Evolution and the age of the universe

[jj1000]

Not quite sure what you are asking, but if I may try to answer what I think your asking...
As a "modern" orthodox jew with a love of science, I firmly believe in hashem and that he created the universe (frankly - can never be disproven), but as our technology and scientific understanding advances and facts are established in ways that cannot be disproven or ignored (other than by self deluding oneself), the way I see it, we are left with 3 choices.
1. try to reexamine Torah and read deeper into what the deeper meaning was, or why things that seem to contradict what we know actually mean
2. Throw out the Torah and say if one part is literally wrong the whole thing is wrong
3. Ignore science and join the "religous  nutjob" camp.

I'm sorry you feel that you'd rather follow the latest and greatest trend in science, than the classic interpretation of the Torah. I do not feel that way and therefore have no problems with science or Torah. If you want to throw me into a religious nut job camp it's ok, as I am sure you have it all figured out already and don't seem open to an intellectually honest discussion of opinions and views.

If you want answers and explanations of how the literal interpretation is a good one I can, but if you'd rather invalidate arguments because you don't like them, than I won't bother. And based on your first post it seems that not bothering is the best solution.
 
If you have questions and want to go through them point by point I would be game.

[kangarruu]

I'm sorry you feel that you'd rather follow the latest and greatest trend in science, than the classic interpretation of the Torah. I do not feel that way and therefore have no problems with science or Torah. If you want to throw me into a religious nut job camp it's ok, as I am sure you have it all figured out already and don't seem open to an intellectually honest discussion of opinions and views.

If you want answers and explanations of how the literal interpretation is a good one I can, but if you'd rather invalidate arguments because you don't like them, than I won't bother. And based on your first post it seems that not bothering is the best solution.
 
If you have questions and want to go through them point by point I would be game.

I think the question is more fundamental. Suppose hypothetically that it was 100% verified, by incontrovertible evidence of whatever type you'd accept, that the universe was more than 6000 years old. Would you agree then that the literal interpretation is wrong?

[jj1000]

I think the question is more fundamental. Suppose hypothetically that it was 100% verified, by incontrovertible evidence of whatever type you'd accept, that the universe was more than 6000 years old. Would you agree then that the literal interpretation is wrong?

If G-d was 100% proved to be fake would you agree the Torah is wrong?

Your question is the same to me as that is to you.

[kangarruu]

If G-d was 100% proved to be fake would you agree the Torah is wrong?

Your question is the same to me as that is to you.

So is there no possible evidence that would convince you that the literal interpretation is wrong? Even in the face of traditional opinions that Bereshis is not literal?

[noturbizniss]

I'm sorry you feel that you'd rather follow the latest and greatest trend in science, than the classic interpretation of the Torah. I do not feel that way and therefore have no problems with science or Torah. If you want to throw me into a religious nut job camp it's ok, as I am sure you have it all figured out already and don't seem open to an intellectually honest discussion of opinions and views.

If you want answers and explanations of how the literal interpretation is a good one I can, but if you'd rather invalidate arguments because you don't like them, than I won't bother. And based on your first post it seems that not bothering is the best solution.
 
If you have questions and want to go through them point by point I would be game.

I never said I am not open ot valid arguments, nor is this the "latest and greatest" trend in science. Evolution has been pretty solidly established for over 100 years, and the age of the universe has been set since 1965.  The tone of my first post was a bit aggressive or condescending, since I have yet to really hear anyone give a valid argument that in any way disproves scientific fact. The arguments are alway along the lines of the torah is torah, it's in the gemorah, that's how my rebbe told me, it's our mesorah, and the like.  Rarely if ever have I heard anyone even approach the science in a rational way.
Please, CMIIAW, but didn't the rebbe say at one point something along the lines of how dinosaur bones are fake or not true, or not to be believed?  I have a vague recollection of this, and I remember being very surprised.

When you say you have no problems with science or Torah, what do you mean? Please, enlighten me (and I do not mean that sarcastically at all) as to how the literal interpretation is a good one (do you mean that science does not contradict it - from your comment it sounds like that is not a concern to you, I could be misreading it though).

[jj1000]

So is there no possible evidence that would convince you that the literal interpretation is wrong? Even in the face of traditional opinions that Bereshis is not literal?

None that I know of, same as there is nothing that can convince me G-d is fake that I know of.

[noturbizniss]

If G-d was 100% proved to be fake would you agree the Torah is wrong?

Your question is the same to me as that is to you.

I don't think you can prove 100% that something does NOT exist (other than for mathematical concepts and theorems). Especially something as intangible as the concept of an all powerful being. 

[kangarruu]

None that I know of, same as there is nothing that can convince me G-d is fake that I know of.

That's not quite what I was asking. My belief in Hashem would be incredibly shaken by, for example, incontrovertible proof that Matan Torah never happened. What exactly that evidence would look like is not important, but the fact that it is possible for there to be evidence disproving my belief is. What I was asking you was whether there is any possible evidence that could require you to change your belief in the literal interpretation of Bereshis, without addressing what that evidence would look like.

