon1 said...

"Behe's accurate predictions were based on the fact that organism contain structures and function that consist of interdependant parts. It is hard to explain how this coiuld have come about by a random process. It is also hard to explain how you can chaneg it wihtout destroying its function because you have to change all the parts at once."

Again a total conceptual misunderstanding of evolution. Your argument is just another form of the watchmaker argument. Multiple traits often co-evolve, because of mutations, with the reproductively successful combinations being perpetuated. The fact that much simpler forms of complex structures that we see in higher animals, exist in other forms of life, shows that many variation and permutations are possible. So in leaves you can have veins but no heart, etc. Saying that all the parts of an organism just "came together randomly" is totally false.

"They found most of the vestigal organs do serve a purpose. "

Perhaps you still use your toenails to climb trees and grab prey-- I don't. Does your body hair keep you warm? And I don't miss my 3rd molars (wisdom teeth). Do you?

Any many non-coded genes are pseudogenes, which are remnants of ancient characteristics which are no longer functional.

"Rationally, what type of responsibility does a minute, soulless bag of chemicals, possessing no free will or choice, have?"

More responsibility than somebody whose imagined, ancient and angry god tells him what is right rather having to use his own brain and conscience to tell him. Obviously, religious people have no moral sense and thus need a god to tell him not to cause suffering to others.

jewish philosopher said...

"rather having to use his own brain and conscience to tell him."

I see, your conscience is your guide. I've heard that.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2008/12/always-let-your-conscience-be-your.html

It's perfectly obvious that a true atheist will consider other humans to be merely meat machines, of no greater importance than amoebas. He will be a hedonist, narcissist and psychopath. Indeed, many are.

Anonymous said...

You say atheists SHOULD BE hedonists, narcissists and psychopaths but who is in the news today but ANOTHER person who wants to kill everyone on a plane for god/allah.

Reality contradicts you. Never mind about your logical fallacies (straw man, no true scotsman, etc.).

jewish philosopher said...

This is what I love about atheists. If I tried I couldn't think of stupider arguments. People are going to suspect I make these comments up myself, but I really don't. I couldn't think of them.

What on earth is the connection between myself and Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/6896128/Detroit-terror-attack-profile-of-Umar-Farouk-Abdul-Mutallab.html

Because what he believes in is some twisted, fake version of my religion? If he had the chance he would kill me in a second and the feeling is basically mutual.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2008/09/seven-years-ago.html

Regarding my religion, check this out.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2009/02/massacre-of-midianites.html

Anonymous said...

"Because what he believes in is some twisted, fake version of my religion? If he had the chance he would kill me in a second and the feeling is basically mutual."

Both of you are twisted psychopaths, and you have made your god into your image. When you look at the nutjobs, scoundrels, killers, and destroyers of the world, they all profess belief in god. They all justify their actions by appealing to your god. It's reported in the news every single day. And it's your fault. You and your god are to blame. You've ruined the world and you refuse to accept your responsibility.

When you religious guys kill each other off, please leave the atheists out of it so we can continue peacefully acquiring knowledge and living lives of decency.

jewish philosopher said...

Now this is getting so stupid it's scary.

"When you look at the nutjobs, scoundrels, killers, and destroyers of the world, they all profess belief in god."

Which god did Mao and Stalin believe in?

"leave the atheists out of it so we can continue peacefully acquiring knowledge and living lives of decency"

Like Bill Maher
http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2009/08/winner.html

Kelly O'Connor
http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2009/05/rational-response-squad.html

or Kim Jong-il
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Jong-il

I'll leave you peaceful, decent guys alone.

Anonymous said...

Aren't you a stupid and strange little man? What do you care about Stalin and Mao, who made themselves gods and who caused not nearly so much suffering as your god? Kim Jong is the same ilk.

What's wrong with Maher and the other girl? You think your stupid little problems with sex affect anyone else?

Your god, your religion have reatarded the world long enough. You religious people need to fight it out and go away. Go to israel and claim (ahem) your land. Just go. A true believer would.

jewish philosopher said...

Now I think I understand you a little more. You are a criminal. You are torn apart by guilt about all the lives you've destroyed. You are terrified of the burning wrath of God, so you rant and rage against God. As if that will help. LOL.

Tell me, atheist criminal, how many rotten bodies are your in basement? How many corpses in your back yard? How many little boys have you raped? Confess, atheist criminal. Tell me immediately.

Joely276 said...

Not nearly as many as the rabbi's have raped.....

Anonymous said...

Anon1:

Myu toenails protect my toes. People who have wisdom teeth use them to chew. My wife likes my body hair. And what's the evolutionary explanation for the fact that humans acquire body hair at puberty? Its not a derived characteristic, since apes don't have it. Whatever the evolutionary explanation is, it will work for a theistic one.

