The Anthropic Principle

sharky Sat Nov 19, 2011 12:12 pm

The Anthropic Principle

Post secular Theory

thumbs up

The Anthropic Coincidences

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/ant_encyc.pdf

In 1919, mathematician and physicist Hermann Weyl puzzled why the ratio of the
electromagnetic force to the gravitational force between two electrons is such a huge number, N1
= 1039.1 Weyl wondered why this should be the case, expressing his intuition (and nothing more
than that) that "pure" numbers, like p, that is, numbers that do not depend any system of units,
when occurring in the description of physical properties, should most naturally occur within a
few orders of magnitude of unity. Why 1039? Why not 1057 or 10-123? Some principle, Weyl
thought, must select out 1039.
In 1923, astronomer Arthur Eddington agreed: "It is difficult to account for the occurrence
of a pure number (of order greatly different from unity) in the scheme of things; but this
difficulty would be removed if we could connect it to the number of particles in the world—a
number presumably decided by accident.2 He estimated that number, now called the "Eddington
number," to be N =1079. Well, N is not too far from the square of N1.
In 1937, physicist Paul Dirac noticed that N1 is the same order of magnitude as another pure
number N2 that gives the ratio of a typical stellar lifetime to the time for light to traverse the
radius of a proton.3 That is, he found two seemingly unconnected large numbers to be of the
same order of magnitude. If one number being large is unlikely, how much more unlikely is
another to come along with about the same value?
In 1961, astrophysicist Robert Dicke pointed out that N2 is necessarily large in order that the
lifetime of typical stars is sufficient to generate heavy chemical elements such as carbon.
Furthermore, he showed that N1 must be of the same order of N2 in any universe with heavy
elements.4 Thus, this became the first of what are called the anthropic coincidences, connections
between physical constants that seem to be necessary for the existence of life in the universe.
While many examples of claimed anthropic coincidences can be found in the literature, here
are the most significant:

1. The electromagnetic force is 39 orders of magnitude stronger than the gravitational
force. If they were more comparable in strength, stars would have collapsed long
before life had a chance to evolve.
2. The vacuum energy density of the universe is at least 120 orders of magnitude lower
than some theoretical estimates. If at any time it were as large as these calculations
suggest, the universe would have quickly blown apart.
3. The electron's mass is less than the difference in the masses of the neutron and
proton. Thus, a free neutron can decay into a proton, electron, and anti-neutrino. If
this were not the case, the neutron would be stable and most of the protons and
electrons in the early universe would have combined to form neutrons, leaving little
hydrogen to act as the main component and fuel of stars.
4. The neutron is heavier than the proton, but not so much heavier that neutrons cannot
be bound in nuclei, where conservation of energy prevents the neutrons from
decaying. Without neutrons we would not have the heavier elements needed for
building complex systems such as life.
5. The carbon nucleus has an excited energy level at around 7.65 million electron-volts
(MeV). Without this state, insufficient carbon would be manufactured in stars to
form the basis for life. Using anthropic arguments, astronomer Fred Hoyle predicted
this energy level before it was confirmed experimentally.5

The Three Anthropic Principles

In 1974, astronomer Brandon Carter introduced the notion of the anthropic principle, which
hypothesized that the anthropic coincidences are not the result of chance but somehow built into
the structure of the universe.6 He proposed two versions. His weak anthropic principle (WAP) states that We must be prepared to take into account the fact that our location in the universe is necessarily privileged to the extent of being compatible with our, existence as observers.

Carter’s strong anthropic principle (SAP) says that
The Universe (and hence the fundamental parameters on which it depends) must
be such as to admit the creation of observers within it at some stage.
Other authors have presented their own versions of anthropic principles, over thirty being
available in the literature. I will just mention three more versions—those proposed by
mathematician John Barrow and physicist Frank Tipler in their tome on the subject. 7 The first
two are rephrases of Carter’s wording. The Barrow and Tipler WAP reads:
The observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally
probable but take on values restricted by the requirement that there exist sites
where carbon-based life can evolve and by the requirement that the Universe be
old enough for it to have already done so.
Note that Barrow and Tipler require the existence of “carbon-based life” while Carter simply
refers to the existence of “observers.” This is better phasing since many of the coincidences have
to do with carbon, directly or indirectly.
Barrow and Tipler’s SAP reads:
The Universe must have those properties which allow life to develop within it at
some stage in its history.
Note that all three authors say that the universe “must” have the properties that allow for the
creation of life, or, at least, observers. Thus, the SAP seems to imply some intent or purpose
within the universe.
Barrow and Tipler round out their various anthropic principles with the final anthropic
principle (FAP):
Intelligent, information processing must come into evidence in the Universe, and,
once it comes into existence, it will never die out.
Note that the term "anthropic principle" is a misnomer, as is "anthropic coincidence." While
singling out our kind of carbon-based life, none of the coincidences require human life or
demand that carbon-based life develop intelligence...........................

The Anthropic Principle Habitable_world_440

The Anthropic Principle Habitable_world_440

The Anthropic Principle Lightcone-specialrelativity

The Anthropic Principle Believable-Creationism24c

The Anthropic Principle Eur-vitruvian_man

sharky Sat Nov 19, 2011 12:18 pm

Physics>Astrophysics>Metphysics

http://lettherebelightbook.com/lectures/topics/

http://lettherebelightbook.com/authors-articles/

Forward.com
In the Beginning, 13.73 Billion Years Ago
Howard Smith | Fri. Oct 13, 2006
Since the start of the Hebrew month of Elul in late August, Jews have been examining the year past in search of
lessons to apply to the year ahead. Now, as the holiday season winds to a close, the weekly cycle of Torah
readings offers another opportunity to examine the past as we return to the study of the very beginning: Genesis
and the story of creation. This year, modern science has something new to add.
The medieval commentator Rashi famously asks why the Torah, nominally a book of laws, begins with a
seemingly incidental cosmology narrative. He answers, citing a midrash, that the account is included to
demonstrate to all the nations that God created the Earth, and that the land of Israel can therefore be given to
whomever God chooses. Land belongs not to people, but to the Lord.
Some 500 years after Rashi, the kabbalists of Safed developed their own perspective on the lessons of the
Torah’s cosmology. They built on a different midrash on Genesis, one formulated by the first-century rabbi Yonah
and cited in the “Beresheit Rabbah.”
Yonah asks, in the name of his teacher, why the Torah begins with the letter Bet — .a. His answer is that this
letter is shaped like a bracket — ] — closed behind, above and beneath, so that “we have no permission to
discuss what is above or below, in front or in back, only onwards from the moment of creation.”
The first mark in scripture then, after that signifying bracket, is the tiny dot inside the Bet that hardens its sound
from “v” to “b.” This dot signifies the primal point of creation, the embryonic universe, what the kabbalists called
the “Resheit.” “Beyond this point,” says the Zohar, “nothing is known, and so it is called the Resheit, the first word
of all.” The Torah’s literal opening statement is thus, “With the Resheit God created the heavens and the Earth.”
The kabbalists weave an intricate account of the universe created from this infinitesimal speck, describing how it
expanded and evolved with light and substance into our world. Like Rashi, the kabbalists derive a lesson from
their cosmology: Humanity has a role in this drama. They explain that the work of creation has not been
completed.
Tikkun olam is humanity’s task — to heal the breaches and injustices of our society, imperfections that were
embedded in the very fabric of the newly formed cosmos. The import of these lessons remains as appropriate
today as ever, as we educe new interpretations from these old teachings.
There are also new teachings in the cosmological story, and some other lessons to derive as well. This has been
another remarkable year for astronomers investigating how the universe was actually created — yes, today we
know how the creation really did proceed. Readers may perhaps recall the essence of those ideas; they are
expressed in the big bang model.
About 13 billion years ago, the universe as we know it exploded from an infinitesimally small point, much smaller
than even an atomic nucleus, in a creative event dubbed “the big bang.” The universe has been expanding from
this point and evolving ever since, with its current dimension being approximately 46 billion light-years. The
foundations for the big bang description were laid by decades of mathematical thinking and meticulous studies
that culminated with Edwin Hubble’s unexpected 1929 observation: Other galaxies are moving away from us with
velocities that indicate a systematic recession, but yet, in accord with Albert Einstein’s then recent theory of
"In the Beginning, 13.73 Billion Years Ago - Forward.com" http://www.forward.com/articles/in-the-beginning-1373-billion-years-ago/
2 of 3 1/1/2007 3:01 PM
relativity, the Earth has no privileged position. Hubble’s results shocked people who only a few years earlier
thought that our galaxy was the entire universe and that — as Einstein, too, had originally thought — the universe
was static and eternal.
Hubble’s data made use of 46 nearby galaxies. This past year, several different teams of astronomers reported
progress on their programs to measure the recession velocities of hundreds of thousands of galaxies. Their
results — with evidence from galaxies hundreds of times farther away than Hubble’s sample — support Hubble’s
conclusion that the universe is systematically expanding.
There was other news as well. The newborn universe was tiny and fantastically hot, and its light was scattered by
the plasma of electrons like headlights in a fog. Three hundred and eighty thousand years after the big bang,
once the universe had cooled down enough for neutral atoms to assemble, light was finally able to travel through
space unimpeded. That light is seen today as the so-called “cosmic microwave background radiation,” and it
permeates all of space. It is faint — but it is everywhere.
The cosmic microwave background radiation was discovered in the 1960s, and like the recession of galaxies, it
has become one of the essential diagnostic features used to investigate the details of exactly what happened in
the beginning. In 1989, NASA launched a small satellite, the Cosmic Background Explorer, to measure this
radiation more precisely. Just last month, the Nobel Prize in physics was awarded to two astronomers who, with
their teams, designed the explorer. NASA now has a newer cosmology satellite in orbit, the Wilkinson Microwave
Anisotropy Probe. Last month this satellite team announced the results of the first three years of nonstop
surveying of the cosmic microwave background radiation.
The universe, the probe satellite team reports, is 13.73 billion years old, with a formal statistical uncertainty in that
number of only about 1%, or about 150 million years — less time than it took for the dinosaurs to come and go.
(The team also measured another half-dozen fundamental properties of the universe with similar precision.)
Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe and the various galaxy studies have bolstered our confidence in our
understanding of the early universe, and solidified ideas that would have seemed completely ludicrous a century
ago — ludicrous to scientists, that is, though not to kabbalists.
The same remarkable astronomical research, however, has simultaneously uncovered stunning new mysteries.
The universe is not simply expanding, it appears to be accelerating outward into endless oblivion. Astronomers
can account for only a paltry 10% of cosmic matter as being in known forms like planets, stars, galaxies or
gaseous nebulae. The other 90% of substance is “dark matter,” almost certainly some kind of unknown material.
Einstein’s hoped-for theory to unite gravity and the other three forces of nature remains unrealized. The rigor with
which the cosmic age has been determined only lends credence to the profundity of these three mysteries and
other ones still remaining.
Like the cosmology of Rashi and the Safed kabbalists, modern cosmology also lends itself to a message and a
lesson. The message is that our basic concepts about the universe are well-founded: The universe is not eternal
and static; it was born, has evolved and is expanding. Yes, there are deep puzzles remaining, but we have
increasing confidence in the scientific methods needed to resolve them.
The lesson comes when applying these realizations to the current political debates that have regrettably
presented science and religion as antagonists — evolution, intelligent design, stem-cell research and human
behaviors, to name a few. In the case of astronomy, and more generally as well, both science and religion are
speaking to the same mysteries. In the arena of cosmology they offer perspectives that, though different, are
consonant, not contradictory — as I hope the example of the Kabbalah illustrates.
Science and religion should therefore be partners, not adversaries, in the effort to fashion sensible and fair
"In the Beginning, 13.73 Billion Years Ago - Forward.com" http://www.forward.com/articles/in-the-beginning-1373-billion-years-ago/
3 of 3 1/1/2007 3:01 PM
political solutions. In this coming year of 5767 we owe it to ourselves to be more tolerant of divergent opinions, to
abandon defensive and bitter rhetoric in favor of open inquiry and respectful listening, and to become better
informed about the marvelous nature of the world which, as per Genesis 1, was created with language, and
judged to be “very good.”
Howard Smith, a senior research astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, was past
chair of the astronomy department at the Smithsonian’s National Air and Space Museum. He is author of “Let
There Be Light: Modern Cosmology and Kabbalah, a New Conversation between Science and Religion” (New
World Library).

Kabbalah, Science, and Religious Pluralism

http://lettherebelightbook.com/authors-articles/kabbalah-science-and-religious-pluralism/

A response to the Harvard Divinity School 2008 Paul Tillich Lecture
May 5, 2008
by Dr. Howard Smith

[The keynote speaker for the 2008 Paul Tillich Lecture was Prof. Bruno Guiderdoni, of the National Center for Scientific Research in Lyon, France, who spoke on the topic: “Science, Faith, and the Dialog of Cultures: Islamic Perspectives.” The following is the response presented by Dr. Howard Smith.]

I begin by quoting Scripture — the words of Solomon, in his lyrical love poem, The Song of Songs. He wrote “I was sleeping, but my heart was aroused: the voice of my Beloved is knocking… ‘Open up to me!’” This holy poem is, of course, the classic Jewish metaphor for God’s love, and today — I would say perhaps even especially today — I see that message — Open up to me! — as a call to people of all perspectives.

For a religious person, that knocking comes from the voice of modern science, which amplifies traditional ideas based on honest — but erroneous — interpretations of Torah/Bible with amazing new cosmic insights, and thereby opens up scripture to new profundities. For a skeptic of religion or to an atheist, the calling voice is that of enlightened religious traditions that offer context, depth, and meaning to the narrow world of reductionism. Let me explain.

Science and religion have long debated with each other, in all of our religious traditions. It’s old news. Is there anything new for us to add to that discourse?

Amazingly, yes — there is something new to say today. It derives from science’s ability to answer successfully most of the profound mysteries of nature, puzzles that baffled people even fifty years ago, and that had been attributed by many to God’s unknowable ways. The Creation, for example, or the mechanics of life. Today, for the first time, we understand a good deal about these divine ways.

I speak and write about the form of Jewish mysticism known as the Kabbalah, an esoteric tradition that dates back over two thousand years, but which blossomed and became public in the 14-16th centuries. For me, the Kabbalah offers a particularly useful framework of religious expression from which moderns can consider the issues of science and religion.

From a strictly scientific perspective, it is famous these days for having detailed 600 years ago a dramatically unconventional cosmology that echoes today’s big-bang picture. The Kabbalists understood Scripture as symbolic notation to be unraveled — a feature of sacred language that Bruno has noted. They take the first word of the Bible, “In the beginning,” — B’resheit in the original Hebrew — and unweave it to develop their “big bang” scenario.

“Resheit” is customarily translated as “Beginning” but the Kabbalists called it Hokhmha = “The LOGOS” — and Resheit is their name for the infinitesimal point of the big-bang event. Their understanding of the first word of Genesis is, thus: “With the Resheit God created the heavens and the earth.” Today, thanks to General Relativity, we understand that the location of the Resheit, of that creative event, is right here with us, as everywhere. We can even sense its presence in the cosmic microwave background radiation that permeates this room — an omnipresent reminder.

From a theological perspective, the Kabbalah emphasizes a world in progress rather than of eternal perfection, and thus shares many of the features of process theology, appealing to modern sensibilities in this as well. But, as I emphasize to my students, even the early Kabbalists could not grasp the profound insights that we moderns have thanks to Relativity and 20th century technology.

Two provocative themes flow from the remarkable successes of today’s science. One is the modernist attitude of science as a social construct. We are fooling ourselves about our successes, this approach argues. Nothing is known for certain, much less “one single, ultimate truth” about the cosmos. I wonder if this view is not hinted at by Bruno’s observation that “our ideas and behaviors are conditioned by our metaphysical views on reality.” Conditioned ? Yes, exactly so. But, I think, not more than that. I believe in a God whose world — and whose word — are authentic sources of genuine knowledge, and which science will uncover with effort.

Bruno wisely observed that just as science, by disagreeing with tradition, reminds religion of “the multiplicity of meanings” — namely, that truth is difficult to discern — so too we must make room, as he put it, for “creative tension between religions” — these are the blessed consequences of God’s love of diversity. As the rabbis put it when confronted with the divergent views of spiritual giants: alu va’alu divrei elohim hayyim: BOTH these and these are the words of a living God, a God who loves the process — the manifold encounterings of love — as we try to comprehend that multiplicity.

The second provocative new theme comes not from philosophers but from scientists themselves. Not so long ago I think most astronomers would have agreed that, overall, we pretty much understand the cosmos and its origin in some kind of inflationary big bang. In the past 10 years this has changed. Today I’d guess that most astronomers would say that, overall, we pretty much do NOT understand the cosmos.

What happened!? Well, we discovered dark matter and dark energy — 95% ! of the essence of our universe — and our discomfort has grown because we still have no idea what they really are. I think we scientists are being admirably honest in admitting that we do not know as much as we thought. This lesson in humility is one that scientists offer to theologians — the admission that we do not know it all, regardless of our traditions or our egos. Not only has the living God revealed to us something deeper of these mysteries, secrets that our forebearers did not understand — so too we acknowledge that future discoveries await our children.

Another aspect of this revolution in attitude is that while our theories seem — or let’s say, promise — to be beautifully unified, a Grand Unified Theory or a String Theory of Everything, as a consequence of inflation and of quantum mechanics we scientists are forced to postulate a multiple-worlds picture that is chaotically multitudinous, as Bruno alluded to. And, as a consequence of anthropic arguments – that is, the perfect suitability of the universe for life — many scientists welcome this surfeit of worlds as explaining such miraculous perfection as an accident. Unfortunately this solution raises the problem of a wasteful infinity of worlds and voids.

How bad a problem? Stephen Hawking recently suggested a quantum mechanical way to deny “reality” to all those many other universes, his “top-down approach” — meanwhile Max Tegmark argued that we should reinstate a Platonic paradigm granting existence to all mathematically logical realities, no matter how “unrealistic” — the 10-to-the-power-500 universes in the string-theory landscape are not enough.

It is as though the “chaos and void”of the Bible never went away… God’s creative speech simply picked off one multiverse strand for us to live in.

So yes, today science is wonderfully successful…. and at the same time, wonderfully provocative.

Jewish tradition makes a daring observation. As the universe unfolded, we are told that God saw that it was good: 6 times in 6 days — the 6 stages of the evolution of the cosmos. And at the end, Genesis reports that God saw everything together and “behold, it was very good.” The whole was more beautiful, apparently, than its many parts.

Science is not able to say of something, “it is good” — religion and its ethical power provides us with this perspective. But there is more. The early rabbis notice the superfluous word “BEHOLD”, and suggest it implies that God was surprised at the result. Our world was not a predetermined outcome. The universe incorporates some level of deep unpredictability, perhaps connected to the possibility of free-will. In fact, speculate the rabbis, God created many universes; he was surprised at this one because it was unlike the others: behold- it did turn out to be “very good” — and so he blessed it. Some of that goodness surely comes from the freedom we humans have to transmute “good” into “better” — a process the Kabbalists called “tikkun olam” — improving the world.

“Open up to me!” This is the call of modern science to spiritual seekers — open yourself up to the wonders of the universe as revealed by science, and to the insights they convey — that sense of Awe that Bruno spoke about. (Awe, incidentally, is seen by the Kabbalists as identical with the LOGOS, and thus conjoined with the Resheit and the big bang event).