[jj1000]

I never said I am not open ot valid arguments, nor is this the "latest and greatest" trend in science. Evolution has been pretty solidly established for over 100 years, and the age of the universe has been set since 1965.  The tone of my first post was a bit aggressive or condescending, since I have yet to really hear anyone give a valid argument that in any way disproves scientific fact. The arguments are alway along the lines of the torah is torah, it's in the gemorah, that's how my rebbe told me, it's our mesorah, and the like.  Rarely if ever have I heard anyone even approach the science in a rational way.
Please, CMIIAW, but didn't the rebbe say at one point something along the lines of how dinosaur bones are fake or not true, or not to be believed?  I have a vague recollection of this, and I remember being very surprised.

When you say you have no problems with science or Torah, what do you mean? Please, enlighten me (and I do not mean that sarcastically at all) as to how the literal interpretation is a good one (do you mean that science does not contradict it - from your comment it sounds like that is not a concern to you, I could be misreading it though).

1. We can save a lot of time if you get a book called mind over matter and just read it with an open mind.

2. A hypothetical that has yet to be disproved for 100 years is nothing in comparison to what science said for thousands of years, or to what Torah said for thousands of years. It is the latest trend of 100 years, the classic interpretation of Torah has held true for far longer than that.

3. I would be surprised as well if the Rebbe said that. He was a scientist you know and worked in the Navy, went to collage yada yada.

4. "disproves scientific fact" really? Which fact is that? Like I said let's go through it point by point.

5. I mean I believe the Torah is correct and some scientist believe that the big bang is correct they are all sourced in belief. I don't have a problem if someone take the world how they see it and make hypotheses how we got here, I just choose to believe in Torah instead of Darwin or Lemaitre.

[jj1000]

I don't think you can prove 100% that something does NOT exist (other than for mathematical concepts and theorems). Especially something as intangible as the concept of an all powerful being. 

Now we are getting somewhere. If you can't prove something than why are you right? If part of your facts are belief or based on belief, than one man's is as good as another.

That's not quite what I was asking. My belief in Hashem would be incredibly shaken by, for example, incontrovertible proof that Matan Torah never happened. What exactly that evidence would look like is not important, but the fact that it is possible for there to be evidence disproving my belief is. What I was asking you was whether there is any possible evidence that could require you to change your belief in the literal interpretation of Bereshis, without addressing what that evidence would look like.

I don't really see a difference here. Can there be proof that G-d is fake? Can there be proof that the Torah is literal?

[Baruch]

The arguments are alway along the lines of the torah is torah,

But that's a great argument - if you believe in Torah MiSinai. God gave the Torah. It don't get an better than that!
So (even) if science contradicts Torah - you gotta roll with the Torah - not farkrum the Torah, and turn the pesukim upside down.



And honestly - we have no understanding of God - you expect to understand why it would be a nachas ruach for Him to have Karbanos slaughtered. The whole karbanos argument is silly. Let's get back to science and Torah - that's a legitimate discussion.

[jj1000]

But that's a great argument - if you believe in Torah MiSinai. God gave the Torah. It don't get an better than that!
So (even) if science contradicts Torah - you gotta roll with the Torah - not farkrum the Torah, and turn the pesukim upside down.



And honestly - we have no understanding of God - you expect to understand why it would be a nachas ruach for Him to have Karbanos slaughtered.

I didn't even get into that, but indeed it is very telling when someone thinks they understand why Hashem does or doesn't do something.

A friend of mine came back from a semester at YU telling me when moshaich comes we won't wash negel vaser, or al nitilas yadayim because chazal established it due to the bubonic plague.

[kangarruu]

1. We can save a lot of time if you get a book called mind over matter and just read it with an open mind.

2. A hypothetical that has yet to be disproved for 100 years is nothing in comparison to what science said for thousands of years, or to what Torah said for thousands of years. It is the latest trend of 100 years, the classic interpretation of Torah has held true for far longer than that.

Things can be wrong to different degrees. Science refines hypotheses to match the available data, and as data are gathered we can grow more confident in the hypothesis. It is illogical to say "science was wrong in the past, therefore it is wrong now." Rather, each claim made by science (or more correctly, every claim formulated under the scientific method) needs to be evaluated under its own merits.

5. I mean I believe the Torah is correct and some scientist believe that the big bang is correct they are all sourced in belief. I don't have a problem if someone take the world how they see it and make hypotheses how we got here, I just choose to believe in Torah instead of Darwin or Lemaitre.

The age of the earth, to take one example, is incredibly well-supported. The age of the universe is not taken on faith, but rather by evidence discovered in the natural world. How do you account for ice core dating and tree ring dating (among other methods) under the literal interpretation of the Torah?

I'd also like to hear your position on the traditional opinions that Bereshis is not literal. Why are those views not support enough to abandon the literalist view in the face of scientific evidence against the literalist view?

[kangarruu]

But that's a great argument - if you believe in Torah MiSinai. God gave the Torah. It don't get an better than that!
So (even) if science contradicts Torah - you gotta roll with the Torah - not farkrum the Torah, and turn the pesukim upside down.