And again, vestigal organs are not proof of evolution, but rather devolution. Something function was lost after creation.
And the fact that we don't know the purpose of some genes doesn't mena that a purpose doesn't exist. Now they'vwe found that lots of there pseudogenes really make RNA that doesn't code make proteins, but rather control various functions. And the whole arguement from vestigal is a religious one, not a scientific one. The arguement is "why would
G-d creat something that serves not purpose?" But if the rules are that no religious explanations are allowed, then religious questions shouldn't be allowed either.


Now, if a development with interdependant parts can evolve so easily, then why can't plasmodium evolve resistance to quinine, or a way around sickle cell disease? That's Behe point, supported by the empirical evidence. And how something with interdependant parts evolve anyway, when it doesn't work unless all the parts are there. I know they suggest functional intermediates, but they ahven't really explain how the intermediates could function.

Anonymous said...

Anon1:

An atheist can be responsible if he chooses to be so. If he choose not, then he can be a drug user. There is no reason to be responsible beyond feeling like it.

Now, if you are a moral person merely because it makes you feel good, do you really deserve any credit for being moral. I eat donuts because it feels good. So you are no better than I am when I eat donuts. Now, I use whatever measn are at my disposal to become a better person, even when I don't feel like it.

Anonymous said...

And anonymous at 1:26

So all that menas is that atheists have a marked tendency to deifiy themselves and become mass murderers. And since the worst mass murderera were atheists, and a dispropotionate percentage of mass murders were atheists, and vise versa, if the wordl becomes atheistic, then we can expect a marked increase in mass murder.

jewish philosopher said...

Not nearly as many as the rabbi's have raped.....


Name one orthodox Jew ever convicted of forcible rape.

Joely276 said...

Well they can't be named since the religious comunity protects abuser/rapists. So all your rabbis get away with doing whatever the hell they want.

jewish philosopher said...

That's why it's so easy for us to kill children and get blood for matzo - law enforcement never punishes religious people.

I can't wait for Passover - gentile blood sauce and matzo balls! Yum!

Joely276 said...

Why is it always when you got no answer you just try mocking the question or change the subject???

Nothing to do with blood in your Matzah but religious people protect abusers and condemn victims. We both know that. so try answering this or say you give up. don't just ignore the question just like you ignored the email I sent you.

You have no answer?

jewish philosopher said...

Sure I've got an answer.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2008/09/orthodox-jewish-crime.html

Now why don't you spend your time worrying about atheists who are mass killers

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2008/12/famous-atheist.html

or cannibals

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2008/07/atheists-in-their-own-words.html

Anonymous said...

I do beieve that it is very possible that Rabbis are afraid that OJ's accused of crimes won't get a fair trial in an American court. I recall reading that by the trial of the New Square Four the prosecuter tlod the jury that the fact that they were Chassidim means that they were more likely to commit fraud. The judge should have declared a mistrial, but he didn't. I've heard of similar cases.

Anonymous said...

JP, what of YOUR explicit sexual comments on other blogs? Does this not negate YOUR opinion? You are very self righteous and frankly arrogant, and that is more damnable than anything else.

Joely276 said...

Anon. That still does not give them a green light to go and rape little kids.....

AND JP YOU STILL DID NOT ANSWER MY QUESTION!!! AND THE EMAIL I SENT YOU FOR THAT MATTER!!!

And yes JP I am an Atheist and proud of it..... And don't tell me I should learn the torah and see that it's true. because I already wasted 18 years of my life doing that......


And After reading your comments on other peoples Blog. I came to the conclusion that you are a perv and a sexual pr editor.... You should be locked up.

jewish philosopher said...

"JP, what of YOUR explicit sexual comments on other blogs?"

Were those comments arousing or appealing to sexual desire or imagination? If not, I see no problem. The Bible and Talmud also often discuss sex, as do books about medicine and psychology.

"You are very self righteous and frankly arrogant"

Frankly, I don't really see it that way. If a doctor advices his patients not to smoke, not to drink heavily and not to have unprotected sex, for example, he is hardly self righteous and arrogant. He's just doing his job.

"I came to the conclusion that you are a perv and a sexual pr editor.... You should be locked up."

Of course you have. The Bolsheviks used to shoot rabbis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Soviet_Union#Judaism

The Bolsheviks are gone but we're still here.

Anonymous said...

Joely276:

To the best of my knowledge no Rabbi has ever said that it is okay to rape kids.

Joely276 said...

JP,

the comments were advising that you are a predator and a sick person.

jewish philosopher said...

I have horns too. Like all Jews.

Anonymous said...

The funny part about this entire conversation is that the Torah is a strong supporter of evolution and is not disproved even though evolution is true.

In fact it may even be an issur deoraita to claim otherwise...

Anonymous said...

"Name one orthodox Jew ever convicted of forcible rape."

Rabbi Yisorel Weingarten.

But you're far too much of a coward to post this comment, so you'll moderate it and no-one will ever see it.

jewish philosopher said...

Israel Weingarten was convicted on two counts of transportation of a minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity and three counts of travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1552806.html

No rape conviction.