“Open up to me!” This is the call of religion to scientists — scientists are also seekers, certainly. Open up to the possibilities of wonder, love, and to the ethical responsibilities of living in a quantum multi-verse that — behold!, is “very good.”

thumbs up

http://lettherebelightbook.com/wp-content/uploads/Alone-in-the-Universe_AmSci.pdf

http://lettherebelightbook.com/wp-content/uploads/JP-Science_Religion_Sun.pdf

Guest Columnist: Science, religion and blessing the sun
May. 21, 2009
howard smith , THE JERUSALEM POST
There is a revolution under way over how we think about science and religion, one that should matter to every
person - religious or secular - who cares about intellectual honesty or spiritual wholeness. My recent op-ed,
"Blessing the sun: Astronomical absurdity or spiritual encounter?" (April 6) hinted at this development. That
article generated considerable e-mail, some to The Jerusalem Post and some directly to me, which the Post
asked me to address.
As I write these remarks, we are preparing for Shavuot, the traditional season of revelation - surely the ultimate
challenge to intellectual complacency, which is what this subject is all about. I will return to the theme of
revelation at the end.
Nearly all of the letters were complimentary (thank you for them), but they came with questions and issues that
tended to fall into two opposite flavors. Writers who identified themselves as religious wondered why I could be
so sure that science was correct about things like the age of the universe, or how I could myself be a religious
Jew if Torah were being challenged. Writers who were secular, or atheistic, wondered what religion had to
offer, and why I bothered keeping rituals like the Birkat Hahama - or even Pessah.
These are familiar, I might say even old-fashioned, objections. My book, Let There Be Light: Modern
Cosmology and Kabbalah, a New Conversation Between Science and Religion, reviews and explicates all the
issues in detail. In the next few paragraphs I will respond to both sides, and answer a few technical questions
that were raised several times.
I need to begin, however, with some information that is important to both perspectives. I said that there is a
revolution under way in how we think about science and religion. It is because of this: the "god of the gaps,"
that quasi-derogatory term used to describe a divinity invoked whenever we do not understand something -
that god is now dead. In just the past 20 years or so - not earlier - science has been able to answer with some
confidence all of the fundamental questions that used to be the sole domain of religion, especially the two big
ones: How was the universe created? What is the nature of life?
In physics and astrophysics, the "big bang" model has been soundly confirmed and other options rejected by
recent satellites and telescopes designed explicitly to look for loopholes. Just last week the European Space
Agency launched the Planck satellite, the latest in a series to study the big bang; it is expected to achieve
astonishing accuracies of 1 percent in its measurements of the details of the creation. In biology, the Human
Genome Project has successfully placed life and its complexity under a microscope.
THESE EXAMPLES by no means imply that we know everything. On the contrary, the mysteries increase in
number as our questions become more sophisticated. But I do mean to say that the scientific method has every
reason to expect success in answering the new questions too, and no reason to be worried about the need to
invoke some opaque "god of the gaps" when it gets stuck. Even 50 years ago this was not the case. A revolution
is upon us.
All this means that for the very first time in human history we can plausibly, if timorously, respond, "Yes," on
Guest Columnist: Science, religion and blessing the sun | Jerusalem Post http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1242212431637&pagename...
1 of 3 5/26/2009 9:47 AM
behalf of Job, whom God challenges: "Speak up if you can understand [the creation]!" - Job 38:4. For those of
us who are religious, this revolution means that our faith is not the result of being ignorant, but an
acknowledgment of a sanctified relationship. For those of us who recognize the truth of science, it means that
although our knowledge of the world is intellectual, our relationship with the world can be clarified by a Torah
thankfully freed from the distracting baggage of supposedly offering physical "answers." God is not a "god of
the gaps," but the One who took us out of Egypt.
The celebration of Birkat Hahama was an opportunity to confront this modern renewal of spirit: to give thanks
for our blessings, and to express our consciousness of the natural world. It was also a moment to consider how
the rabbis, at least in this case, dealt with matters of science.
Birkat Hahama celebrates the sun when it appears at dawn at the spring equinox - that is, when the length of
the day is equal to that of the night (i.e., 12 hours each; there is also an equinox that occurs in the fall.) This year
the spring equinox occurred on March 20. If you were to look down at the solar system from above and ask how
long it takes for the earth to orbit around the sun and return to exactly the same position with respect to the
stars, the answer is one "sidereal year" of 365.256363 days. But because the varying length of days - like the
seasons - is caused by the tilt of the earth's axis (the axis does not point straight up from the plane of the orbit),
and because that axis wobbles ("precesses") slightly, the time to go from one spring equinox to another is called
a "tropical year" and is shorter than the sidereal year: It is only 365.24219 days. The tropical year is what the
rabbis calculated, since they were interested in the spring equinox.
The 19-year calendar cycle that we as Jews use is based on the calculations of Rabbi Adda bar Abba, who used a
tropical year of 365.2468 days. It is not a bad estimate, but since it differs slightly from the actual tropical year
length, Passover is slowly drifting away from spring. It was precisely for this kind of reason that in 1582 Pope
Gregory instituted a change in the secular calendar, which, together with one later adjustment, makes the
current secular calendar nearly perfect. But the rabbis of the time did not want to emulate this correction, and
retained the old calculations.
The calendar for calculating Birkat Hahama, however, used an even more approximate number for a year, that
of Rav Shmuel - exactly 365.250 days - perhaps because it was simpler for people to use. He certainly knew this
value was not perfectly accurate; Hipparcos in 200 BCE knew about the precession, and estimated its effects.
So: even if the sun had been created on a Wednesday spring equinox, the occasion would not always coincide
with the officially calculated date from Rav Shmuel. But nonetheless the calendar was ruled good enough.
An exact correspondence was unnecessary for the rabbis, perhaps because the event is only symbolic. Just so.
TODAY WE KNOW the universe is 13.7 billion years old, and the sun was not created on a Wednesday in the
spring 5769 years ago. Many completely independent lines of evidence confirm it; good explanations can be
found in many sources (including my book). The more commonly posed question from fundamentalists is: How
do we know that God did not actually create the world a few thousand years ago to appear to be billions of years
old?
The most effective answer to this question depends on knowing the questioner, but, in brief, I often point to the
proof offered by Maimonides: We are commanded by Torah to love and know God, and thereby we are assured
that it is possible. He does not play tricks with us, or with that most precious and distinguishing human faculty,
our intellect.
Shavuot celebrates the occasion of the revelation at Sinai some 3,500 years ago (sorry for the typo in the earlier
article). Doesn't the idea of revelation and divine intervention require a person to take sides, either for science
or religion? No. It seems to me that, at least in a traditional Jewish sense, in fact the opposite is the case. The
midrash puts it effectively when describing the episode at Sinai. It reports the opinions of Rabbi Tanhuma,
Rabbi Jose ben Rabbi Hanina, Rav Kahana and others that every person at Sinai heard something different. "To
each person it was according to his strength," they said. "The divine word spoke to each and every person
according to his particular capacity."
The power of the scientific method is that every person will see and hear exactly the same thing. Mistakes of
Guest Columnist: Science, religion and blessing the sun | Jerusalem Post http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1242212431637&pagename...
2 of 3 5/26/2009 9:47 AM
interpretation will therefore be found and fixed; cumulative wisdom grows, and as it does, we gain in
understanding about God's "Book of Nature." But the power of revelation is that no two people will see and
hear exactly the same thing. Our relationship with the holy is a personal and sanctified one. Taken together,
these two - our mind and our spirit, our shared and our personal experiences of the divine - enable us to live in
the natural world both aware of and grateful for its blessings, the sun included.
The writer is a senior astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge,
Massachusetts, and the author of Let There Be Light: Modern Cosmology and Kabbalah, a New Conversation
Between Science and Religion (New World Library). He was the chairman of astronomy at the Smithsonian's
National Air and Space Museum in Washington, and is an active member of the Boston Jewish community.
howardsmith@lettherebelightBOOK.com

sharky Sat Nov 19, 2011 12:39 pm

GOD: The Evidence........

http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9808/reviews/oakes.html

...............Though Glynn went to a Jesuit high school, his four years as an undergraduate at Harvard brought him, however regretfully, to the view that science had replaced God. As might be expected, a year in England at Cambridge studying British empiricism and Anglo-Saxon linguistic philosophy and a further four years at Harvard as a doctoral student in philosophy confirmed him in his newly discovered atheism.

Glynn later went to work in Washington for the Reagan Administration on arms control issues. He was able to square his atheism with his conservative political convictions under the influence of Leo Strauss, the influential political philosopher from the University of Chicago. Strauss claimed that most of the great philosophers of antiquity were atheists who hid their atheism for the good of society under an esoteric code accessible only to the enlightened few, namely, Strauss and his graduate students.

This hybrid of conservative morality in public and atheism in private seemed to serve Glynn until his first marriage collapsed. The divorce was "amicable," as the phrase has it, but it left a feeling of hollowness that began to lift only when the author decided, more or less arbitrarily, to "live honorably," despite the fact that he felt with Dostoevsky that if God does not exist then all things are permitted. But it was only when he fell in love with a woman who was completely at home in her own religious convictions that he began to suspect there was something more.

This suspicion led him to ransack all the literature he could find on Big Bang cosmology, the anthropic principle, near-death experiences, holistic medicine, etc. Not all of this "evidence" will be as convincing to the reader as it seems to be for the author, but then again, as Glynn openly admits, he is not claiming that "reason can bring one to belief in God. What I am saying is this: Reason no longer stands in the way."

In this regard, Glynn’s argument is, as already noted, reminiscent of Pascal; indeed at one point Glynn invokes Pascal’s famous "wager." But his use of the wager is somewhat disconcerting, since it is applied with a modern therapeutic twist that Pascal might not have found to his liking.

Pascal’s Wager, of course, is the famous gambler’s calculation in favor of religious belief: If a man chooses belief and turns out to be right, he is rewarded with eternal bliss. If he chooses belief and is wrong, or chooses disbelief and is right, then he ceases to exist after death—but loses nothing. On the other hand, if he chooses disbelief and is wrong, he faces eternal damnation. Thus, the most reasonable course of action, the only one which avoids damnation and has at least a chance of salvation, is believing .

As has been pointed out often enough, Pascal’s Wager is not exactly the win/win situation for the believer it would first seem to be, for belief carries a price of fidelity to the commands of God with their demand of self-abnegation, and why pay that price if God does not exist in the first place? Glynn is very much the modern believer here: in a chapter outlining the immense medical benefits to be had from belief—greater longevity (even for believing smokers!), better heart-rate, lower stress levels—he tries to soothe the nonbeliever into faith with these appealing statistics. Not even the rigors of Christian morality, it seems, carry much of a price! This kind of argumentation is what one might call Pascalianism in a minor key, one geared to the shopper of self-help books: even if God does not exist, belief brings such great health benefits that it would be foolish not to take the risk, or so the author seems to imply.

Admittedly, this kind of wager is a bit of a comedown from the rigors of Pascal’s Jansenism. But we must be content with the apologists our age deserves: just as Thomas Merton’s Seven Storey Mountain is but a pale and derivative autobiography of conversion in comparison to St. Augustine’s Confessions, so too is Glynn’s book to Pascal’s Pensées. But of course the same could be said of twentieth-century Christianity in relation to the Great Tradition off of which it has been feeding, so one can hardly expect an isolated author to change an entire ethos. And to be fair, Glynn stresses so much the healthy aftereffects of churchgoing springing from a life of confident faith because he recognizes that the moral demands of biblical faith befit man’s essence and are in conformity with the "angels of our better nature." And so in the deepest sense he is right: It would be plain folly, as the Psalmist recognized, to ignore evidence that keeps staring us in the face.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1200486/The-Genesis-enigma-How-DID-Bible-evolution-life-3-000-years-Darwin.html

The Genesis enigma: How DID the Bible describe the evolution of life 3,000 years before Darwin?
By Christopher Hart

The revalation came to Professor Andrew Parker during a visit to Rome. He was in the Sistine Chapel, gazing up at Michelangelo's awesome ceiling paintings, when a realisation struck him with dizzying force.
'A Biblical enigma exists that is on the one hand so cryptic it has remained camouflaged for millennia, and on the other so obvious one cannot miss it.'
The enigma is that the order of Creation as described in the Book of Genesis, and so powerfully depicted in the Sistine Chapel by the greatest artist of the Renaissance, has been precisely, eerily confirmed by modern evolutionary science. .................Yet how on earth could this be possible? And why had nobody noticed it before?
Such was the starting point of Parker's jaw-dropping new book, The Genesis Enigma: an astounding work which seeks to prove that the ancient Hebrew writers of the Book of Genesis knew all about evolution - 3,000 years before Darwin.
It takes a journey back through aeons of geological time, and also into the minds and imaginations of the ancient Israelites.
Andrew Parker is a leading scientist in his field: a research fellow at Oxford University, research leader at the Natural History Museum, and as if that weren't enough, a professor at Shanghai's Jiao Tong university.
As a scientist he never paid much heed to the Book of Genesis, assuming, like most of his colleagues, that such primitive mythology - which is believed to have been compiled from several sources between 950 and 500 BC - has long since been 'disproved' by hard scientific fact.
But after his Sistine Chapel moment, he went back to look at Genesis in more detail. And what he read astonished him. It was even, he says, 'slightly scary'.
Somehow - God alone knew how - the writer or writers of that ancient text had described how the evolution of life on earth took place in precise detail and perfect order.
Our ancestors possessed a truly timeless wisdom It is always disturbing and haunting to encounter an ancient wisdom that seems to anticipate or even exceed our own.
More fanciful writers immediately start to theorise wildly: that those who built the pyramids, or Stonehenge, must have been guided by super-intelligent aliens, that sort of thing.
Andrew Parker, a scientist and proud of it, has no time for such twaddle. But he does gradually come to understand, in the course of his investigations, that our ancestors of thousands of years ago, though they may not have had iPods and plasma-screen televisions, nevertheless possessed a wisdom that was, quite literally, timeless: as true now as it was then.
In the Book of Genesis, God first and most famously creates heaven and earth, but 'without form', and commands: 'Let there be light.' A perfect description of the Big Bang, that founding moment of our universe some 13 billion years ago, an unimaginable explosion of pure energy and matter 'without form' out of nothing - the primordial Biblical 'void'.
He then creates the dry land out of the waters, but it is the water that comes first. As Parker points out, scientists today understand very similarly that water is indeed crucial for life.

When 'astrobiologists' look into space for signs of life on other planets, the first thing they look for is the possible presence of water.
On the third day, we are told: 'God said, "Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so."'
Now factually speaking, grass didn't evolve until much later. In the Triassic and Jurassic epochs, the dinosaurs knew only plants such as giant conifers and tree ferns. But since grass did not in fact evolve until much later, a sternly literal-minded scientist would declare the Bible wrong, and consign it to the nearest wheelie bin.
But wait a minute, says Parker. If you take 'grass, herb and tree' to mean photosynthesising life in general, then this is, once again, spot on.

The very life forms on earth were single-celled bacteria, but the first truly viable bacteria were the 'cyanobacteria' - those that had learned to photosynthesise.
As a result, they began to expire oxygen, creating an atmosphere that could go on to support more and more life. They were the key to life on earth.
Naturally, says Parker, 'the ancient Israelites would have been oblivious to any single-celled life form, let alone cyanobacteria', but 'grass' as a loose description of life forms that photosynthesis? ................On the fourth day, Genesis famously becomes confusing. On the first day, remember, God has already created light, and made Day and Night. But it isn't until day four that he makes the lights in heaven, the greater light to rule the day and the lesser the night.
Hang on - so he made 'Day' three days before he made the Sun? Houston, I think we have a problem.

Yet the writers of Genesis were just as well aware as us, surely, that the sunrise causes the day. You don't need a degree in astronomy to work that one out. What on earth did they mean?
Here, The Genesis Enigma comes up with a stunningly ingenious answer. For Parker argues that day four refers to the evolution of vision.
Until the first creatures on earth evolved eyes, in a sense, the sun and moon didn't exist. There was no creature on earth to see them, nor the light they cast.

When Genesis says: 'Let there be lights... To divide the day from the night,' it is talking about eyes.
'The very first eye on earth effectively turned on the lights for animal behaviour,' writes Professor Parker, 'and consequently for further rapid evolution.'
Almost overnight, life suddenly grew vastly more complex. Predators were able to hunt far more efficiently, and so prey had to evolve fast too - or get eaten.

The moment that there were 'lights', or eyes, then life exploded into all its infinite variety.
And yet again, that's what Genesis says happened, and in the correct environment too. In the sea.
For on the very next day of Creation, the fifth day: 'God said, "Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life."'

That is exactly what happened. Life that had hitherto been lived in the dark, by simple, slow-moving, worm-like creatures, erupted into dazzling diversity. We know all about it from the world famous Burgess Shale fossils.
They were discovered in the summer of 1909 by one Charles Doolittle Walcott, on holiday with his family in the Canadian Rockies. Walcott began to chip away at the shale with his geological hammer, and quite by chance stumbled upon one of the greatest finds in all science.
For the shale records what happened on our planet around 508 million years ago, long before the first dinosaurs: the 'Cambrian expolosion,' which most scientists now think was indeed the direct result of the evolution of vision.

The life-forms discovered look like nothing else: fabulous, phantasmagoric, alien beings. One had five eyes, and a long wavy snout with jaws on the end. Another looked like an octopus with its head stuck in a beaker, and another can only be described as 'a swimming pea with a pair of beady eyes, bull's horns, a pair of "hands" and a fish's tail.'
Others resemble balls of spines, vase-shaped pin-cushions, or badminton shuttlecocks with chameleon-like tongues. Anyone who doubts the power of evolution by natural selection only has to look at the Burgess Shale fossils.
How does Genesis describe the teeming aquatic life of the Cambrian explosion? 'And God said, "Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life." ' Immediately following the creation of vision.
How did the writer/writers know that life suddenly diversified into this rich and staggering variety, under the oceans, not on land? Why would a very much land-based people, pastoralists and shepherds, even think like this?
After the Cambrian come the Ordovician, Silurian and Devonian periods - or the appearance of 'great whales', as Genesis succinctly puts it.
How better to describe those epochs which gave us such monsters of the deep as Dunkleosteus, a carnivorous armoured fish whose appearance, says Parker, was 'simply terrifying'. Some 35ft long, 'the size of a small coach', with massive, bone-crunching jaws, even its eyes were armoured.
And after the sea monsters come the birds, the animals, cattle, and finally, homo sapiens. All present and correct, and all still in the right order. Once again, 'In describing how the planet and life around us came to be, the writer of the Genesis narrative got it disturbingly right'.
So what should we make of the extraordinary findings of The Genesis Enigma?
Professor Parker is clear on this subject. 'It would be a great shame if my findings were either misused in an attempt to suggest that scientists themselves are unsure about science, or pounded out of all recognition into support of the seven-day creation premise.'
There is no doubt that literal-minded Creationists do a disservice to the triumphant achievements of modern science, and to the beauty and poetry of the Bible. Evolution is taking place around us all the time. It's why the MRSA superbug has become so dangerously immune to antibiotics, why the race is on to beat the swine flu virus.
Nevertheless, when Parker comes to explaining how the writers of Genesis knew what they knew, he can only conclude that it was due to 'divine intervention', or 'a lucky guess'. Since the odds of the latter seem fantastically remote, Parker tentatively Parker clearly demonstrates what an extraordinary text the Bible is - and even more so, not less so, in the light of modern science. But he is surely wrong to think that the only way of coming by knowledge is either through science or 'divine intervention'.
A vast amount of what we know, and how we behave, is based upon much less clear-cut kinds of knowledge and awareness of the world around us: intuition, gut feeling and imagination.