I think this misperceives the issue. The Torah and the natural world can't contradict each other. If there is an apparent contradiction, either our understanding of the natural world or our understanding of the Torah must be incorrect. Assuming for the moment that our understanding of the natural world is correct (let's take this as a given for the purposes of this question) and that it contradicts the literalist interpretation of Bereshis, would you agree that we should abandon the literalist view and embrace the traditional view that Bereshis is not literal?

[kangarruu]

I don't really see a difference here. Can there be proof that G-d is fake? Can there be proof that the Torah is literal?

Of course there can be proof that the Torah is literal. If we dated trees and rocks and found none to be older than 6000 years, that would be proof towards the proposition that Bereshis is literal.

[jj1000]

Things can be wrong to different degrees. Science refines hypotheses to match the available data, and as data are gathered we can grow more confident in the hypothesis. It is illogical to say "science was wrong in the past, therefore it is wrong now." Rather, each claim made by science (or more correctly, every claim formulated under the scientific method) needs to be evaluated under its own merits.

The age of the earth, to take one example, is incredibly well-supported. The age of the universe is not taken on faith, but rather by evidence discovered in the natural world. How do you account for ice core dating and tree ring dating (among other methods) under the literal interpretation of the Torah?

I'd also like to hear your position on the traditional opinions that Bereshis is not literal. Why are those views not support enough to abandon the literalist view in the face of scientific evidence against the literalist view?

I agree some hypothesis are more supported more than others. But the ones we are talking about are far from law.

The easiest explanation is Just like Hashem made man not as a one second old creature but an adult so to other things in the world were created as if they had existed.

I like the classic interpretation better,as it fits with my beliefs well. Quote me some of the taanaim or rishonim with the other interpretations and I can take a closer look at them.

[jj1000]

I think this misperceives the issue. The Torah and the natural world can't contradict each other. If there is an apparent contradiction, either our understanding of the natural world or our understanding of the Torah must be incorrect. Assuming for the moment that our understanding of the natural world is correct (let's take this as a given for the purposes of this question) and that it contradicts the literalist interpretation of Bereshis, would you agree that we should abandon the literalist view and embrace the traditional view that Bereshis is not literal?

When I believe in something I will always take it as the default and find explanations for the other.

[noturbizniss]

1. We can save a lot of time if you get a book called mind over matter and just read it with an open mind.

There are many books by that name. Which one specifically?

2. A hypothetical that has yet to be disproved for 100 years is nothing in comparison to what science said for thousands of years, or to what Torah said for thousands of years. It is the latest trend of 100 years, the classic interpretation of Torah has held true for far longer than that.

Evolution is not hypothetical. People often think that the calling it a thory means it's still a question. it is not. Do you question the theory of gravity? Theory of relativity? Those are as much facts as evolution.

3. I would be surprised as well if the Rebbe said that. He was a scientist you know and worked in the Navy, went to collage yada yada.

That's why I remember being surprised. I'll see if I can track it down.

4. "disproves scientific fact" really? Which fact is that? Like I said let's go through it point by point.

5. I mean I believe the Torah is correct and some scientist believe that the big bang is correct they are all sourced in belief. I don't have a problem if someone take the world how they see it and make hypotheses how we got here, I just choose to believe in Torah instead of Darwin or Lemaitre.

Big bang is not belief.
http://gizmodo.com/astronomers-discover-first-direct-proof-of-the-big-bang-1545525927
No reputable scientist questions it. It's just the details that are fuzzy.
OTOH there is no proof other than some (not all) mesorah that the Torah is literal. The thousands of years of science before were not science. They were Christianity. Galileo was a scientist and he was excommunicated for going against the church's geocentric views.

If the mesorah is good enough for someone, great.  Maybe your a better yiid than me. But I'm looking for something more tangible.

[kangarruu]

I agree some hypothesis are more supported more than others. But the ones we are talking about are far from law.

The easiest explanation is Just like Hashem made man not as a one second old creature but an adult so to other things in the world were created as if they had existed.

This is Last Thursdayism, an idea I linked to above. The key point I have with this explanation is that it does not require the rejection of any scientific finding. Under Last Thursdayism, you can happily agree with every scientific finding about the age of the universe, evolution, and the rest, but you just hold that as a matter of historical fact things started in the middle of the story.

I like the classic interpretation better,as it fits with my beliefs well. Quote me some of the taanaim or rishonim with the other interpretations and I can take a closer look at them.

The only reference I have handy is Challenge: Torah Views on Science and its Problems, which is a compilation of essays edited by Rabbi Aryeh Carmell. In particular, the essay beginning on page 255 cites a number of traditional authorities who hold that Bereshis is not literal. I'll have access to more materials tomorrow night, bezras Hashem.

[kangarruu]

When I believe in something I will always take it as the default and find explanations for the other.

think this misperceives the issue. The Torah and the natural world can't contradict each other. If there is an apparent contradiction, either our understanding of the natural world or our understanding of the Torah must be incorrect. Assuming for the moment that our understanding of the natural world is correct (let's take this as a given for the purposes of this question) and that it contradicts the literalist interpretation of Bereshis, would you agree that we should abandon the literalist view and embrace the traditional view that Bereshis is not literal?