Posted on 12/12/2010 6:29:34 PM PST by jdlevy95
In 1961, the Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, of righteous memory, and Professor Cyril Domb exchanged correspondence on the subject of Torah and Science. Professor Domb was a professor of mathematics at Cambridge University from 1952 to 1954 and professor of theoretical physics at King's College, London, from 1954 to 1981. From 1981 to 1989, Domb was professor of physics at Bar-Ilan University, and remains professor emeritus there. He is also president of the Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists. He now lives in Israel.
(Excerpt) Read more at chabad.org ...
An aside--this understanding should be absorbed by anyone who needs to defend scripture against scoffers and the not-yet-informed. However it's impossible to hold a darwinian's attention (particularly the youth) long enough to understand and debate.
Feedback welcome!
http://www.chabad.org/therebbe/article_cdo/aid/664329/jewish/On-Science-and-Its-Truths.htm
He must use a different definition than the normal ones for "science" and "objective" then.
I think the most telling remark is the statement that the scientific assumption that light is limited to electromagnetic forces or waves, etc Is dubious. The question isn’t so much whether science can win when playing by it’s own rules, but rather whether the rules are justifiable.
From the Article:
“In other words, science cannot, a priori, challenge religion, especially our religion, for science can never speak in terms of absolute truth.”
This is incorrect. Science *CAN* speak in absolute terms, particularly mathematics.
For example I can say, with absolute confidence, that 2 is the ONLY even prime number.
To prove this, all that are needed are the definitions of ‘Prime’ and ‘Even’.
An even number is an integer which is evenly divisible (that is, leaving no remainder) by 2.
{x is even if 2k = x for some integer k}
A Prime number is an integer, excluding 1, which only evenly dividable by itself and one.
2 is the even number resultant from setting k to 1; that is, 2(1) = x.
This satisfies the definition for prime, further, any even number would have to have its k set to something other than 1 which means that it is evenly divisible by k. Therefore, the only even number satisfying the requirements for being prime is 2.
The biggest group of people who refuse to buy into evoloserism is probably mathematicians, and not Christians or Jews. Evolution is not compatible with modern mathematics and probability theory.
The Lubavitcher Rebbe, Of Blessed Memory, was the closest thing to being a Moshiach that I have ever encountered. I attended every shabbos at a Chabad House. If not for the Rebbe there would only be a dead non-Torah-observant Reformed synagogue to attend in my town, which I would not.
Thank you for posting this.
Btw.......do we have a Levi in the House?
And yet, science is not mathematics. Mathematics can be used to study science, they are not one and the same.
Exactly. Mathematics is not ‘observable’ but its laws can be used to posit theories in science and to predict the outcome. It’s (mathematics is) analogous to philosophy.
From lack of first-hand observation, it follows that all science of the age of the universe is in the realm of theory. (Note we can take great stock in some theories—like the Wright Bros. theories. There are applications to science that affect us in meaningful ways. But other settled matters, like Rabbi Schneerson said, have hence been disproved as ‘settled science.’)
From the purely religious perspective, G-d created the world 5771 years ago, and an unbroken chain of witnesses tells us so, reaffirmed at Mt. Sinai by 600,000 souls. One is a theory of what may have been, and one is a real first-hand account of what happened.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.