Imagination isn't simply 'making up stuff that isn't true'. The Sistine Chapel itself is a towering work of imagination, but you'd have to be pretty Philistine and unfeeling to stare up at it, shake your head and dismiss it as nothing but a pack of lies.
There are different kinds of truth. A novel like Anna Karenina is certainly fiction. There is not a single hard scientific or verifiable fact in it. Yet it's one of the most profoundly true books ever written about how humans think and feel and love.
I believe this relates closely to the so-called Genesis Enigma. The writers of Genesis didn't possess scientific knowledge, they didn't have Darwin, or the earth-shattering findings of Victorian geology. They didn't, as Parker himself says, have 'so much as a magnifying lens'.
But that doesn't prove divine intervention either. Instead, they possessed an ancient, intuitive wisdom of great poetry and beauty.
One could compare this with the wisdom of other, pre-scientific cultures, which often turns out to correspond closely to the findings of modern science.
Darwinian evolution teaches us that all life on earth is related. We human beings are 99 per cent genetically identical to chimpanzees and orang-utans. But as the great Professor Steve Jones always loves to point out, we are also 90 per cent mice, and even 50 per cent banana.
Don't worry, Jones adds reassuringly. This doesn't actually make you half-banana - nor for that matter does it make bananas half-human, or the ethics of eating banoffee pie would just get too complicated.
But the surreal comedy of this science aside, there is serious matter here. For just as Darwinian evolution confirms much of the Book of Genesis, it also confirms other, supposedly 'primitive' ways of looking at the natural world.
The American Indians, for instance, poetically talked of 'Brother Eagle' or 'Brother Wolf'. But wasn't this also a deep, intuitive recognition of a primal truth, now confirmed by the hard science of DNA analysis? Wolves really are related to us.
To appreciate the power of pre-scientific wisdom is not for a moment to downgrade the achievements of modern science. But it does emphasise incredible power and, more surprising still, the accuracy of more ancient, 'poetic' ways of seeing. As an ancient proverb has it: 'The mountain has only one summit, but many paths up.'
And the Bible, that sublime portrait of humanity in all its wonder, violence and 'divine discontent', and its restless search for something we call 'God', will live on. It will continue to haunt our imaginations as it haunted Michelangelo's.
For as the author of The Genesis Enigma says, it remains 'that most illustrious and mysterious book of all'..........

sharky Sat Nov 19, 2011 12:46 pm

Kabbala Based Science

http://fallenalien.com/rabbis.htm

Ever since Arno Penzias’ alleged discovery in 1965 of radiation from a Big Bang explosion, cosmologists have been settling on an age for the universe of between 13 and 16 billion years. Along with its indispensable expanding Universe accompanist, this 15-16 billion year figure is now a settled 'fact'
These Siamese 'facts', of course, are meant to supply mankind with the most basic knowledge anyone can have about their origins. Together, they tell the world about the Origin of all that exists. It’s all very neatly laid out for us ... Somehow an infinitesimal atom of energy exploded 15 billion years ago and started the process of creating all that exists. The Earth formed out of gases and stuff 4.6 billion years ago, we are assured. Then, 3800 million years ago either lightening struck the mud and life began (the evolution myth for about a century and a half) or - as the latest 'explanation' has it - comets spread bacteria here at that time (and throughout the universe before and since, of course), and that’s how both terrestrial and alleged extraterrestrial life came to be. As for when homo sapiens are said to have climbed down out of the trees, one or two million years ago seems to be the accepted range

These are the numbers that are claimed to be certified by The Theoretical Science Establishment. They override, supersede and nullify all previous concepts about how old everything is. Chief amongst those nullified concepts is the Creation Scenario of the Bible. That report says it all happened about 6000 years ago, it took six literal days to complete and it was brought about by God Who had the resources to do it without evolution
The primary reason why the teaching of purely scientific evidence which demands a young Earth and no macro-evolutionism whatsoever is forbidden is because Evolutionists insist that such teaching is really a trick put forward by Bible Fundamentalists to mask their real agenda which is to teach a specific religious doctrine from Genesis by teaching what they call "creation science". Such a trick cannot be allowed because the "no establishment of religion clause" in the US and European Constitution forbids it ..
Therefore, whatever evidence does come to light of intelligent design is swiftly hidden away beneath a concrete bunker of beurocracy never to see the light of day

At the root of that Big Bang-activated 15-16 billion year old 'creation scenario' taught everywhere is the Creation Account found repeatedly in the Kabbala, a holy book of a religious sect of Judaism. The fact that this religion’s teachings from both this holy book - the Kabbala- and the Talmud, are secrets that have been closely and successfully guarded by certain Rabbis through the centuries, is something that is now facing exposure because of the information explosion on the Internet
Let’s look at some confirmations of the Kabbalist source of these two essential pillars of today’s theoretical cosmological model of the Origin of the Universe and all that is in it:
Nechunya ben HaKana, a 1st century Kabbalist, asserted that if you know how to use the 42 letter name for God you could decipher a lengthy time between the creation of the universe and of man. He estimated the age of the Universe at 15.3 billion years, some 2000 years ago, the very age modern astrophysics have just arrived at.....

There are probably other Kabbalists between the 1st and 13th centuries who repeated HaKana’s estimation or described a Big Bang scenario, or both .... the next confirmation of this scenario is an ancient Rabbinic version of the Creation found in the Kabbala that appears in the 13th century. This one is by the Ramban Nachmanides, who is, apparently, the second most venerated Rabbi - after Maimonides - in Judaism. This is the Rabbi that modern day physicist Schroeder lauds so highly, apparently not realising the can of worms he has opened. He writes:
"Nachmanides the kabbalist ... says that although the days [of Genesis I] are 24 hours each, they contain ‘kol yemot ha olam’ - all the ages and all the secrets of the world .... Nachmanides says:
There’s only one physical creation, and that creation was a tiny speck .... As this speck expanded out, this substance - so thin that it has no essence - turned into matter as we know it .... The moment that matter formed from this substanceless substance, time grabs hold .... Einstein’s E=MC2, tells us that energy can change into matter. And once it changes into matter, time grabs hold ... This moment of time before the clock begins for the Bible lasted about 1/100,000 of a second. A minuscule time. But in that time, the universe expanded from a tiny speck to about the size of the solar system. From that moment on we have matter, and time flows outward"

Kabbalist Schroeder himself embraces and furthers the Kabbalist Rebbe’s "creation scenario" this way:
"Let’s look at the development of time, day by day, based on the expansion factor [1 million times 1 million from start till now] ....
The calculations come out to be as follows:
•The first Biblical day lasted 24 hours...But...from our perspective it was 8 billion years
•The second day of 24 hours...was 4 billion years
•The third day...was two billion years
•The fourth day...1 billion years
•The fifth day...1/2 billion years
•The sixth day...1/4 billion years
•Then you add it up [Schroeder continues] and you get 15 3/4 billion years ...the same as modern cosmology allows...."
Another contemporary writer who cites Schroeder says:
"I show in my book (The Heavenly Time Machine: The First Six Days) procedures and commentary that lead to a universe age of between 14 and 16 billion years, depending on which procedure one chooses to follow. Some of these numbers can be traced back to the first century, almost 2000 years ago. There is a deeply hidden knowledge in the Torah that yields these numbers...."
Next: Realising that "the Zohar is the central writing of Kabbalah", we read of the conclusions of a student of Nachmanides about the age of the universe:
"...Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan quotes R Yitzchak of Akko (a student the Ramban, late medieval) who concludes from the Zohar that the first creation was 15.8 billion years ago - the age astronomers and physicists seem to be converging on, given multiple ways of measuring the age...."

In that 13th century not only the esteemed RambaN, Nachmanides - along with Ibn Ezra - revealed that both Talmudists and Kabbalists were active (some 300 years before Copernicus) in resurrecting the rotating, orbiting Earth concept of Aristarchus. This concept, of course, was a necessary first step on the road toward removing the Earth from any special role in the universe, paving the way for evolutionism and its offspring and ultimately justifying the Big Bang Paradigm being floated by the same handful of Rabbinic "sages". Note this from the Net:
"Nachmanides, (The RambaN NOT RambaM) in his commentary of Parshat Beraishit says on the phrase "And it was evening and it was morning, one day" [Gen 1:5] that some scholars explain that "one day" is a reference to the rotation of the spherical earth in 24 hours, and every moment there is a morning somewhere on earth and night in the opposite place"
The scholars he is referring to are the Ibn Ezra’s commentary on this same verse and Rambam [Maimonides] (Moreh Nebuchim, 2, 30)....
"...this is amazing! Not only do we have here, the idea that the earth is a sphere and not flat, but that sunrise and sunset is caused by the earth’s rotation, not by a moving sun - many years before science discovered this...."

Moving ahead some 300 years we read in McLean’s 'Kabbalistic Cosmology and its Parallels in the Big-Bang of Modern Physics' about...
"...the strange parallels between the late 16th century reformation of kabbalistic cosmology that arose through the insights of Isaac Luria and the recent formulation of the ‘big-bang’ into the so-called ‘inflationary model’ of cosmic creation. Although the formulation of these two cosmologies was separated by some 400 years [Luria’s time], we can recognize that they addressed the same problem, that of the emanation of the cosmos out of nothing.... In a strange way tthe physicists of today have come to retrace the philosophical and theosophical steps taken by kabbalists 400 years ago." [and 750 years ago ... and 1950 years ago!]

'A Short Essay on Lurianic Kabbalah' by Yakov Leib HaKohain underscores Luria’s role in this strange parallel:
"Isaac Luria (1534-1572)...or 'Divine Rabbi Isaac,' was, and remains to this day, unarguably the greatest Kabbalist in world history. His doctrines ... anticipated virtually word-for-word - or at the very least, concept for concept - the theory of the Big Bang origins of the universe in astrophysics.... Put simply, [Luria’s] doctrine of Sheviret HaKelim states (as does also 20th century Big-Bang theory) that the Universe (i.e., the Unity of God) was shattered at the moment of mundane creation. From this cataclysm, 'Holy Sparks' flew off in all directions, some returning to their Source, others falling into the world of 'things' and 'beings'...."
conclusions
•The Big Bang, Heliocentricity and Relativity-dependent, Expanding Universe Evolutionary Model of today’s cosmologists parallels the 'creation' model presented by ancient Rabbinical writings in the Kabbala
•This parallelism involves the gradual but unmistakable rejection of the Christian and Orthodox Judaic world view of the origin of all that exists. It involves the replacement by an origins scenario derived from the writings of a handful of Rabbinic "sages" who have presented a naturalistic and purposeless world view of the origin of all things, a world view which has gradually, obviously and incontestably been fulfilled over several centuries from Copernicus to the present day by the claims of a Theoretical Science Establishment
•This incredible sea change in mankind’s concept of the origins of himself and all else that exists - the very cornerstone of all knowledge - is too strange, too foundational to the Truth about God and Creation to be explained by coincidence
•Since natural explanations cannot account for a phenomenon of this magnitude and importance, supernatural explanations must be sought to resolve this mega-conundrum to end all mega-conundrums . And, indeed, as seen, any number of Jewish commentators who are aware of the ancient Kabbalist descriptions of today’s Big Bang Paradigm are attributing supernatural prophet-like status to those 'sages' who described such a paradigm centuries before a Theoretical Science Establishment turned their Kabbalic 'creation scenario' into textbook hardened 'fact'
•The question of whether this is the correct supernatural interpretation of the phenomenon or whether it isn’t is a question that begs to be resolved for Jew and non-Jew alike, whatever the cost may be
•The fundamental question that must be asked and answered to achieve that resolution is this:
Is the admitted fulfillment of the Kabbalist 'creation scenario' by today’s Big Bang Cosmology the Truth, or, is it a Deception of unmatched scope and deviltry in the entire history of the world?

MoMo Sun Nov 20, 2011 12:49 pm

Welcome to the Post-Secular World..............Science and Fruedian Psychiatry have failed to 'kill god'............they, themselves have resorted to baseless suppositions and unfounded hypothesis. the Darwinian Fundamentalists have lost the war. lmao

The Dawkins delusion

The sensory apparatus, intellect and present state of knowledge of Richard Dawkins do not exceed mankind’s in any fundamental way, in that they are insufficient to form even the faintest approximate idea of what he is so certain about. In fact, his completely atheistic mind represents an exception from the norm, when the entire human race is taken into account. It is impossible to take such an arrogance seriously: it would be wiser to keep an open mind, and discard the idea of a laboratory proof which can only measure the tiniest, almost negligible sliver of reality. The intellect and physical senses simply do not work on a Universal scale. The eyes, our most precious sensory tool, are too meagre to even withstand the light of a modest star; they would be struck blind even from a distance of tens of millions of miles.

The forms of religion at least frame our conscious existence inside the perspective of a much wider one; imperfect and ancient though these forms may be at present, they represent a much more probable reality. Their long-lasting presence throughout all the ages which history records shows there is something fundamental within the normal human mind which gravitates to the idea of a greater and more powerful consciousness than our own. The scale, complexity and age of the universe, the spiritual aspect of all religions, the concept of the soul, and the experiences of mystics all point to the same conclusion. Whatever form this consciousness takes, though neccessarily far beyond ours in power and range at present, our concepts of it will continue to grow in proportion to the capacity of the human mind. At present, humanity might only faintly resemble it, yet is also formed from it, just as sunlight does not belong to the room which it illuminates, but to the infinitely more intense splendour of a sun millions of miles away: above scorn, above blindness, indifferent to mockery, and unharmed by all the traumas and conflict we create for ourselves on Earth.

World-renowned scientist Richard Dawkins writes in The God Delusion: "If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down." The volume has received wide coverage, fueled much passionate debate and caused not a little confusion.

Alister McGrath, along with his wife Joanna, are ideal to evaluate Dawkins's ideas. Once an atheist himself, he gained a doctorate in molecular biophysics before going on to become a leading Christian theologian. He wonders how two people, who have reflected at length on substantially the same world, could possibly have come to such different conclusions about God. McGrath subjects Dawkins's critique of faith to rigorous scrutiny. His exhilarating, meticulously argued response deals with questions such as: Is faith intellectual nonsense? Are science and religion locked in a battle to the death? Can the roots of Christianity be explained away scientifically? Is Christianity simply a force for evil? This volume is a Veritas Forum Book.

"McGrath identifies Dawkins' flawed arguments with surgical precision. McGrath spotlights Dawkins' embarrassing biblical ignorance and exposes his religion-as-virus-of-the-mind theory as sociological naivete. This intelligent, yet accessible book is a must-read for anyone interested in the subject or for those with friends sucked under by the new current of atheist literature."

"Alister McGrath invariably combines enormous scholarship with an accessible and engaging style."

http://www.ukapologetics.net/07/2dawkinsdelusions.htm

MoMo Sun Nov 20, 2011 12:59 pm

Alas, poor old chrissy hitchens is also befuddled by the Dawkins/Darwinist/Fruedian Delusion............he speaks of humility yet doesn't have any.......alas poor chrissy.........ease up on the booze....poor chrissy wissy goes on...........and on.........and on..entirely missing the point of the 10 commandments.........oh well...........alas; por crissys dog don't hunt. thumbs up

The New Commandments

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2010/04/hitchens-201004

The Ten Commandments were set in stone, but it may be time for a re-chisel. With all due humility, the author takes on the job, pruning the ethically dubious, challenging the impossible, and rectifying some serious omissions.

By Christopher Hitchens
Clean Slate: Thou shalt not abide by outdated commandments. Illustration by Edward Sorel.
What do we say when we want to revisit a long-standing policy or scheme that no longer seems to be serving us or has ceased to produce useful results? We begin by saying tentatively, “Well, it’s not exactly written in stone.” (Sometimes this comes out as “not set in stone.”)

By that, people mean that it’s not one of the immutable Tablets of the Law. Thus, more recent fetishes such as the gold standard, or the supposedly holy laws of the free market, can be discarded as not being incised on granite or marble. But what if it is the original stone version that badly needs a re-write? Who will take up the revisionist chisel?..............................................What emerges from the first review is this: the Ten Commandments were derived from situational ethics. They show every symptom of having been man-made and improvised under pressure. They are addressed to a nomadic tribe whose main economy is primitive agriculture and whose wealth is sometimes counted in people as well as animals. They are also addressed to a group that has been promised the land and flocks of other people: the Amalekites and Midianites and others whom God orders them to kill, rape, enslave, or exterminate. And this, too, is important because at every step of their arduous journey the Israelites are reminded to keep to the laws, not because they are right but just because they will lead them to become conquerors (of, as it happens, almost the only part of the Middle East that has no oil).

So, then: how to prune and how to amend? Numbers One through Three can simply go, since they have nothing to do with morality and are no more than a long, rasping throat clearing by an admittedly touchy dictator. Mere fear of unseen authority is not a sound basis for ethics. The associated ban on sculpture and pictorial art should also be lifted. Number Four can possibly stay, though rest periods are not exactly an ethical imperative and are mandated by practicality as much as by heaven. At least, if shorn of its first and third and fourth redundant verses (none of which can possibly apply to non-Jews), Number Four does imply that there are rights as well as duties. For millions of people for thousands of years, the Sabbath was made a dreary burden of obligation and strict observance instead of a day of leisure or recreation. It also led to absurd hypocrisies that seem to treat God as a fool: He won’t notice if we make the elevators stop on every floor so that no pious Jew needs to press a button. This is unwholesome and over-strenuous.
........................

x infiniti

Read chrissys drunken diatribe and egofest, then read what he missed. thumbs up

One effect of an Alphabetic based Monotheism is the brain is using a new abstract, linear, sequential, and reductionist means of communication which moves people who learn it and use it into a Left Brain, Masculine Mode, rather then the usual Pictographic, Feminine Right Brain Mode.

The Aleph/Alphabet subliminally coaxes users to be intolerent of other Iconic Systems of Beliefs.

This is illuminated in the Ten Commandments.
As stated before, Judaism is the first religion to be based upon universal literacy, the written word.

When Moses came down from his meet and greet with YHWH on the mountain, the multitude had fashioned an Idol/Golden Calf, this dicombobulated Moses so much he dropped the two stone Tablets Yahweh had written the ten commandments.

Allegorically: In the first confrontation between Image and Written Word, both were destroyed.

As the story goes, Moses returned to the Mountain Top and Yahweh provided him with another set.

The 10 Commandments; The first four Commandments are for the Recognition and service/Worship of Yahweh, the remaining six focus on our fellow humans, loving and serving them.

The Commandment to Honour Both Father and Mother elevates and recognizes the importance and status of Women in the Family Group.

Loving your neighbour is not one of the Ten but appears in the Torah/Instruction, Leviticus 19:18.
The last six commandments are not unusual, and found in other Codexes of Laws, The First four Commandments are Unique.

Each one of the four encourages Alphabetic Literacy by rejecting the Right Brains way of 'knowing'.

One effect of a new, abstract, linear, sequential and reductionist means of communication moves people who learn it into a Left Brain, Masculine Mode.

Social Engineering.

The 10 Commandments: The First four concern Recognition/Respect and Service/Worship of Yahweh.

The remaining six are love and respect of fellow humans.

The Ethics they embody are more sophisticated then other contemporary Ancient Near East Cultures.
The commandment to honour BOTH Father and Mother signifies the womens important role and in the Family Unit.

Loving Neighbours is in the General Torah/Instruction: Leviticus 19:18

The last six commandments are not unusual, the first four commandments are unique. Each of the first four encourage Alphabetic literacy by rejecting the right brains way of knowing.

The First Commandment:

20:2 I am Yahweh thy Elohim, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

20:3 Thou shalt have no other elohim before me.

In one fell swoop subserviates all other elohim/gods & goddesses.

Nothing personal, it was business.

The Meta-Message of the First Commandment is that Yahweh is the Master of the Universe, He is self-existant, and all other elohim/gods & goddesses are created beings, subserviant to Him. Psalm 82

Psalm 82
82:1 Yahweh standeth in the congregation of El; he judgeth among the elohim.

82:2 How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.

82:3 Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.

82:4 Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.

82:5 They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.

82:6 I have said, Ye are elohim; and all of you are children of the most High.

82:7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.

82:8 Arise, O Yahweh, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.

All of Yahwehs Titles are masculine.

The First Commandment is a radical break with the Hebrews past environment. Moses and the Hebrews had left Egypt which was Polytheistic, alot of gods and goddesses worship.

Yahweh declares there is to be no worship of other gods or goddesses.

Perhaps the most radical sentence ever written.

The Second Commandment:

20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:

20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I; Yahweh thy Elohim am a jealous Elohim, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

20:6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

No Graven Images, Icons or Idols, Statues.

Learning to think without Images is indispensable to Alphabetic Literacy. The Power formerly rendered to Images/Pictures is now transferred to the written word.Make no Graven Images is a ban/restraint on Right Brain Pattern Recognition.

The Third Commandment:

20:7 Thou shalt not take the name of Yahweh thy Elohim in vain; for Yahweh will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

Do not use Yahwehs Name vainly, with Malintent. Again; Left Brain.

Yahwehs first instruction to adam isto Name all the critters. Through Naming, Adam attains dominion over all the Earth. Naming confers meaning and order, moving Life from Chaos to Order.

To Name is to know, to know is to control. Order out of Chaos.

The Fourth Commandment:

20:8 Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.

20:9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:

20:10 But the seventh day is the Sabbath of thy Elohim: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

20:11 For in six days made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Seven Days are not a Natural Break Point in any of Earths Major Natural Rhythmic Cycles-Lunar-Solar, except the Quarter Moon.

This facilitates the learning of Arithmatic.

Leviticus 25:3-10 is about the Jubilee Years, the 50th,

No other Ancient Near East culture at that time had instructed the general population to compute complex time periods, this had formerly been the domain of the Priestly Castes.

The Time Commandment lays the foundation for the concept of Justice, a well developed sense of Linear Time is necessary to conceive of Punishment delayed and Rewards postponed.

Non-Literate Cultures are not as pre-occupied with the notion/concept of Justice as the Literate, because they do not conceive of time only as linear.

Non-Literated peeps tend to think of death as a passage to another World, not as a Day in Court.

Alphabets stretch out the sense of Time and make possible the awareness of the possibility of a retribution Time in the distant future.

A Judgements day only occurs in Literate Cultures.

Alphabet Literate Cultures became aware of writing History in a Linear, Chronological sequencing of Events.

The fourth Commandments Mechanical/Sociological ramifications is instructing people to be aware of Passing Time.

This was the advent of the seven day week, and a day off every week.

A day off for ALL Humans, Free and Bond, and ALL Beasts of Burden and the Farmland every seven years isto lay fallow to rejuvinate the enzymes in the ground.

This led to Sundials, waterclocks, Pendulums, Escape Mechanisms, Cogs, Gears, Calenders.

Time is a key function of the Left Brain.

Each of the First Four Commandments trains people in the ability to: Think Abstractly, linearly and sequentially.

Collectively, they produce a Mindset that enhances the use and facility of Alphabetic Literacy.

This Technology welded the small group into a cohesive and coherent Nation/Culture.

Back to the school Mr. Hitchens. thumbs up

sharky Sun Nov 20, 2011 1:18 pm

sharky Mon Nov 21, 2011 3:05 pm

I'm an optimist......................... The Anthropic Principle BlueMarble4

The animus between Science and the Bible is a recent (past 500 years) development/construct............the early Hebrews had quite a sophisticated and nuanced worldview. they still do......... cheers

sharky Mon Nov 21, 2011 3:09 pm

Where Kabbalah Kisses Science
Three points of interface

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/3064/jewish/Where-Kabbalah-Kisses-Science.htm

By Yitzchak Ginsburgh

A demonstration of how three major aspects of modern scientific theory beautifully interface with key concepts found in Kabbalistic tradition.

1) The quest for unity

Science, in its quest to reveal the underlying unity within nature, constantly finds itself returning to the origins of the universe -- to the primordial "day one" (yom echad) of Creation. The universe, in its present state, is too cool and solid for one to find within it an intimation of such unity. Only amid the energy and heat that reigned at the very inception of time and space, could all the forces and elements of nature meld into one. Such are the premises that underlie the unified field and "big bang" theories. Should one seek the even deeper unity that binds "existence" to "non-existence," then it becomes necessary to propose even more obscure theories -- such as string theory -- which exude an almost meta-physical character.

The quest for unity begins with the generally accepted principle in modern physics that time shares a common "geography" with space: just as all points in space co-exist along a single continuum, so too do all points in time -- past, present, and future -- simultaneously distribute within the same network.

The cosmological process that produced this space-time continuum is presently understood by many to have taken place in four stages -- the first three of which are derived from the "string" theorists while the last is popularly known as the "big bang theory". First, the mathematical properties and relations governing space-time had to be defined or "created". Next, in a single quantum leap, "something-ness" emerged spontaneously out of that "abstraction". At that point, a great "inflation" of the universe occurred wherein it expanded, instantaneously, to the order of 10 to the 50th power. Finally, the "big bang" unleashed the full thrust of its force from within a single point inside that inflated universe. From then on, the universe as we know it began expanding -- albeit infinitely slower than it had up till then -- congealing into its present state as its structural elements proceeded to cool down.

In Kabbalistic terms, these four stages can be viewed as corresponding to the four-letter sequence of G-d's ineffable Name -- Yud Hei Vav Hei, the model upon which all meditation directed at G-d and Creation is based. The first letter of His Name, the scintilla-like Yud, represents the initial "contraction" (tzimtzum) of Divine light from which was produced the primordial vacuum of space and time. The second letter of His Name, the spatially-expanded Hei, represents the initial emergence of created-being ex nihilo. The third letter, the linear Vav (possessing the numerical value of 6), symbolizes the sudden extension of that being into all six directions of space. It also hints at the premise contained within string theory that there exist an additional six hidden dimensions which are actually "enfolded" within the four that we commonly identify. Finally, the repetition of the letter Hei at the end of G-d's Name hints once again at the idea of expansion -- this time, the final expansion of the universe whereby it settled into its Divinely-intended form.

The assumption of an underlying unity within Creation brings with it the concomitant belief in a consummate state of symmetry having characterized the incipient universe. (The mathematics of modern physics utilizes symmetry-groups when it wants to cancel out "undesirable" conceptual phenomena such as infinities.) As the stages of creation progress, this initial state of symmetry in the universe appears to break down. Thus, any return to the primordial unity of creation would seem to imply a corresponding return to maximal symmetry.

The final verse of the Torah section of Bereishit (Genesis 5: Cool

refers to the chen (pleasantness or favor) that Noah found in the eyes of G-d. The term chen is understood in Chassidic thought to imply the particular kind of graceful beauty that derives from the possession of innate symmetry. Noah, who represented the last vestige of natural grace left in Creation after the great moral decline that brought on the flood, was identified in the eyes of G-d as a source of chen -- as intimated by the fact that the Hebrew letters of his name -- the nun and the chet -- form a mirror image of the word chen. Thus Noach's finding chen in the eyes of G-d figuratively suggests the identification of sufficient symmetry within Creation to arouse Divine compassion and save the world from utter destruction. The pupil of the eye is actually referred to in Hebrew as the ishon -- literally, "little man" -- perhaps hinting at the image of Noah which occupied the center of G-d's vision while assessing the future of His creation.

The Torah commonly refers to the eye as the ultimate gauge of chen. The role that symmetry plays in the process of visual perception is clearly expressed through the function of the lens which generates an inverted image of the visual cue upon the retina that is only afterwards reprocessed by the brain so as to produce the rectified image that we actually see. This indicates to us that the way to discover the hidden chen of the universe is to try and envision an "inversion" of reality -- whereby Divinity is fully revealed while Creation's material aspect recedes into abstraction.

2) The uncertainty principle and the consciousness of faith

Next to the underlying unity of nature, the most "enlightened" focus of modern scientific inquiry can be thought of as the intimate relationship between consciousness and the laws of physical reality.

The uncertainty principle of quantum physics, which in essence establishes the impossibility of simultaneously determining certain pairs of subatomic phenomena (such as position and momentum), implies that the very act of human observation -- or "consciousness" -- irrevocably affects one of the properties which one is observing. Physicists disagree as to what degree of consciousness is necessary to the measurement of physical reality. Nevertheless, the implication remains -- as supported by the corresponding meta-physics of Kabbalah -- that consciousness can determine of its own the nature of the world we seek to know.

The uncertainty principle is a good example of how the fundamentals of modern physics can contradict the axioms of common sense. Ultimately, the intellectual courage to challenge the consensus of reason derives from the suprarational force of faith inherent within the Divine Soul in man. Before the advent of quantum physics, science believed that determinism ruled the universe. Now, with the principle of uncertainty, it has become clear that nature cannot be explained in purely causal mechanistic terms. The most we could talk about is "probability", thus leaving room to re-accommodate such "unscientific" phenomena as free-will and moral responsibility which had been entirely dismissed by earlier scientific thinkers.

The litany of modern physics is replete with assaults upon common sense: the speed of light remains constant regardless of the circumstances surrounding its measurement; energy-changes in the universe occur at fixed "quantum" intervals (Planck's constant) rather than in contiguous increments. These two "constants" in nature -- "c" (the speed of light) and "h" (the quantum-energy unit) -- change forever the way we conceive classical concepts such as "infinity" and "zero". A third "constant" in nature, derived from these first two and positioned -- as it were -- between them, is the "inverse of fine-structure constant" equal to the "pure" (i.e. dimension-less) number of 137. (The number 137 is also the numerical equivalent of the word Kabbalah in Hebrew.) Together, these three constants comprise a set that corresponds to the sequence of stages in one's service of G-d explained elsewhere in Chassidic tradition.

3) The Descent of Creation to a Position of Rest

Another foundation of modern physics is cited as the postulate stating that all physical structures tend toward their lowest possible energy level. This fundamental principle is reflected in the Kabbalistic doctrine of "descending worlds" whereby Creation is viewed as descending from the infinite energy of Divine Being into the stasis of material reality.

The purpose of this descent is ultimately to provide G-d with a dira b'tachtonim -- a "dwelling-place in the lowest realms" -- where the Glory of His Kingdom might become eminently manifest by virtue of the effect that the service of Torah and mitzvot have upon the created order.

The revelation of Divine Majesty which will attend the final rectification of our physical world will far outshine any previous revelation of G-dliness in the history of Creation. For this reason the tendency to "descend into materiality" overpowered the initial state of sublime symmetry which characterized incipient Creation. The universe is in essence seeking out that "lowest energy state" from within which it is destined to manifest a radical new symmetry within Creation: that which harmonizes G-d's primordial perfection with the deficient realm of material reality.

In Kabbalah, the property of "descent" associated with the material realm achieves its ultimate expression in water -- which by nature flows downward, seeking out the lowest ground. The opposing property of spiritual ascent is modeled in the flame of fire, consuming matter in its attempt to ascend upward. Ultimately, the force of gravity associated with water supersedes the force of lightness connected with fire -- just as the world's grounding in materiality over-rides its inner desire to be consumed within Divinity.

According to most physicists, the universe has already achieved its lowest level of energy distribution. This would mean, according to Kabbalistic faith, that the world is about to enter into a new state of symmetry. The Shabbat can be seen as providing the ultimate metaphor for this new reality.

We should try to envision Creation as a process which proceeds from one sabbatical state of balance and harmony to another. The first "Shabbat" -- identifiable with the infinite expanse of Divine Light that initially permeated all reality -- was a reflection of G-d's "first thought" regarding the imminent Creation that was to follow: that it be constructed upon the principle of "din" -- strict measure contributing to ideal form. The symmetry implied by this program was one of perfect uniformity, as inspired by the absolute Oneness of the Divine Light out of which it was conceived.

A deeper intention, however, emerged with G-d's decision to jointly apply, together with din, the principle of rachamim -- Divine compassion. It was this attribute that was responsible for the "tolerant" form that Creation eventually took -- one which accommodated the imperfections of finite material reality. Having begun its "descent," the universe set out on the mysterious course toward the "Shabbat-to-come" when the world will be redeemed from its restlessness and turbulence.

The above depiction of the opposing principles at work in Creation is reflected in the famous Midrash describing how the two attributes of chesed ("Benevolence") and emmet ("Truth") appeared before G-d prior to Creation and argued over whether the world should indeed be brought into being. Truth demanded that this world not be created as it would eventually become filled with the "asymmetry" of lies and falsehood; Benevolence, arguing that a material creation can never justify itself, demanded that the world be created nonetheless if only by merit of G-d's Kindness as well as the opportunity it gives us to enrich one another.

The Midrash concludes of course with G-d's favoring the position of Benevolence as He proceeds to "cast Truth to the ground" -- an act that reflects His desire that strict idealism be tempered by empathy and consideration for the limitations of finite existence. Implicit in this act is the wish that "Benevolence and Truth meet each other, Justice and Peace kiss; that Truth spring out of the earth and Justice look down from Heaven" (Psalms 85:11-12). It is the revealed symmetry between Benevolence and Truth that will grace Creation as it enters into its eternal Shabbat-day.

Recognizing Creation's true purpose and destiny necessitates that the Divine Soul enclothe itself within a physical body. Only then can man fulfill G-d's Will through the grounded pursuit of Torah/Instruction and mitzvah/Commandment service. Ultimately the fulfillment of this mandate will serve to arouse a revolutionary Divine spirit laying dormant within the universe. The successful awakening of this spirit will expose G-d's true intention in generating the descent of Creation: the ultimate sanctification of His Name and Kingdom along with the ascent of Mankind and all reality to a plane infinitely higher than that from which they initially set out.

The majesty of the Messianic age -- the eternal Shabbat of the future -- is a reality that we slowly construct through the Divinely revealed discipline of thought, word, and deed which shapes every passing day of life in this world. It is a discipline that, by allowing us to refine our consciousness of the Divine perfection underlying reality, renders us all architects of a new world order.

The perfection of the Shabbat is immutable and eternal; only our consciousness is subject to the variance and distortion imposed upon it by the material shell in which it is encased. By neutralizing the effect of that shell, we simply free the soul's native awareness of Divinity so that it can assert itself supremely and thereby illuminate the true essence of material reality. Thus, the culmination of this process requires that every last semblance of material-being be illuminated and "clarified" by our consciousness of the Divine. This is the reason that Creation must descend to its lowest level before the hidden symmetry of the Sabbath can manifest itself forever and ever.

Our present physical reality bears little hint of the future greatness for which it is destined. What we perceive with regard to the "descent of Creation" is the related physical phenomenon of "entropy" whereby the universe appears to be proceeding inexorably forward in time toward greater and greater decomposition. The force of entropy is reflected in the Kabbalistic concept of Tohu (chaos). The eventual defeat of Tohu through the force of Tikun (rectified order and symmetry) is not evident at the macrocosmic plane of human experience, just as time-reversal and many other proven phenomena of quantum reality are not.

But from the wondrous realm of subatomic reality -- the hidden microcosm which only G-d can "know" directly -- numerous intimations of Creation's true character surface. Elementary particles move backward in time, leaving "footprints" that are experimentally observable. Thus, the force of Tikun -- of negative-entropy -- can be said to reside safely within the realm of the infinitely small. Man accesses that force by rendering himself equally small and humble so as to share in G-d's unobstructed vision of reality.

In conclusion, we now see how three fundamental tenets of modern science -- the underlying unity of nature, the uncertainty built into subatomic reality, and the universe's tendency toward increasing dissipation -- end up "kissing" Kabbalistic belief at three junctures: the primordial past (belief in the initial Divine unity out of which Creation was conceived), the continuous present moment (belief in the ongoing construction of reality through refined consciousness), and the developing future (belief in the higher unity that will assert itself once every last element within Creation is illuminated by the soul).

sharky Mon Nov 21, 2011 3:19 pm

The Anthropic Principle CONVERGENCE%3DTORAH+Science+%2B+MAN%E2%80%99S+Science

The Anthropic Principle Art_physics_tel_aviv

http://www.artandphysics.com/

Leonard Shlain proposes that the visionary artist is the first member of a culture to see the world in a new way. Then, nearly simultaneously, a revolutionary physicist discovers a new way to think about the world. Escorting the reader through the classical, medieval, Renaissance and modern eras, Shlain shows how the artists' images when superimposed on the physicists' concepts create a compelling fit.

Throughout, Shlain juxtaposes the specific art works of famous artists alongside the world-changing ideas of great thinkers. Giotto and Galileo, da Vinci and Newton, Picasso and Einstein, Duchamp and Bohr, Matisse and Heisenberg, and Monet and Minkowski are just a few of the provocative pairings.

Shlain also explores the differing world views of reality in non-literate, Eastern, and children's cultures and shows how their themes entered Western art in the late 19th century just prior to Einstein's complete revision of the Western notions of space, time and light. He turns next to Einstein's second great 20th century discovery concerning gravity and uses numerous examples from art to show how the sculptor anticipated and expressed the great physicist's revolution. Shlain demonstrates how changes in music and literature synchronized with those occurring in art and physics.

The final chapters explore possible reasons why these connections occur. The split brain phenomenon and Greek mythology are used to explain our culture's division of the two seemingly disparate fields of art and physics.

The Anthropic Principle 2j30d5g

The Anthropic Principle Il_fullxfull.60969719

MoMo Tue Nov 22, 2011 10:58 am

God and the New Atheism: A Critical Response to Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens

http://www.metanexus.net/essay/excerpt-god-and-new-atheism-critical-response-dawkins-harris-and-hitchens

Anyone who keeps track of what sells well these days in the world of publishing cannot fail to have noticed the recent outbreak of provocative atheistic treatises. Bestselling books by Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens have drawn an extraordinary amount of attention. Many readers, including some academics, have found these books not only interesting but, in some cases, convincing. Dawkins’s The God Delusion says extremely well, though not always accurately, what some scientists and philosophers have already been thinking. Likewise Harris, in The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation, and Hitchens, in God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, have stated clearly and entertainingly what many of their readers also consider to be wrong with religion. The current label for this criticism is the “new atheism.”

I must confess that it has been disappointing for me to have witnessed the recent surge of interest in atheism. It’s not that my own livelihood, that of a theologian, is at stake—although the authors in question would fervently wish that it were so. Nor is it that the treatment of religion in these tracts consists mostly of breezy over-generalizations that leave out almost everything that theologians would want to highlight in their own contemporary discussion of God. Rather, the new atheism is simply unchallenging theologically. Its engagement with theology lies at about the same level of reflection on faith that one can find in contemporary creationist and fundamentalist literature.

Clearly the new atheists’ strategy is to suppress in effect any significant theological voices that might wish to join in conversation with them. As a result of this exclusion, the intellectual quality of their atheism is unnecessarily diminished. Their understanding of religious faith remains consistently at the same unscholarly level as the unreflective, superstitious, and literalist religiosity of those they criticize. Even though the new atheists reject the God of creationists, fundamentalists, terrorists, and “intelligent design” (ID) advocates, it is not without interest that they have decided to debate with these extremists rather than with any major theologians.

This choice of antagonists betrays their unconscious privileging of literalist and conservative versions of religious thought over the more traditionally mainstream types. The new atheists are saying in effect that if God exists at all, we should allow this God’s identity to be determined once and for all by the fundamentalists of the Abrahamic religious traditions. I believe they have chosen this strategy not only to make their job of demolition easier, but also because they have a barely disguised admiration for the simplicity of their opponents’ views of reality.

In preparing treatises on a-theism, one would expect that scholars and journalists would have done some research on theism, just to be sure they know exactly what it is they are rejecting. It is hard to be an informed and consistent atheist without knowing something about theology. And yet, aside from several barbed references, there is no sign of any real contact between the new atheists and theology at all, let alone studious investigation. This circumvention is comparable to creationists rejecting evolution without ever having taken a course in biology. They just know there’s something wrong with those crazy Darwinian fantasies. So the new atheists just know there is something sick and delusional about theology. There is no need to look at it up close. Furthermore, conversation with theologians, most of whom are not biblical literalists, would add a dimension of intricacy to the new atheist literature that would detract from the breeziness that sells books. Ignorance of theology simplifies the new atheists’ attacks on their equally uninformed religious adversaries. It allows their critique to match, point for point, the fundamentalism it is trying to eliminate.

Richard Dawkins’s own implicit version of theological method, for example, is the same as that of “scientific creationists,” notorious in theological circles for their belief that, if the Bible is inspired by God, it must be a reliable source of scientific as well as spiritual information. Dawkins’s uncompromising literalism is nowhere more obvious than in his astonishing insistence throughout The God Delusion that the notion of God should be treated as a scientific hypothesis, subject to the same verificational procedures as any other “scientific” hypothesis.

In considering the Bible, Hitchens also shares with his extremist religious adversaries the assumption that grasping the full substance of biblical faith requires that the sacred texts be taken literally. Particularly puzzling to Hitchens are the infancy narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Most Christian scholars today delight in these factually irreconcilable accounts of Jesus’ birth since through them the two Evangelists are able to introduce idiosyncratic theological themes that they carry through the remainder of their Gospels. Hitchens, however, cannot get over how anybody could possibly take them seriously, let alone as the word of God, if they are so factually divergent (111-12). So he concludes: “Either the gospels are in some sense literal truth, or the whole thing is essentially a fraud and perhaps an immoral one at that” (120). Hitchens also reveals to us that theism’s “foundational books are transparent fables,” and that, in light of today’s scientific understanding of the origin of the cosmos and the origin of species, those books (presumably Genesis in particular) and the religion they inspire are consigned to “marginality if not irrelevance” (229)!

By the time they have finished a good undergraduate course in biblical literature most Christian and Jewish students would have outgrown the naive idea that biblical inspiration entails scientific accuracy. Students would also have become reconciled to the idea that revelation has nothing to do with the communication of scientific information and that therefore a biblical theology of origins does not contradict Darwinian science. But Sam Harris is still wondering how a book allegedly “written by God (35)” or “authored by the Creator of the universe” (45) would fail to be “the richest source of mathematical insight humanity has ever known.” If the Bible is inspired, why does it have nothing to say “about electricity, or about DNA, or about the actual age and size of the universe” (Letter to a Christian Nation, 60-61)?

In thirty-five years of undergraduate teaching I never encountered a single instance where, at least after taking a theology course, a student would be capable of making such a farcical complaint. But Harris, like the creationists he denounces, and unlike theologically informed students, wants nothing to do with an allegedly inspired text that fails to give useful and accurate scientific information.

In 1893, even the very conservative Pope Leo XIII, in his encyclical Providentissimus Deus, instructed Catholics never to look for scientific understanding in the biblical texts. On this point Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens take their stand far to the right of Pope Leo. They might easily have avoided this bungle had they but gone back several centuries and taken heed to Galileo. In the 17th century this scientific giant and devout Catholic, in his brilliant “Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina,” pointed out that the biblical authors could not possibly have intended to deliver scientifically accurate propositions about the natural world. If that had been their intention, the least little slip-up in their science would also have made intelligent readers suspicious of their religious message as well. “Hence,” Galileo comments, “I should think it would be the part of prudence not to permit anyone to usurp scriptural texts and force them in some way to maintain any physical conclusions to be true, when at some future time the senses and demonstrative or necessary reasons may show the contrary.”

Yet the new atheists no less than biblical literalists still interpret religious doctrines and scriptures as though their intention is to solve scientific puzzles. Much earlier than Galileo, St. Augustine’s de Genesi ad litteram had advised readers of Genesis not to get hung up on questions about its astronomical exactness, nor try to defend the literal accuracy of its cosmological assumptions. Otherwise unbelievers are likely to dismiss the biblical writings “when they teach, relate, and deliver more profitable matters.”1 Of course, for the new atheists there simply cannot be any more “profitable matters.” If biblical truth cannot be reduced to scientific truth then it does not qualify as truth in any sense.

The business of good theology, on the other hand, is to make sure that our questions to the scriptures of a religious tradition will be directed in such a way as to allow ourselves to be challenged and even shaken at the deepest levels of our existence by what the text has to say. A good way to prevent any such encounter is to approach the texts, as do the new atheists, armed with nothing but scientific curiosity or simplistic questions about morality. Creationists are wrong to read the creation stories as science, but at least they can pick up some of the religious challenge of the texts in spite of their anachronistic exegesis. But the new atheists cannot even do this much. They share the untimely scientific reading with creationists, but being also deaf to the transformative intent of the scriptures, they completely disqualify themselves as interpreters of biblical faith.

This does not mean that their titillating books have no valid points to make about the many abuses sponsored by religions and theologies. Of course they do, and most readers will find themselves agreeing with the negative judgments on the barbarities that have accompanied human religiosity from the start. But readers have every right to expect balance and fairness from journalists and academics. They do not get it here. In a sense, this is not surprising since the authors bring no scholarly expertise to their diatribes, and everyone knows that ignorance about what one is rejecting always leads to caricature. Consequently, since fairness is not important, our critics rely mostly on rhetorical trickery, a very unscholarly way to convince people, but one that mimics in every way the demonizing mind-set of the various fundamentalisms they loath.

Of course, like their literalist opponents, the new atheists are so confident that they are in complete possession of the truth that they consider it pointless to expose their own beliefs to open dialogue. When it comes to the topic of religion, they mirror their extremist opponents in assuming that they are in complete and inalterable possession of the truth. As distinct from those who allow themselves to be gradually transformed by a dialogical encounter with the views of others, these extremists fear that open conversation will lead at best to a softening of the hard mound of certainty on which they believe they stand. Nevertheless, in the case of the new atheists the pulpit may not be perched as firmly on pure reason and openness to truth as they suppose. God and the New Atheism: A Critical Response to Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens seeks to expose the many fallacies and flaws in their bestselling books.

A point the Professor goes on to make is that the Hard-Core Atheist of a time gone by; Freud, Nitzche, Sartre, Camus, Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot would have found these new Soft-Core Atheist quite anemic and too timid to logically follow Atheism to it's logical conclusion of existential nihiliam, which turns out to be existentialy unsustainable.

If there is no god, there is no absolute morality, if there is a god there IS an absolute morality.

Yet that doesn't stop these Soft-Core Atheists from making absolute moral value judgements.

There greatest flaw is their hubris, they seem to be unaware they are the opposames of the literal fundamentalists they use as their baseline standard for their critique of the Holy Books and Theology..........they themselves have unsubstantiated 'beliefs'. Their books/rants are replete with creedal statements.

EPIC Fail for the Soft-Core Atheist.

thumbs up

MoMo Tue Nov 22, 2011 11:09 am

Anyone entertaining dawkins, harris, dennet or hitchens should avoid the Positive Feedback Loop and examine evidence that takes an opposing view.

EG:

The Genesis Enigma: Why the Bible is scientifically accurate

http://andjustincase.blogspot.com/2009/11/genesis-enigma-why-bible-is.html

[quote]The Genesis Enigma is the result of his reading of Genesis, exploration of biblical history, and discussions with leading Christian scientists like Professor John Lennox, apologist Alistair McGrath and others. He writes the book as an agnostic scientist. I don't think he calls himself an 'agnostic, but as he writes the book this is what he seems rather than an atheist. In the first chapter of the book he explores the evidence for the authenticity of the Old Testament and evidence for the claims that it is an accurate non-fictional work. In the remaining chapters he provides an explanation of how scientific understanding of the origins of life developed over time and parallels this with the Genesis chapter 1 account.

What does he conclude?

In short, he concludes that the parallels between Genesis 1 and science are so strong that the writer must have either made an extraordinarily lucky guess, or that the writing was inspired. He sums up his arguments in the final chapter of the book this way:

"...the Genesis Enigma holds that the Bible has, in its opening page, correctly predicted the history of life on earth, with its series of macro-evolutionary steps, or fits and starts, from the origin of our solar system to the evolution of birds and mammals. We can be certain that the author of this biblical account would have had no idea of these scientifically established events, covering billions of years....The possible explanations for this parallel.....are clear-cut: either the writer of the creation account of Genesis 1 was directed by divine intervention, or he made a lucky guess" (pp 202-203).

In summing up his work he asks himself (and the reader) a serious question. "Could it be real?" Has the Bible survived as an authoritative text for many millions of people because it carries a divine message that strikes a chord with humanity? He concludes:

"But I must admit, rather nervously as a scientist averse to entertaining such an idea, that the evidence that the writer of the opening page of the Bible was divinely inspired is strong. I have never before encountered such powerful, impartial evidence to suggest that the Bible is the product of divine inspiration. The Genesis Enigma may provide us with support for this proposition on a whole new level" (p.238).
What Parker is NOT saying

Lest Six Day Creationists and Intelligent Design advocates see Parker's book as support for their readings of Scripture, Parker is at pains to dismiss such arguments. In no way is he trying to suggest that Genesis 1 is a scientific account. While accepting that people are free to believe both these theories, he suggests that they are faith-based rather than evidence-based. Parker isn't suggesting that the Bible is science. Rather, he is suggesting that faith and science can co-exist. He goes further to accept that it is possible to find "...God within the confines of the evidence of evolution..". Whatever theory is accepted for the origins of life, Parker suggests that a prerequisite is needed and that science cannot provide the answers. He continues to speculate and pose many questions as he tries to make sense of his discovery. Why is there a human propensity towards religious thought? Why has this persisted throughout the ages? Did the concept of God evolve in humans because it was needed to raise our emotional state (the claim of some atheists and scientists)? Or was it God-given? Could religion be a critical element in the human mind?.............[/quote]

Jeffrey Burton Russell is Professor of History, Emeritus, at the University of California, Santa Barbara

http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/russell/index.html

http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/russell/Relativism.html

Evil is very much in our minds these days with Oklahoma City, Bosnia, Rwanda, and Zaire. And I'm afraid that when those places get better, other places will get worse. Now I've written five books on the problem of evil, focusing on the history of the Devil as symbol of evil. I don't want to rehash old thoughts for you, so I'm going to stay away from philosophical classifications of evil and also from the figure of Satan himself. I'm through with him--even though he may not be through with me.

Rather I'm going to talk about two social tendencies today that have great potential for evil. One is radical authoritarianism, and that's what comes to mind when we think of Oklahoma or of right-wing militias. It's easy for open-minded, educated people like us to see the dangers in that direction. It's always easier to condemn somebody else's faults. For example, I don't smoke, so I can get selfrighteous about smokers, but I do like a drink with dinner, so I can get vehement about the virtues of wine. So I want to emphasize the danger opposite to authoritarianism; and that is relativism.

To understand evil, we must understand good. If Evil does not exist, neither does Good. No Radical Good, no Radical Evil. I am going to argue for the True and the Good and the Beautiful, and then I shall argue that Radical Evil exists as well as Radical Good.

In questioning relativism, I am not talking about the moderate cultural relativism that suspends judgments between Mozart and Ravi Shankar, or between Japanese haiku and Italian terza rima, let alone between sushi and pizza. I am talking about a growing and frightening tendency to radical relativism.

I first encountered radical relativism in a classroom in the early 70s, when I was showing pictures and photographs of violence. Among the pictures was one of a soldier kicking a little boy to death. One of the young women in the class argued strongly that we had no right to make a value judgment about the soldier's act. After much time in discussion, she finally allowed that the soldier's act might have been wrong--but NOT because the boy was suffering. Rather, her reason was that the soldier "might have enjoyed the boy's company if he had got to know him." She allowed that from the boy's point of view things probably looked different. But the only judgment she would make on the soldier was on the basis of the pleasure he might have deprived himself of. There is no GOOD; there is only feeling good. The pleasure principle. Good and evil depend on how you happen to feel. Note the phrase "Happen to feel."

A few years later, at UCSB, while teaching philosophy of history, I encountered another variety of radical relativism. I tried in vain to get the class to admit that the Sistine Chapel was better than a stick figure I scrawled on the board, that a Bach cantata was better than my toneless humming, that King Lear was better than Roses are Red, Violets are blue. No way. Some people, they replied, might prefer the stick figure or the greeting card sentiments. One young woman in the class was particularly bright and later went on to a successful career as a lawyer. She was an oboe player in the Santa Barbara Symphony. She had been practicing oboe for seven or eight years. I had never done more than look at one. I challenged her to bring her oboe, and we'd see whether it was possible to determine whose playing was better. "Some people might prefer the way you played," she responded. Then why practice at all, let alone seven years? At the end of the term, the young woman turned in the best paper in the class. I gave her an A, of course, and she was delighted. But what if I had taken her at her word? What if I had told her, "You are getting a C along with everyone else, because there is no basis on which to judge one paper better than another?"

So there is no quality, no Beauty; it's all how you happen to feel.

So much for the Good and the Beautiful. Now let's get rid of the True. Historians come across infinite variations of relativizing the True. All evidence crumbles before the statement "I happen to feel," often pronounced with righteous indignation. For example, "I happen to feel that Christopher Columbus was motivated only by money and power;" or even "I happen to feel that extra-terrestrial built the pyramids."

So there is no Good, no Truth, no Beauty. And this is the view held by many--perhaps the majority--of professors, journalists, and other intellectuals.

People don't think this way without being taught to. People have to be taught to be silly. People HAVE TO BE TAUGHT something so counter-intuitive, so opposed to the way they actually act. The bright young woman in my classroom in reality thought, and acted as if she thought, that she deserved the A. She did not act, did not behave, did not live, in accordance with the silly notions she professed to believe.

People have to be taught this sort of silliness because a moral imperative exists inherent in the human mind. We know that by observing children. Children early on know, instinctively, the concept of fairness, the distinction between right and wrong, truth and lies. They have to be educated out of it. They have to be carefully taught. It's what's called trained incapacity.

Who is training people to be morally incapable? Misguided parents and teachers, especially in high schools and universities, and especially in the humanities and social sciences where I hang out. And, above all, the media. To whose advantage is it that kids should think that the only ultimate value is what you feel like owning, having, using? To retailers, wholesalers, and advertisers.

This relativism is everywhere. One reason why juries are so impressionable is because the law is currently so removed from justice. Rather than determining right or wrong, the jury is asked to decide on the basis of law, mostly statute law, legislated law, and much it enacted on behalf of special interest groups. Fortunately enough shreds of natural law (the law derived from the Creator) cling to us that we still outlaw raping children (though the tolerance of pornography is undermining even that) and murder (though the complex inconsistencies of the legal system is undermining even that).

The current dismissal of Reason is depressing, as the results of such a dismissal were foretold during the eighteenth century. Many philosophers, such as Thomas Jefferson, still firmly declared that the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were rights precisely they came from Nature and Nature's God. The great philosopher Immanuel Kant constructed a moral system of universal validity based, not upon revelation, but upon reason. But some Enlightenment writers emphasized the human origin of human knowledge, law, and morality. The implications of this were seen, and shown, quite clearly buy none other than the Marquis de Sade, a brilliant writer as well as the originator of sadism. Sade took relativist assumptions to their logical extreme. If there are no moral absolutes, then there are no moral absolutes. If you prefer having a good dinner at a restaurant to raping and killing children, that is your prerogative, fine, and I don't judge you, but if I prefer raping and murdering children, what grounds do you have for judging me? The Enlightenment philosophers fell over one another disowning Sade, particularly since he practiced much of what he preached, but he was dead right. If there are no absolutes there are no absolutes.

One Relativist reply is: don't worry. Societies make social contracts that prevent fundamental evils. Oh? Says who? What authority determines what these fundamental evils are? Or, don't worry: no society would form values allowing the raping and murdering of babies. Oh? Such societies have existed and do exist. Absent inherent, absolute values, who indeed is to say what is what is right? Sixty years ago, German society supported Hitler, and there are still a lot of Russians who honor Stalin. Human nature is basically good. Says who? Say the victims of Timothy McVeigh? Of Hitler, or Pol Pot, or Stalin, or Genghis Khan, or of holy inquisitions and holy wars? Relativists may object to torturing babies or exterminating Jews, but on what basis? Because they happen to feel that it isn't nice? You must not bomb synagogues? Says who?

You must not discriminate against African-Americans. Says who?

You must not legislate what a woman may do with her body. Says who?

Every moral statement a Relativist makes, whether others agree with it or not, falls when confronted with the simple question, says who? "Says I" is the only ultimate response a Relativist can make. And the reply to that is pretty quick: "So what?"

Another response is that most people who call themselves Relativists don't really, at bottom, think that way. I think this is true. Fine. Then let us stop pretending to believe what we do not.

In intellectual circles today it is difficult to assert the existence of timeless truth, or to distinguish clearly between right and wrong, good and evil, because then one runs up against a cherished assumption of late twentieth-century intellectuals, namely, that we humans are morally autonomous beings who have every right to act by our own standards. This belief floats, vaguely, somewhere above the logically preceding assumption that human nature is basically good. This popular, wacky assumption is original to post-Enlightenment Romanticism, and it goes against everything that the historian--or indeed that the newspaper reader, or that the living human being--knows from experience. The evidence is in, and the verdict is that human nature is essentially flawed.

In the University, Relativism has become, not an option, but a tyranny. Have you ever noticed how intolerant Relativists can be? They have to be intolerant, because the ultimate basis of their assertions on any subject is their feeling that they are right. This feeling, being personal, and being a feeling rather than a thought-out opinion, cannot be subjected to reason, argument or discussion, because there are no intellectual or moral standards by which anything can be subjected to reason. To what then do Relativists have recourse? The only thing that they CAN have recourse to is POWER. If you cannot persuade me to your view, why then you can coerce me--by yelling, by scorn, by lawsuits, by legislation. And so power blocs have attained enormous influence. Pro-choice or pro-life, pro-gun control or anti-gun control, pro-tobacco and anti-tobacco: there is no common ground for rational discernment of values; the result is the use of power to determine who wins, and whoever wins is by definition right.

The lack of absolute values creates a situation in which those who are able and willing to use power most ruthlessly and most cynically will inevitably win the day. They will do so by forming alliances with those who happen to feel the same way about this or that issue, and they will use intimidation, mockery, and political machinations to achieve their goals, and they will do so relentlessly and ruthlessly BECAUSE THERE ARE NO HIGHER VALUES than their own goals to refer to.

Relativists, who ought to be the first to acknowledge that every view is precarious, are usually the last to do so, because they have nothing to rely upon save their assertions. Now the natural objection to me is: "Your own views are precarious." I know that, I know it deeply, I feel it deeply, and I freely admit it. Let Relativists do the same. My values are at least constructed upon a self-critical evaluation of human behavior throughout the ages, not on some passing intellectual vogue or political fad.

The existence of radical evil, once we put trained incapacity aside, is known from experience. We in fact do know that certain actions are evil: the Oklahoma City bombing, the Nazi death camps, Stalin's forced labor camps, napalming a village, infecting prisoners with deadly bacteria, kicking a child to death. We know these things to be evil by direct intuition. We also know from our experience that we have willed evil and done evil to others. Anyone over the age of ten who is unaware of this badly needs to look more deeply within.

The first place to look in attempting to accept the reality of evil is within ourselves. So we experience evil done by us. And we also experience evil done to us. (That is of course easier to recognize and to remember.) The experience of evil done by individuals is universal--everyone has experienced it, and it can be denied only by denying the validity of universal experience. It is clear that we may speak of evil deeds. It is somewhat less clear that we can speak of evil persons, but it requires an intellectual effort to deny it. A person who chooses evil over and over again becomes habituated to it and cannot stop. I have known a person like this; you may have; if not, we can refer again to McVeigh, Jim Jones, Hitler, and Stalin.

The next question is whether evil goes beyond individual choice. Is there transpersonal evil? John Steinbeck's In Dubious Battle has a character who is a Communist organizer and who stirs up a group of workers into an angry mob. He is appalled by the effects of his own work: these people, he says, have ceased to be people; they have become one big animal, capable of doing anything. Think of this: would all the evil inclinations of your life put together urge you to shove a living prisoner into a crematorium? Would all the evil inclinations of your own worst enemy bring about the Holocaust? Evil on that scale seems to be qualitatively, not just quantitatively different. It is a transpersonal evil, capable of anything. [QUOTE ON THE MYSTERY OF EVIL AND HITLER]

Be that as it may, our chief responsibility is for the evil in ourselves. Evil comes from both nature and nurture, from DNA to our family upbringing. But it also comes from free will. We are never compelled by evil or to evil. We recognize evil by a natural moral sense given us, if I may return to Jefferson, by Nature and Nature's God. Says who? Says God. Or else God, or at least Reason, help us.

The Myth of the Flat Earth

http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/russell/FlatEarth.html

How does investigating the myth of the flat earth help teachers of the history of science?

First, as a historian, I have to admit that it tells us something about the precariousness of history. History is precarious for three reasons: the good reason that it is extraordinarily difficult to determine "what really happened" in any series of events; the bad reason that historical scholarship is often sloppy; and the appalling reason that far too much historical scholarship consists of contorting the evidence to fit ideological models. The worst examples of such contortions are the Nazi and Communist histories of the early- and mid-twentieth century.

Contortions that are common today, if not widely recognized, are produced by the incessant attacks on Christianity and religion in general by secular writers during the past century and a half, attacks that are largely responsible for the academic and journalistic sneers at Christianity today.

A curious example of this mistreatment of the past for the purpose of slandering Christians is a widespread historical error, an error that the Historical Society of Britain some years back listed as number one in its short compendium of the ten most common historical illusions. It is the notion that people used to believe that the earth was flat--especially medieval Christians.

It must first be reiterated that with extraordinary few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat.

A round earth appears at least as early as the sixth century BC with Pythagoras, who was followed by Aristotle, Euclid, and Aristarchus, among others in observing that the earth was a sphere. Although there were a few dissenters--Leukippos and Demokritos for example--by the time of Eratosthenes (3 c. BC), followed by Crates(2 c. BC), Strabo (3 c. BC), and Ptolemy (first c. AD), the sphericity of the earth was accepted by all educated Greeks and Romans.

Nor did this situation change with the advent of Christianity. A few--at least two and at most five--early Christian fathers denied the sphericity of earth by mistakenly taking passages such as Ps. 104:2-3 as geographical rather than metaphorical statements. On the other side tens of thousands of Christian theologians, poets, artists, and scientists took the spherical view throughout the early, medieval, and modern church. The point is that no educated person believed otherwise.

Historians of science have been proving this point for at least 70 years (most recently Edward Grant, David Lindberg, Daniel Woodward, and Robert S. Westman), without making notable headway against the error. Schoolchildren in the US, Europe, and Japan are for the most part being taught the same old nonsense. How and why did this nonsense emerge?

In my research, I looked to see how old the idea was that medieval Christians believed the earth was flat. I obviously did not find it among medieval Christians. Nor among anti-Catholic Protestant reformers. Nor in Copernicus or Galileo or their followers, who had to demonstrate the superiority of a heliocentric system, but not of a spherical earth. I was sure I would find it among the eighteenth-century philosophes, among all their vitriolic sneers at Christianity, but not a word. I am still amazed at where it first appears.

No one before the 1830s believed that medieval people thought that the earth was flat.

The idea was established, almost contemporaneously, by a Frenchman and an American, between whom I have not been able to establish a connection, though they were both in Paris at the same time. One was Antoine-Jean Letronne (1787-1848), an academic of strong antireligious prejudices who had studied both geography and patristics and who cleverly drew upon both to misrepresent the church fathers and their medieval successors as believing in a flat earth, in his On the Cosmographical Ideas of the Church Fathers (1834). The American was no other than our beloved storyteller Washington Irving (1783-1859), who loved to write historical fiction under the guise of history. His misrepresentations of the history of early New York City and of the life of Washington were topped by his history of Christopher Columbus (1828). It was he who invented the indelible picture of the young Columbus, a "simple mariner," appearing before a dark crowd of benighted inquisitors and hooded theologians at a council of Salamanca, all of whom believed, according to Irving, that the earth was flat like a plate. Well, yes, there was a meeting at Salamanca in 1491, but Irving's version of it, to quote a distinguished modern historian of Columbus, was "pure moonshine. Washington Irving, scenting his opportunity for a picturesque and moving scene," created a fictitious account of this "nonexistent university council" and "let his imagination go completely...the whole story is misleading and mischievous nonsense."

But now, why did the false accounts of Letronne and Irving become melded and then, as early as the 1860s, begin to be served up in schools and in schoolbooks as the solemn truth?

The answer is that the falsehood about the spherical earth became a colorful and unforgettable part of a larger falsehood: the falsehood of the eternal war between science (good) and religion (bad) throughout Western history. This vast web of falsehood was invented and propagated by the influential historian John Draper (1811-1882) and many prestigious followers, such as Andrew Dickson White (1832-1918), the president of Cornell University, who made sure that the false account was perpetrated in texts, encyclopedias, and even allegedly serious scholarship, down to the present day. A lively current version of the lie can be found in Daniel Boorstin's The Discoverers, found in any bookshop or library.

The reason for promoting both the specific lie about the sphericity of the earth and the general lie that religion and science are in natural and eternal conflict in Western society, is to defend Darwinism. The answer is really only slightly more complicated than that bald statement. The flat-earth lie was ammunition against the creationists. The argument was simple and powerful, if not elegant: "Look how stupid these Christians are. They are always getting in the way of science and progress. These people who deny evolution today are exactly the same sort of people as those idiots who for at least a thousand years denied that the earth was round. How stupid can you get?"

But that is not the truth.

MoMo Tue Nov 22, 2011 11:22 am

Owen Gingerich (b. 1930), Emeritus Professor of Astronomy and History of Science at Harvard University

http://www.journeywithjesus.net/BookNotes/Owen_Gingerich_Gods_Universe.shtml

Gingerich's book contains his three public addresses for Harvard's William Belden Noble Lectures (November 2005), and as Peter Gomes notes in his foreword, they are characterized throughout by their "disarming understatement" and "intellectual modesty." Gingerich argues that science deals with what Aristotle called "efficient causes"—a description of how something happens, but not with "final causes"—an explanation of why something happens. At its best, science adopts a methodological naturalism as a research strategy, and thus remains neutral about metaphysical or philosophical claims outside of its narrow purview. "It is just as wrong," writes Gingerich, "to present evolution in high school classrooms as a final cause as it is to fob off Intelligent Design as a substitute for an efficacious efficient cause."

The cosmos in general and the earth in particular, with their complexity and fine-tuning, are remarkably congenial for humankind to flourish. Nor was humankind—with our complex language, altruism, conscience, creativity, self-consciousness, and abstract reasoning—"necessarily inevitable." It would seem, then, that humankind is an unimaginably lucky and "glorious accident," or perhaps part of a cosmological design or telos. Science can inform one's thinking on the matter, but it cannot, ultimately, determine the answer. For Gingerich, a religious view of the universe makes more sense, explains more, and is more satisfying than a non-theistic view. He admits that this is hardly a proof, just a matter of personal persuasion, what John Polkinghorne likes to call verisimilitude or "the ring of truth."

Gingerich ends his book by quoting the prayer with which Johannes Kepler concluded his The Harmony of the World (1619): "If I have been enticed into brashness by the wonderful beauty of thy works, or if I have loved my own glory among men, while advancing in work destined for thy glory, gently and mercifully pardon me: and finally, deign graciously to cause that these demonstrations may lead to thy glory and to the salvation of souls, and nowhere be an obstacle to that. Amen." Reading this slender volume which culminates a lifetime of dedication to robust Christian faith and rigorous world class science was a privilege that filled me with awe, admiration and gratitude.

Aristotle had postulated a Final Cause (why) and an Efficient Cause (how). Why is the water in the kettle boiling? Well, because we want some tea (final cause) but also because the heated molecules escape from the water and become a gas (efficient cause). [illus from Polkinghorne]. ‘One aspect of the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century was that it turned away from the final causes so central to the Aristotelian worldview and concentrated on efficient causes, the how of the phenomena’. 12
There are about 200b stars in the Milky Way galaxy – more than 30 apiece for every man, woman and child on our planet; and more than 100b galaxies beyond the Milky Way. The estimated no of stars in the universe vastly exceeds the no of grains of sand on all the beaches of the world; but the no of synaptic interconnections in a single human brain vastly exceeds the no of stars in the Milky Way – 1015 synapses vs c. 1011 stars.
Harvard anthropologist David Pilbeam has remarked that if we could have observed Neanderthals over the millennia, we could hardly have extrapolated to the complex human civilization that eventually rose on earth. In the 200,000 years of their existence, the Neanderthals’ some tools remained without improvement.. In contrast, Homo sapiens sapiens … began, gradually, to improve his tools. Perhaps this was due to the Neanderthals’ lack of language? It does suggest the evolution of intelligence was not inevitable.
Gallup poll in 2004 asked people to choose between statements that God guided process of development of humans from less advanced forms of life over millions of years; that God had no part in this same process; that God created human beings at one time within the last 10,000 years or so. 45% chose the third…
Liebniz: ‘I hold that when God works miracles, he does not do it in order to supply the wants of nature, but those of grace’.
The Allende meteorite exploded over a Mexican village in 1969. Analysis of radioactive elements contained within it allowed it to be dated quite precisely at 4.6 billion years of age. It’s the oldest known macroscopic object on earth. We’ve got nearly a ton of fragments of it, and they date back to the birth of the solar system itself. The universe is 3x older than that – the Big Bang is dated to 13.7b years ago. The sun’s age, 5b years, is calculated from the rate at which it fuses hydrogen into helium; the age of stars is also calculated from computer modelling of how they consume their nuclear fuel.
Big Bang – the entire visible universe was squeezed into a dense dot of pure energy, a tiny ball of pure energy that could pass through the eye of a needle. The balance between the outward energy of expansion and the gravitational forces pulling everything back together is incredible – accurate to about one part in 1059. Astronomer Royal Sir Martin Rees has written a book called Just Six Numbers, in which he describes 6 physical numbers that, if changed slightly, would produce a cosmos in which life could not exist.
But stellar evolution is child’s play by comparison with the complexity of DNA. Agnostic Hoyle wrote ‘a common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature’. Lecomte de Nouy: ‘events which, even when we admit very numerous experiments, reactions, or shakings per second, need an infinitely longer time than the estimated duration of the earth in order to have one chance, on an average, to manifest themselves can, it would seem, be considered as impossible in the human sense.. To study the most interesting phenomena, namely Life and eventually Man, we are, therefore, forced to call on anti-chance, as Eddington called it; a ‘cheater’ who systematically violates the laws of large numbers, the statistical laws which deny any individuality to the particles considered’. 60.
The anthropologist Irven DeVore likes to compare the prospect of producing favorable mutations with trying to tune your MG by standing fifty paces away and firing at it with a shotgun. One pellet might accidentally hit the valve just right to adjust the engine, but it is far more likely that the car will be destroyed before that can happen… 64
ID theorists ask ‘whether random mutations can generate the incredible amount of information content required to produce even the simplest of cells, and whether even the great antiquity of the universe could make this possible. Here science, dealing with extremely low probabilities balanced against vast numbers of opportunities, is frankly on very shaky turf.’ 66
Gingerich believes in intelligent design – ie without the design features of the universe we would not be here. He has a problem with Intelligent Design, which is being sold as an alternative to Darwinian evolution. ‘evolution today is an unfinished theory. There are many questions about details it does not answer, but those are e not grounds for dismissing it’. ‘Can mutations be inspired? Here is the ideological watershed, the division between atheistic evolution and theistic evolution; and frankly, it les beyond the capability of science to prove the matter one way or the other’. 69 ‘Is the universe designed?’ is not a scientific question. It is a metaphysical question. Science will not collapse if some practitioners are convinced that there has occasionally been creative input into the long chain of being. Are mutations blind chance, or is God’s miraculous hand continually at work? Or we could be more subtle, and ask whether God designed the universe in the first place to make possible the catalysts and unknown pathways that enable the formation of life. Lecomte de Nouy pointed out the incredible odds against the chance formation of a protein molecule. Given that protein molecules do exist, we have mostly ignored him…
To teach ID alongside evolution is a category error. The scientific quest takes place in the realm of efficient cause. ID is great on final causes, but falls short in supplying any mechanisms to serve as the efficient causes. It does not explain the temporal or geographical distribution of spp. It’s an interesting philosophical idea, but does not replace the scientific explanations that evolution offers.
When Newton published his Principia, Leibniz complained he had not really explained gravity, and that for the moon to be pulled toward the earth by invisible means was just plain occult and superstitious…
Dawkins et all go the other way. They use their stature as scientific spokesmen as a bully pulpit for atheism. Evolution as a materialist philosophy is ideology, and presenting it as such essentially raises it to the rank of final cause. It’s as wrong to present evolution as a final cause as it is to offer ID as a substitute for an efficient cause.
Galileo wrote that the reality of the world was expressed n the Books of Scripture and of Nature, and God is the author of both [he wasn’t the first]. Gingerich believes the book of nature suggests a God of purpose and of design; and that makes him no less a scientist.
‘Today science marches on not so much via proofs as through the persuasive coherency of the picture it present. What passes for truth in science is a comprehensive pattern of interconnected answers to questions
posed to nature – explanations of how things work (efficient causes), though not necessarily why they work (final causes). 95
EO Wilson in introduction to his edition of Darwin: ‘Evolution in a Darwinian world has no goal or purpose: the exclusive driving force is random mutations sorted out by natural selection from one generation to the next. Evolution by natural selection means, finally, that the essential qualities of the human mind also evolved autonomously. The revolution begun by Darwin showed that humanity is not the centre of creation, and not its purpose either’ – 98. This contains a curious leap of logic – hard to show that humanity is the centre of creation, but equally hard to show it’s not. That’s Wilson’s own ideology.
Whether mutations are anything other than mathematically random is a question without answer in a physical or scientific sense. It would make more sense if a divine will operated at this level to design the universe in a purposeful way – but that can be neither denied nor proved by scientific means. It is a matter of belief how we choose to think about the universe, and it will make no difference how we do our science. 101
Einstein: ‘the most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious.. Whoever does not know it and can no longer wonder, no longer marvel, is as good as dead..’ 102.
‘The God having the creative force to make the entire observable universe in a dense dot of pure energy is incomprehensible, beyond human imagining.. And yet we can see the consequences of this unimaginably powerful creative act: a universe congenial to the ultimate formation of life, life giving rise to intelligence that can ask questions science cannot answer. It is God’s universe’. 105
What does it mean to be human? Anthropologist Ian Tattersall suggests it’s language – invented c. 200,000 years ago. It’s at about that time that evolutionary biologists have discovered, from studies of mitochondrial DNA (an additional amount of DNA found in the mitochondria and inherited intact from the mother, which means it’s constant throughout history apart from occasional mutations), that the entire world population stems from a single source, a comparatively small group. Perhaps it was that group which invented language. It’s that which makes us different from the rest of the animal kingdom.
Johannes Kepler: there is nothing I want to find out and yearn to know with greater urgency than this: can I find God, whom I can almost grasp with my own hands in looking at the universe, also in myself? (1613).
‘Surely the existence of fossils of extinct creatures shows not a universe laid out according to a plan for instant perfection, but a universe that makes itself. Most creatures that ever lived are with us no longer. Extinction is the name of the game.’ 116
Suffering – we live in a dappled world, where chance and randomness join with choice and inexorable law. Why creation is this way is perhaps the most unanswerable question

MoMo Tue Nov 22, 2011 11:28 am

An overarching Theological motif of the Bible, both the Old and New Testament is the concept of Lovingkindness....Chesed in Hebrew, Agape in the greek.

http://www.aish.com/sp/k/Kabbala_10__Chesed_-_The_World_is_Built_on_Kindness.html

The fourth of the Ten Sefirot -- chesed -- precedes all others because it is the only one that is unconditional and unmotivated

Kindness is often thought of as being synonymous with niceness, but the connotation of chesed is much deeper than this. Chesed is properly described as an act that has no "cause."

When a person works for an employer, and then he gets paid, that pay is really a recycling of his own deed. Thus, the energy a stevedore expends in unloading boxes from a ship is recycled to him in the form of the money which he uses to buy bread. A chesed act, however, is an act which is not recycled -- for example, an anonymous gift to dedicate a scholarship fund.

An act of chesed act is that which is not recycled back, like an anonymous gift to charity.Chesed is proactive –- it is the initiator of interaction, and must therefore be the first in the sefirot of action. Chesed deals with the level of visible, and in the chain of social dynamics is the primary spark that initiates subsequent action.

Being first is no mere hierarchical ranking. Being first carries within itself a property that no other element in the universe possesses. Every action in the universe has a cause –- except that which is the the first one. Within the sphere of visible action, chesed is without cause, a proactive expression of expansiveness.

The ultimate act of chesed is creation, an act that has no previous cause. The Psalms make this clear:

"The world is built with chesed." (Psalms 89:3)

When we call creation an act of chesed, we are not only talking about creation ex nihilo, "out of nothing," in the purely physical sense. Rather, we are also referring to the interaction between God and man.

One may mistakenly think that once the world is already in place, its continuity depends on human merit. (We fulfill God's commandments and therefore we are rewarded.) None of this can be possibly true about creation. It was a unilateral act. No one "deserved" to be. It was chesed in the ultimate sense.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NO GROUNDS FOR LITIGATION

This point is a very fundamental cornerstone of our interaction with God. The person who does not thoroughly understand that the relationship with God is built on a foundation of chesed, engages in litigation with God arguing he had been somehow "short-changed." Thus, all the dramatic debates that literature has produced concerning man calling God to task are built on the assumed argument that God "owes us something."

A worker may rightfully litigate his employer and tell him, "you are not giving me my due pay for the work done, for behold Mr. X is doing the same work and he is being paid double." But an alms collector cannot logically make the same argument to a donor.

If a young person dies, he cannot make the argument to God: "You wronged me, I did not deserve this."Understanding that creation is an act of chesed removes the ability of man to litigate with God. Thus, if a young and righteous person dies, he cannot make the argument "You wronged me, I did not deserve to die." No person ever merited his own existence; no one "deserved" to be born.

God's reply to Job's litany of complaints was: "Who preceded me that I shall have to pay him?" (Job 41:3) God, in effect, told Job, "You may question, but you cannot debate."

The underlying foundation of all existence is a gift. I owe you nothing. (There is, however, a valid form of questioning God's actions, which we will discuss in a later piece.)

This aspect of chesed -- that it is by definition ex nihilo -- has an important ramification with regards to all the range of activity that the Torah deems chesed.

While purity of motive is virtuous with regard to every mitzvah, it is intrinsic to chesed. As soon as there is a motivation "for something" -- be it honor or a future payoff -- it has ceased being absolute chesed. It is just another action in the long series of links in the cause and effect chain.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE MEANING OF TRUE KINDNESS

Thus the act of burying a dead person is called chesed shel emes –- "true kindness." For any act of chesed that is accorded to a person during his life is never "pure," it carries within itself some of the complexities of human interaction. Maybe I owe him a favor and am uncomfortable in refusing him, or perhaps I like having him owe me one. While with regard to other mitzvot this would be a mere "blemish" on an otherwise fine deed, with regard to chesed, this corrupts its very essence. For chesed by definition is "something for nothing."

Any hint of a return corrupts the very essence of chesed.This understanding of chesed will also clarify for us the special status accorded to one's parents and the fact that this is mentioned in the Ten Commandments.

One usually understand this as gratitude for all the favors and good that one's parents have bestowed on him. But what about the child who had a stormy relationship with his parents? Or what about the child that was given up at birth for adoption? According to Jewish law, the child must honor his biological parents as if they had been fully functional parents. Why?

The answer is that parents have done the only true chesed with the child, -- that is, giving him existence. Any other act of benefit to a child is an act within a previously existing framework, and is therefore of a much lower dimension. The gift of life the parents have given a child is a gift that cannot be compared to any other act of kindness toward him.

This is the reason that we are told that the honor towards one's parents is likened to respect towards God. For both have given the person his existence and this gift as such is worlds apart from favors, benefits, and other kindness bestowed on a person.

Let us sum up. Chesed is the first step of action. It is true that it is preceded by "thought" but as far as "deed" is concerned it is the first step. It is not a reaction to any previous deed. It is an act parallel to creation, an act ex nihilo. Chesed is also the one of the Ten Sefirot that describes the beginning of any relationship of God to man.

Chesed Part 1: The Chesed Personality

http://www.darchenoam.org/discussion/chesed1.htm

The Hebrew word �chesed� does not have a precise English equivalent, but is probably closest to lovingkindness. In the Jewish moral and mystical tradition, chesed is associated with love, giving, altruism and spreading forth.
The sources that follow maintain that chesed means much more than doing acts of kindness or responding to the needs of others. Obviously if doing acts of kindness is crucial and ignoring the needs of others is callous -- but the Jewish tradition demands more from its people.

�A day that a Jew does not do a kindness is not considered a day in his life.� (Rav Moshe of Kobrin, zt�l, quoted in Nesivos Shalom, vol. 1, p. 99). �A day should not pass without chesed, either with one�s body, money, or soul . . .� (Shnei Luchot Habrit, the Holy Rav Yeshayahu Segal Horowitz, end of Pesachim, quoted in the same passage of the Nesivos Shalom).

Statements like Rav Moshe Kobrin�s and the Shelah�s assume that chesed is not only a reaction to the requests of others, being willing to help when called upon. It is, rather, a basic essential aspect of a Jew�s daily life.

The Nesivos Shalom (the present Slonimer Rebbe shlita)
The Nesivos Shalom further clarifies and develops the distinction between acts of chesed and a personality of chesed:

There is a tremendous difference between a man who is essentially full of chesed and one who only does acts of chesed. The latter�s might only stem out of feelings of mercy for the needy, but he might not be searching for one to act towards with chesed. The man of chesed, whose chesed is from the original trait of chesed runs after chesed and tzedaka. This is what the Sages meant (Shabbat 104a), that the way of those who do chesed is to run after the poor. He is willing to suffer, whether physically or even spiritually, in order to do chesed with others. This -- a personality of chesed -- was at the core of Avraham�s character, as stated in Avot Derabbi Natan (7): �G-d said to Job, �You do not reach half of Avraham�s level. You sit in your house and wait for guests; Avraham would run out searching for them . . . �� We find Avraham running after guests even on the third day after his circumcision at the age of ninety -nine!

Rav Kook on �Genius in Chesed�
Rav Kook in Orot Hakodesh (vol. 3, p. 313) speaks about �the genius of chesed of a great philanthropist.� �Chesed and doing good are his soul�s mission and the crown of his life.� One who has an inner vision can discern in this genius �the shine of chesed itself, precious and lofty, higher and more elevated than all acts of chesed that actually come into practical existence.

�We are all fortunate if the light of chesed shines in our midst. The world is fortunate, mankind is fortunate. And the nation is fortunate if the vision of a genius of philanthropy becomes revealed in one of its sons. The ruach hakodesh (holy spirit) of philanthropy is a treasure of life.� This special genius reveals itself and relates with chesed, bringing a spirit of life to all individuals in the nation.

This genius �sometimes reveals itself through the nation�s poor.� Sometimes a poor �genius of chesed� will excell in practical , not financial, acts of chesed. Furthermore, when he meets up the ability to translate chesed into practicality �his spirit is exceedingly amazed.� �Those with a sharp inner eye, those who grasp the real value of life, will be able to recognize the splendor of chesed even when cloaked with many coverings of inability to actually reveal itself.�

Rav Dessler in his Kuntres Hachesed
Rav Dessler worked for years on his Kuntress Hachesed (17 Chapters on Giving and Taking, Michtav M�Eliahu vol. 1, pp. 32-51, 140-145), his classic presentation of how giving and taking are central to man and his moral and spiritual life. He opens with the following paragraphs that place giving at the core of man�s being.

�When G-d created man, He made him a giver and a taker. The power of giving is a higher power of the traits of the Creator of all, blessed be He, who has mercy, does good, and gives without receiving anything in exchange. (He lacks nothing, as the verse says, �If you are righteous, what do you give him?� [Job 35:7] and we are only able to express our thanks, the roots of our service of Him.) Thus He made man, as it is written, �In the image of G-d He made man,� for he is able to have mercy, do good, and give.

�But the power of taking is man�s desire to pull to himself every thing that comes wtihin his domain. This power is what people refer to as �self love,� and it is the source of all evil.

Man is made in the image of G-d = man has the power to be a giver.

He proceeds to describe how giving and taking play themselves out in the business world: the competitive takers (chapter 2) and the givers -- like the biblical Chanoch, sewing shoes to give to his clients, and the contemporary Chafetz Chaim, rather shutting his store than take away business from his competitors (chapter 3).

Love is rooted in giving (chapter 4). We love that which we give to, according to Rav Dessler (chapter 5), not necessarily those who give to us. Healthy sexuality involves mutual giving and a healthy loving and lasting marriage is based on giving (chapter 6). He used to tell young couples at their wedding, �Take care, precious ones, that you always strive to give one another satisfaction just like you feel right now. Know, that the moment you start to make demands from one another, marital bliss will be beyond you.�

The remaining chapters of Kuntres Hachesed develop the theme further, showing the centrality of giving to many areas of avodat Hashem.

All three see chesed as far more than something we do. The Nesivos Shalom speaks of the personality of chesed -- searching, like Avraham, for opportunities to do it. Rav Kook�s �genius of chesed� reflects the Divine chesed, even when not presented with the opportunities to actualize it. Rav Dessler sees giving at the core of the mans Divine image.

MoMo Tue Nov 22, 2011 11:35 am

What is Agape?
Agape Love in the Bible
From Jack Zavada, former Contributing Writer

.Definition: Agape is selfless, sacrificial, unconditional love, the highest of the four types of love in the Bible.

This Greek word and variations of it are found throughout the New Testament. Agape perfectly describes the kind of love Jesus Christ1 has for his Father and for his followers:

Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show myself to them. (John 14:21, NIV2)

Pronunciation: uh-GAH-pay

Example:

Jesus lived out agape by sacrificing himself for the sins of the world.

God is Agape Love
By David Nelmes

Discover the True Nature of Our Creator
Relationships are everything...simply because they are all that exist. Nothing has meaning until you decide how it relates to you or how you relate to it. It is the process of making these associations that will determine the outcome of our experiences in life.

We are creatures of love that have thrust ourselves into what appears to be a world of hate. We once knew there was only one form of love, but now the influence of fear and separation has provided us with the perception that love can exist on several levels. The current levels of love are:

Eros love - known as 'erotic love', is based on strong romantic feelings towards another.

Philos love - a love based on friendship between two people who share a mutual, 'give-and take' relationship.

Agape love - unconditional love that is always giving and impossible to take or be a taker. It devotes total commitment to seek your highest best no matter how anyone may respond. This form of love is totally selfless and does not change whether the love given is returned or not. This is the original and only true form of love.

The description of 'Agape Love' that is accepted by most beliefs as the love that God provides, is identical to how his love is described throughout "A Course in Miracles", which is founded upon the primary principle that God's love for us has never allowed him to even begin to see us differently, regardless of what we may have done or believe we have done. The Course is repeatedly clear how God never takes and only gives, which is how creation works since God creates by extending himself...as he also extended himself into what has come to be known as us, the Son of God.

God never takes...and since we are created in his likeness...with his same method of thinking and being, our true selves (not these ego shrouded human shells) also know this is true. We inherently know that it is never better to take or require that somebody give. Giving is natural and never includes loss of any kind. True giving is like creation in that you do not lose what you give, but you extend that thing and it grows larger as you give it, or share it...like sharing a story or experience.

True giving is rarely experienced on a physical level since we perceive the thing as missing once it is given. On a physical level, you believe you have less after you give or that you have more when you receive. As you can see, this physical world has nothing to do with agape love since this world is based upon taking and having more or upon losing and having less. Agape love is based upon giving through sharing and knowing you already have everything and have nothing to lose. Agape love acknowledges that we are all connected and can only move that thing amongst ourselves, but never outside, so we never lose it. Everything is simply shared.

In a spiritual reality, only thoughts of agape love exist. Nothing else can exist there since everything is in harmony. There is no thought of less or loss or sacrifice since all needs are met before they even exist. This is where the mind of our God exists and it is from here where he teaches us and speaks to us. Every thought or idea that has truly originated from the mind of God, originated from his center of Agape Love.

Since we are no longer centered in agape love, the issue we have while forming relationships is that we tend to severely limit the capacity of the relationship to what we can get from the other or what we think the other wants to take from us. This form of relationship stems from "philos" love which indicates you share a like mindedness (eg. if you agree with me, I will love you). A philos love relationship is a mutual, "give-and take" relationship which ends the moment one side either does not get what they want or is asked for something they do not wish to give.

Our confusion on the purpose of love relationships is often then applied to how we think God relates to us, where we imagine that God only loves us when we please him, or that God will only walk with us if we acknowledge him, or that God will only extend his hand and carry us back to him in heaven if we agree with what we think he demands from us. In doing this, we have created a philos love relationship with God which is totally at odds with his agape love since agape love only gives and never takes and is void of any necessary condition. Agape love asks for nothing and gives everything....simply because we are the children of agape love.

Having built walls between ourselves and our creator, we have distanced ourselves from sensing God's love and the world we see around us is a reflection of living without real love. This environment breeds calamity and destruction since that is the result of life based upon fear instead of love. If accepting perfect love can cast out fear, then likewise, accepting fear removes our ability to sense perfect love.

Fortunately, our creator views any problem or tragic moment as an opportunity to reach into our hearts and provide reason for change. No matter what loss appears to have occurred, he is not angry or upset at who we think is at fault because he knows nothing has been lost. Since material things have no eternal value, they do not matter at all to him. In addition, any person you believe has died, is still safe in spirit form, and since God exists spiritually, he does not sense the loss of this being and therefore has no reason to be upset at anyone. His only thought is to help us see that life can be happier... life can be fuller... it is better to be kind... it is better to be loving, and then our time down here will become a focus on preparing ourselves to return to our creator. Regardless of what happens here, He has not and never will lose one of us because we are created eternal spirits, just like him. Jesus proved when he rose again that you can kill the body, but the spirit remains, untouched and unaffected by anything that happens while here in this physical world.

Agape love is seeing the answer and sharing that with whoever is seeing or experiencing the problem.
Agape love is never judgmental and is eternally patient with any thing that must be learned.
Agape love is totally without demands or requirements.
Agape love is total truth in that it does not change, no matter what appears to change around it.
Agape love knows not of time since time does not exist in heaven.
Agape love is unconditional forgiveness for any event because agape love transcends the concept of needing forgiveness in that it knows we are simply misguided and therefore our actions are not held against us in the first place.
Like frightened children running through a dark forest, we act irrationally and do things out of fear and panic. Agape love knows this and seeks only to help us resolve our fears so that we can see clearly once again and return to full communication with our creator.

Nothing physical matters. Nothing can be lost. Nothing can be taken. Nothing needs to be given. In our true form, we know this, but right now we can only recite the words...but we don't really believe them...and that's why we are here. We are in a place where we believe we have been removed from agape love and have written books about a god who does not behave as though he is agape love, but this is not so. The closest our reality can be described here is to think of this as a collective dream on a universal scale. We, the Son of God, attempted to perform something separate from our creator and this is not possible, so instead, this action created a place... a dream, where Gods agape love does not seem to exist...and this is a horrific thought and thus our lives have been horrific.

God has sent the Holy Spirit to help awaken us and to help us see that this world is upside down and totally backwards in thinking. This world teaches taking. God teaches giving. This world teaches sacrifice and guilt. God teaches you have nothing to lose so there is nothing to sacrifice and therefore nothing to make others feel guilty about. This world teaches that fear is necessary to survive, but God teaches that love casts out fear and that we will only truly live when we cast out our fear and embrace agape love once again.

Every lesson, teaching or guideline that ever truly came from God, can only originate from the unchangeable spirit of his unconditional love and endless patience, and his truths, or love, can speak of nothing else. We do know the truth when we hear it because God created us in his image, therefore, we too are agape love. Once we learn to really embrace this, we will remember who we really are and then we'll wake up to see our creator right where he always has been....everywhere...above us, beside us, below us, within us. Everywhere.

MoMo Tue Nov 22, 2011 11:54 am

Those who read the Bible literally are often dismayed by what they perceive as a cruel, capricious, arbitrary, misogynistic, Creator Being; YHWH.....and they can't believe that Yahshua/Jesus could be representative of this tyrannical Being.yet......Yahshua is.
http://www.yahweh.com/The-Name-Of-Yahshua.html

http://www.yahweh.com/pdf/12-2004-PW.pdf

That should give the literalists pause to re-research the evidence and see if perhaps there is a flaw in their own reading/understanding of Scripture.

Examine Exodus 34:5-7 thumbs up

http://www.vbm-torah.org/

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0234.htm

5 And Yahweh descended in the cloud, and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name of Elohim.
ו וַיַּעֲבֹר יְהוָה עַל-פָּנָיו, וַיִּקְרָא, יְהוָה יְהוָה, אֵל רַחוּם וְחַנּוּן--אֶרֶךְ אַפַּיִם, וְרַב-חֶסֶד וֶאֱמֶת. 6 And Elohim passed by before him, and proclaimed: Yahweh; Yahweh, Adonai, merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth;
ז נֹצֵר חֶסֶד לָאֲלָפִים, נֹשֵׂא עָו‍ֹן וָפֶשַׁע וְחַטָּאָה; וְנַקֵּה, לֹא יְנַקֶּה--פֹּקֵד עֲו‍ֹן אָבוֹת עַל-בָּנִים וְעַל-בְּנֵי בָנִים, עַל-שִׁלֵּשִׁים וְעַל-רִבֵּעִים. 7 keeping mercy unto the thousandth generation, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin; and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and unto the fourth generation.'
ח וַיְמַהֵר, מֹשֶׁה; וַיִּקֹּד אַרְצָה, וַיִּשְׁתָּחוּ. 8 And Moses made haste, and bowed his head toward the earth, and worshipped.

This is a lengthy series of essays yet it produces a sophisticated and nuanced understanding of this most important concept...........just by the above verses you can read YHWH remembers transgressions for 3-4 generations.......elsewhere in scripture it relates that YHWH remembers the good we do for a 1,000 generations. thumbs up

In His Mercy: Understanding the Thirteen Midot............The Thirteen Divine Attributes of Mercy, by Rav Ezra Bick

http://www.vbm-torah.org/13.html

The Gemara there discusses different aspects of judgment, both the annual judgment of the Days of Awe as well as the great day of judgment that will take place at the end of days:

“The Lord passed in front of him and called...” (Shemot 34:6). Rabbi Yochanan said: Had the verse not been written, it would have been impossible to say [such a thing] – this teaches that the Almighty wrapped Himself as a sheli’ach tzibur [leader of the public prayer service] and showed Moshe the prayer service. He said to him, “Any time Israel sins, let them perform this service before Me and I shall forgive them.”

This Talmudic passage is a most difficult and enigmatic one, which gives rise to numerous questions. For one thing, the basic idea conveyed by Rabbi Yochanan requires explanation. Rabbi Yochanan comments that there is something in the Torah’s description of this event that is somehow unimaginable, were it not for the special permission granted by the Scriptural account. What is so astonishing?

Secondly, what action is effected through the thirteen attributes? Rabbi Yochanan addresses the introduction to this narrative – “The Lord passed in front of him and called” – and interprets it as not merely God’s words to Moshe, but rather as a visual demonstration. In Rabbi Yochanan’s words, “The Almighty wrapped Himself as a sheli’ach tzibur and showed Moshe the prayer service.” The thirteen attributes were revealed not through learning or writing, but rather through a demonstration. The thirteen attributes are, essentially, a prayer, and God revealed them to Moshe by presenting Himself as a chazan leading the congregation in this recitation. Rabbi Yochanan expresses this concept both by referring to the Almighty as a sheli’ach tzibur and by speaking of a “prayer service.”

In truth, this second question helps us in resolving the first. The thirteen middot rachamim themselves are not so novel as to be unmentionable. Rather, the astounding idea relates to the thirteen attributes as a prayer service recited before the Almighty, as Rabbi Yochanan himself concludes, “Any time Israel sins, let them perform this service before Me and I will forgive them.” The point that we would have been unable to imagine had God not Himself demonstrated such a possibility is that the thirteen attributes serve as a medium of prayer through which atonement can be achieved.

Later in this Talmudic passage, we read, “Rav Yehuda said: A covenant has been made with the thirteen attributes, that they do not return empty-handed [without achieving their desired goal], as it says, ‘Behold, I make a covenant’ (Shemot 34:10).” Rav Yehuda understood that the “covenant” God declares after the revelation of the thirteen attributes refers to the attributes themselves. The significance of the attributes’ status as a “covenant” lies in the commitment that the One who initiated the covenant – the Almighty – made to Benei Yisrael. After presenting the thirteen attributes, God said to Moshe, “Behold, I make a covenant: I shall perform wonders in view of your entire nation…” Normal prayer does not guarantee a response; some prayers indeed return “empty-handed.” But a prayer involving a covenant demands a response – even if that response must take the form of “wonders.” The thirteen attributes differ from all other prayers in that a covenant has been established that they will never be ineffective.

This Gemara forms the basis of the custom to recite Selichot as part of the process of performing teshuva and asking for mercy. We must ask ourselves, how is this recitation supposed to work? After all, we deal here with but a list of names and descriptions of God. This is not a prayer in the normal sense. There is no supplication or request, no petition presented to God. We simply dictate the divine Names of Havaya, Kel, and so on. These are all names of God, but how can we call this list a “prayer service,” and how can this service bring atonement?

If we combine this question with our analysis of Rabbi Yochanan’s remark, the problem is compounded. On the one hand, the actual recitation of these divine Names appears so simple that we cannot understand why we need special “permission” to conduct this recitation. But on the other hand, the special power that Rabbi Yochanan and Rav Yehuda ascribe to this recitation leaves us wondering why and how it actually works. The recitation seems too simple a matter to necessitate the special visual demonstration that Rabbi Yochanan describes; yet the result is far greater than the recitation should be capable of achieving!

I believe that the fundamental basis of Selichot – or, if you will, the secret of Selichot – is found in a concept that lies at the heart of our relationship with the Almighty, and of our actions, as perceived by Halakha and by Judaism generally.

There is a rule in Judaism: the revelation of the divine glory in the world takes place upon a human chariot. The Almighty appears and bestows His Shekhina upon the world to the extent to which human beings call to Him. In other words, the Shekhina resides in the space that human beings make for it. Regarding prayer, this means that the Almighty is revealed to the same degree to which people call out to Him.

For example, one of the attributes of God with respect to the world is that of malkhut, kingship. An ancient saying declares that “ein melekh be-lo am” – “there is no king without a nation.” When the people proclaim, “Long live the king!” they do not simply express their acknowledgment of this fact, as though declaring to a wall that it is a wall. “Long live the king” is also a declaration of loyalty which yields two related results. The nation accepts upon itself the yoke of kingship, and, correspondingly, the king’s royal status is enhanced. The declaration effects kingship, and does not merely attest to it.

This pronouncement is not simply descriptive; it is constitutive. The nation’s declaration of loyalty creates the king’s kingship. It crowns him – for there is no king without a nation, and if the nation does not acknowledge his kingship, then by definition, he is not a king. This applies to mortal kings, and it applies just as well to the King of the universe. When we declare, “Hashem Melekh, Hashem malakh, Hashem yimlokh le-olam va’ed” (“The Lord reigns, the Lord has reigned, that Lord shall reign for all eternity!”), we not only acknowledge the past and present, but also commit ourselves to accepting divine kingship, and thereby crown God for all eternity. This concept is, of course, a most fundamental one in understanding the significance of Rosh Hashanah. This occasion does not only commemorate the Almighty’s kingship, as an annual celebration of the day of His crowning, but rather marks the actual coronation, an event that we repeat each and every year. The night of Rosh Hashanah is the night of the Almighty’s coronation, on which, as it were, we place a crown on His head. How can human beings, mere subjects of the King, place a crown on His head? How can a lowly being crown the Supreme Being? The answer is simple. The very concept of kingship stems from the subjects’ submission of their will to the ruler’s will. Through our active acceptance of His rule, we create the Kingship of God.

Our acceptance of divine kingship is thus important and significant not only for us, but also for the kingship itself, for it is our acceptance that establishes it, as we say in the High Holiday prayer service, “Ve-yitenu lekha keter melukha” – “and they shall give You a royal crown.”

In kindergarten we learned to sing – but not necessarily to understand – the song of Adon Olam:

Master of the World, who reigned before any creature was created;

At the time when all is done as He wished, then His Name was called ‘king’.

On the one hand, God is king even “before any creature was created” – even if no world exists. But on the other hand, only when all has been done in accordance with His will can we say that “His Name was called ‘king.’” The “Name" of God signifies how the He is known among the world’s creatures, and hence depends upon His creatures’ acceptance of His kingship and their performance of His will. If nobody truly calls His Name, if it were possible for the world to have no one who recognizes His kingship, this would gravely undermine the very concept of kingship in the relative sense, meaning, to the extent to which the term describes a connection to the world and a presence in the world.

The principle underlying the thirteen attributes and the covenant made with them is that this concept applies to all divine attributes. Not only the attribute of kingship – regarding which this concept clearly emerges from the deeper meaning of kingship – but also with regard to all of God’s attributes, the Shekhina is revealed in accordance with the people’s awareness. Why? Because this is the covenant God established with the world. Before creation, God’s perfection lacked nothing; in the absolute sense, He was the king, He was compassionate, He was good, a judge, mighty and great. God’s perfection was absolute before the world’s creation, and so will it remain when nothing exists. Creation signifies the decision of the absolute God to reveal Himself through relative attributes – to be not only a King, but a King over a people; to be not only compassionate, but to be compassionate toward His creatures; to be not only a God, but to be our God and for us to be His people. The very concept of creation means a decision that these attributes be manifest in the world through the means of man’s actions. Without human recognition, then, a given attribute cannot be manifested in the world.

This is what the Gemara means when it speaks of the covenant established with the thirteen attributes that they do not “return empty-handed.” This does not refer to a mutual agreement that if we do our part by dictating the thirteen attributes, then God will do His by granting forgiveness. The connection runs far deeper than that. According to this covenant, calling God’s Name, the names of compassion, results in their manifestation in the world. Declaring the thirteen attributes increases the presence of the attributes themselves in the world; the Almighty appears to the same degree to which man calls His Name. If we read these Names of mercy, then the Shekhina’s manifestation must, by necessity, take the form of the manifestation of mercy. Revelation without a prior invitation would amount to the negation of the world and of creation. If the Almighty would force Himself upon the world, this would contradict the entire achievement of the initial act of creation. The attributes exist independently, without any connection to the world, and existed before there ever was a world. But the creation of the world adds the relative quality of the divine attributes, which demands the willing cooperation of the world’s creatures.

In the event that there is no invitation on the part of human beings, the world ceases to serve as an arena of divine revelation and a chariot of God. The will of the Shekhina to reside in the lower world requires that we call out the attributes of mercy, for the very presence of these divine Names in the mouths of people constitutes the presence of mercy in the world.

I believe that this is the meaning of Rabbi Yochanan’s enigmatic remark, “Had the verse not been written, it would have been impossible to say [such a thing].” What makes the verse “impossible to say”? First, the concept itself is nothing short of astounding. I, you, we – we determine the nature of God’s presence in the world?! If we do not call out in the Name of God – He will not be present? Can a person chase a king from his throne? Do we control, as it were, the Almighty? It would, indeed, be impossible to say such a thing – had God Himself not informed us that this is in fact the case.

Moreover, God not only told this to Moshe, but also demonstrated it. If God had only stated the principle, Moshe would have been unable to carry it out. Who can bring the Shekhina down into the world, other than God Himself? This is the meaning of the visual demonstration – the Selichot service includes also having God serve as the sheli’ach tzibur. Even once we understand the notion of man as the chariot of the Shekhina, the actual descent of the Shekhina onto that chariot must clearly come from God. We can express our preparedness to serve as the chariot, and we can crown God and thereby establish His kingship, but the remarkable merging of the King of kings, whom even the highest reaches of the heavens cannot possibly contain, and the lower world, the four cubits of man, is possible only because God bestows His Shekhina and exalted kingship upon this small world. Therefore, strictly speaking, only God can serve as the sheli’ach tzibur. Until Moshe saw with his own eyes God calling out the attributes of mercy, he could not imagine a person doing so. The sheli’ach tzibur who leads the Selichot service does not ask God to appear, but rather actually substantiates the Shekhina – and this power is a divine one. If so, then who stands in front of the congregation, wrapped in a tallit, calling the Name of God – “Hashem Hashem Kel Rachum…”? Who leads them in bringing down the Shekhina? “The Almighty wrapped Himself as a sheli’ach tzibur…and said, ‘Any time Israel sins, let them perform this service before Me…’” They should perform this very service – not by simply repeating the words, but by placing the Shekhina at the center of the prayer service.

In a standard prayer service, the person stands on one side, opposite the Almighty. During Selichot, by contrast, we stand not opposite the Shekhina, but rather amidst the Shekhina; we are surrounded by it and bring about its manifestation. God Himself is situated at the head of the congregation forming the chariot. He does not listen to this prayer service, but rather is present within it. Had the verse not been written, it would have been impossible to say such a thing!

When Avraham first came to Eretz Yisrael, he immediately built an altar and “called in the Name of God.” Rashi, citing the Midrash, explains, “He caused the Name of God to be called in the mouths of people.” “Calling in the Name of God” does not mean speaking with Him, but rather establishing His existence and presence in the world. It is not a means of bringing about the Shekhina’s presence, but rather the presence itself. Thus, the encounter in the nikrat ha-tzur forms the basis of the entire Selichot service. “The Lord descended in a cloud and stood there with him; and He – the Lord – called in the Name of the Lord…” God called in His own Name. When we call in His Name, He calls His Name and is thus revealed. The mention of God’s Name in our mouths constitutes the manifestation of the Shekhina in the world.

The Gemara emphasizes that we deal here with a “seder tefilla” – a prayer service. The Sages who arranged the Selichot service made a point of ensuring that it would follow the same structure as the standard prayer service. It begins with ashrei and half-kaddish, followed by verses of praise describing the greatness of God, corresponding to the first three berakhot of the amida prayer. We then proceed to the thirteen attributes and conclude with tachanun and kaddish titkabal. This structure directly parallels the mincha prayer service. For this reason, the Gemara speaks of the thirteen attributes as a seder tefilla (“prayer service,” or, literally, “an order of prayer”) – because prayer follows a required, fixed structure. Still, there is a vast difference between regular prayer and the recitation of the thirteen attributes. At the heart of the standard prayer service lies the thirteen blessings in the main body of the amida, in which we present our requests to God. Correspondingly, the Selichot service revolves around the thirteen attributes – but this recitation contains no requests or petitions to God. How can this be called a “prayer service,” an “order of prayer”?

The Sages describe prayer as avoda she-ba-lev – “service of the heart.” By turning to God to fill all our needs, we express our recognition of the fact that everything depends on the King and everything comes from Him; we place God at the center of our lives. Thus, the requests we present in the amida constitute an act of avodat Hashem, serving the King. (For a more thorough discussion of this topic, see my series of essays on the amida prayer – http://vbm-torah.org/archive/18/.) In Selichot, we serve God in a more direct fashion. We make ourselves a chariot for the Shekhina in the world, to be a basis for His kingship and presence in the world He created. This is avodat Hashem, a servant’s service to his Master, in the almost simplistic sense of the term. This concept is a most startling and frightening one – “had the verse not been written, it would have been impossible to say such a thing.” We are the chariot of revelation, it is we who support the King and allow Him to sit on the royal throne, and in the framework of Selichot, that throne is the throne of compassion and kindness.

And so, in attempting to understand the recitation of Selichot and the thirteen attributes, we will not search for hidden secrets and mystical meanings of the words. The plain meaning of the thirteen attributes is, very simply, the Names of God. We must understand why these Names are the Names of compassion, and identify the underlying basis of each attribute, but the principle behind our recitation is the preparedness to serve as the bearers of the Shekhina in the world. The emotional state of one reciting the thirteen attributes differs from that of a person in prayer, who falls upon his face and pleads to God. In prayer, the individual feels weak and hapless, broken and crushed – “A prayer by an impoverished man as he is faint” (Tehillim 102:1). One who reads the thirteen attributes, by contrast, prepares himself to serve the role of a chariot for the Shekhina, to be the royal throne of the King of kings. On the one hand, this role expresses the greatness of man, and this is a majestic event, the crowning of the Almighty. On the other hand, the individual is no longer his own; he has entirely devoted himself to serving God by being His bearer in the world.

This act of sustaining the King’s presence poses a certain risk. Human beings, in their intrinsic anxious nature, might perhaps prefer to forego the Almighty’s presence altogether. If God is not present in the world, then there is no punishment or demand of responsibility. Bringing Providence into the world means potentially exposing ourselves to danger. We therefore emphasize that we do desire Providence and the presence of the attributes of mercy. From the short-term, pragmatic point of view, it might perhaps be preferable not to call on God’s Name and leave the Shekhina in exile. The Midrash Rabba (beginning of Parashat Lekh-Lekha) comments that Avraham “icha et ha-kera” – “mended the tear.” The Midrash later explains that the four kings (who battled the five cities of the Jordan River valley, as told in Bereishit, chapter 14) sought to harm Avraham, the one who “mended the tear” and brought Providence back into the world, because they preferred a world without Divine providence. Calling on the Name of God, even the attributes of mercy, means placing oneself into the King’s hands. A person must approach this not with the hope of escaping, but rather out of a sense of responsibility and greatness. He brings himself to judgment – and it is our wish that the judgment express compassion and grace, patience and abundant kindness.

This is the meaning of Rabbi Yehuda’s remark that “a covenant has been made with the thirteen attributes that they do not return empty-handed.” If we would imagine that, Heaven forbid, these attributes can “return empty-handed,” that they do not necessarily achieve their desired goal of revealing God’s presence into the world, then how would God be revealed? There is no other way. Hence, the attributes cannot possibly “return empty-handed,” for the only alternative is the complete absence of the Shekhina, which would negate the entire purpose of creation. The alternative to the effectiveness of the attributes of mercy is not the revelation of judgment, but rather the absence of revelation altogether. The absence of revelation, the absence of any connection between the Almighty and the world, means the negation of the world’s existence. There cannot be a situation of a person who calls in the Name of God, thereby making himself a basis for God’s presence in the world, but receives no response. God established this covenant with Israel after the sin of the golden calf, and it thus clearly pertains to the world’s continued existence even after sin.

After the sin of the scouts (Bamidbar 14:17-18), when Moshe invokes the revelation he beheld the previous year in the nikrat ha-tzur, he introduces his petition for forgiveness by requesting, “And now, may the strength of the Lord be increased, as You spoke…” (“Ve-ata yigdal na ko’ach Hashem ka’asher dibarta…”). What exactly does this verse mean? Wherein lies the connection between the attributes of mercy and the “increase” of “the strength of the Lord”? In light of what we have seen, the answer becomes clear. God is indeed exalted and glorified as a result of the recitation of the thirteen attributes; His strength in the world increases and intensifies. According to the Aristotelian theology of the Middle Ages, such a notion is a logical absurdity – the absolute God can never grow or increase. Moshe, however, understood the secret revealed to him in the crevice of the rock at Sinai. Within the world, in relation to our world, God’s strength and presence indeed increases through people, including sinners – and perhaps specifically through sinners - who turn to Him and call in His Name. This increase of God’s “strength” forms the basis of forgiveness, which itself constitutes the basis of the continued existence of a world that had been sentenced to destruction just a moment earlier, when the “strength” of compassion and its manifestation were weaker and hence insufficient.

At this point, then, our job becomes to understand the thirteen different attributes. Chazal received a tradition that there are thirteen attributes of mercy, and we must understand the difference between them and the unique significance of each. The verse does not count the thirteen attributes by number, and the Rishonim present different views in identifying them. In our studies we will follow the position of Tosefot (Rosh Hashana 17b) in this regard. We will attempt to explain each attribute independently, basing our analysis on the comments of Chazal and the Rishonim.

In our next installment, we will address the first two attributes (as identified by Tosefot) – “Hashem, Hashem” – in light of the Gemara’s comment, “Hashem, Hashem – I am He before a person sins, and I am He after a person sins” (Rosh Hashanah 17b).

MoMo Tue Nov 22, 2011 12:23 pm

Maker of Heaven and Earth (All Things Bright and Beautiful)

All things bright and beautiful,
All creatures great and small,
All things wise and wonderful,
The Lord God made them all.

Each little flower that opens,
Each little bird that sings,
He made their glowing colours,
He made their tiny wings.

The rich man in his castle,
The poor man at his gate,
God made them, high or lowly,
And ordered their estate.

The purple-headed mountain,
The river running by,
The sunset, and the morning,
That brightens up the sky;

The cold wind in the winter,
The pleasant summer sun,
The ripe fruits in the garden,
He made them every one.

The tall trees in the greenwood,
The meadows where we play,
The rushes by the water,
We gather every day;--

He gave us eyes to see them,
And lips that we might tell,
How great is God Almighty,
Who has made all things well.

Cecil Frances Alexander

CHESED/AGAPE............a new view of the world; a new view of you.
[img][/img]

The Anthropic Principle 032211_0006_godsintimac1

The Anthropic Principle 032211_0006_godsintimac1

The Anthropic Principle Old-lady-at-cham-island-hoi-an-vietnam+12855662104-tpfil02aw-12113

The Anthropic Principle 394609508_14a3dd0936

The Anthropic Principle These_funny_animals_489_640_04

The Anthropic Principle 536599-bigthumbnail

The Anthropic Principle Tropical-fish-group

The Anthropic Principle %D9%85%D8%AE%D8%AA%D9%84%D9%81%D9%8A%D9%869

The Anthropic Principle Rhino-iguana_reptiles-reptile-lover-like-me

The Anthropic Principle 20-indigenous-games-ceremony-esp

The Anthropic Principle Siberian-striped-chipmunk

The Anthropic Principle Norwegian-children-in-national-costumes

The Anthropic Principle Elderly_black_man

The Anthropic Principle Three_Japanese_children_enjoying_together_IK-1117-00900

The Anthropic Principle 3555508439_f684bbf40e

The Anthropic Principle 3246719699_31d45511ec

The Anthropic Principle Flamenco-dancers

MoMo Tue Nov 22, 2011 12:25 pm

Why the Bible is so misrepresented and abused is beyond my ken as the actual message is one of optimism and love for all life..........it is the twisting and deforming of scripture, the usage out of its intended context that has led to so much sorrow........

26And Elohim said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over the livestock, and over all the earth and over all the creeping creatures that creep on the earth.”

27And Elohim created the man in His image, in the image of Elohim He created him – male and female He created them.

28And Elohim blessed them, and Elohim said to them, “Bear fruit and increase, and fill the earth and subdue it, and rule over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over all creatures moving on the earth.”

29And Elohim said, “See, I have given you every plant that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed, to you it is for food.

30“And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the heavens, and to every creeping creature on the earth, in which there is life, every green plant is for food.” And it came to be so. 31And Elohim saw all that He had made, and see, it was very good

Tzelem Elokim=Humankind as Image of YHWH/God

1: Has Intelligence

2: Has Freewill

3: Has component of Spiritual Being-A Soul

4: HaShem/YHWH Rules the Universe and Spirit World, Humans have dominion over the Lower World.

5: Has the faculty of Judgement

6: Has an inherent Holiness and Dignity

As created in the image of God, humans are endowed with "three intrinsic dignities": infinite value, equality, and uniqueness.

The first means that human life cannot be weighed, measured, or compared in terms of, that is, subordinated to, any other value. In the Kantian Parlance humans are always a goal or end in themselves and never a means to something else.

The second term implies that no person or group is privileged over another. In fact, Idolatry results when a person or group absolutizes itself or its message.

The third idea reinforces the dignity of every human by insisting that each person is irreplaceable and has a special role to play in the redemption of the world.

The Jewish religion is founded on the divine assurance and human belief that the world will be perfected." Judaism engages with and seeks to overcome these realities of history through its notion of covenant. The covenant is that dynamic which God inaugurated in history, that partnership between God and the Jewish people, to achieve the dignities for which all humans were created. Jews are those teachers, models, and co-workers-having both a divine and human partners - whom God designated to help all persons and even nature achieve redemption. For Greenberg, the messianic dream of perfection will not be realized by divine fiat, but by "improving this world, one step at a time."

These understandings of God, humans, and the world are expressed through the Torah and lived-out by the Jewish people through the Holy days and the Halakhah. In this view, Torah is that divine teaching which stands as "the constitution of the ongoing relationship of God and the Jewish people." Rabbi Greenberg

This expanded view/articulation of higher values help us to search for YHWHs presence in the secular Realms of Life, some peeps call this: 'Holy Secularism'.

The Covenant is essentially a Divine, Loving, Pedagogic process. As Humans become more competent, YHWH invites them to take up a more active role in the Task of Tikkun Olam/World to Come, as Co-Creators.

The lay people of YHWH/God play a more influential role in discerning Yahwehs purpose and in carrying out His Divine Mandates.

Later, ensuing Historical events reshape understandings of earlier Teachings.

Summarized

We=ALL Living things-creatures-sustained and Nurtured by Yahweh-will fill the World with Life.

* We will reshape the Historical Reality, the Flesh & Blood world we inhabit, to sustain that Life at the highest possible level.

* Life will multiply and triumph Quantitatively over all its enemies; including Entropy, Death, and Disorder.

* Life will equally triumph Qualitatively.

* All of Lifes’ capacities/potentials will be developed fully and realized.

* When Life blossoms to its fullest capacity that treats all Life, especially Human Life-the most developed form-and sustains it with the highest and fullest respect that it deserves, then Life will be in harmony with existence and deeply related to Yahweh, its Source and Sustainer(Natural Laws)

* This is the Jews Story, and by default; the Christians/Xns.

* Telling the Story of Creation is the Jews 'Witness'. The present evidentiary Facts contradict the Narrative fairly substantialy.

* Yet, This Story of Creation is shared by Jews and Christians

* This Story leads Humans to see existence as best they can, from a Cosmic Perspective-Sub Specie Aeternitatis.

* From that Vantage Point there are Three Grand Movements in the unfolding Pattern of the Cosmos

1: The World is moving from Chaos to Order. From the Big Bang, with no Laws of Nature to the regularity of the Life sustaining Laws of Nature.

2: The World is moving from Non-Life to Life. From a State in which no life existed to the emergence of Life. From one cell, untold replications, life has grown Quantitatively, and developed Qualitatively. It has luxuriated and spread into a vast range of forms over and through a variety of sustaining conditions/environments.

* The declaration that Life is growing, moving from non-life to life is counter-intuitive.
Death & Entropy refute that contention.

The 'Key' is YHWH/God-The Hidden, Infinite Source of Life with limitless Goodness, Love and Power that sustains Life and Nurtures every possible Form of Life into Being.

* YHWH, the Divine Source evokes the Third Grand Movement of the Cosmos

3: Life is growing ever more to resemble its Ground: YHWH

Life moves from being less to becoming more and more like Yahweh. The highest form of Life, the Human Being, represents the High Point reached thus far.

In Human Form, life so resembles its Maker that it is called; Biblically; 'The Image of God'

* This emergence of "The Image of God" is the Turning Point in Cosmic History according to Jews & Christians.

Up to that point Life has been sworn to 'Be Fruitful & Multiply' (maximizing reproductive success) through a built-in control Programme-A 'Selfish Gene'- that drives the process.

* The 'Image of God' Consciousness is so much like YHWHs that Humans are able to 'grasp' this overall pattern of which we, ourselves are part, and to join voluntarily in its realization.

* Similarly, the Human 'Image of YHWH/God has a capacity to Love ALL their fellow creatures and every aspect of the Universe, as well as the Maker of it all and the Beauty of the Plan.

* Once Humans understand and embrace this understanding, they will lovingly identify with and willingly participate in the process of Perfection.

* YHWH has invited us, as Humans, The 'Image of God', to enter into a Covenantal Partnership, committed to Love, to join fully in perfecting the Universe.

Tikkun Olam

* The People of Israel joyfully acknowledge that YHWHs first Covenant, the Noahide Covenant, never superseded, is made with ALL Humanity, not exclusively with Jews and/or Christians alone.

* It is made with ALL Sentient Beings.

* ALL Beings are called to recognize and participate in Natures Patterns.

* To accept Limits.

* To Direct their choices and actions in favour of Life.

* To join in working for Order against Chaos.

* We are ALL CHOSEN to become part of the movement from Non-Life to Life.

* We are commanded to increase Life and make it grow ever more like its Maker.

* The purpose of the Religious way of life is to create the nurturing ambience of memory and experience, of relationships and actions that sustain Human growth and turns it towards Yahweh.

* Being in the 'Image of God/YHWH brings with it more God like capacities. It bestows intrinsic Dignity, a climatic extension of that respect to which all of life is entitled.

* The People of Israel hold these Truths to be self-evident: That ALL Humans are created in 'The Image of YHWH/God; and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, among which are:

* Infinite Value

* Equality

* Uniqueness.

These are Birthrights of every Son & Daughter of Yahweh

The Sinai Event was the ultimate Social Engineering event.
The Torah is the first, and oldest Religious Book written in an Alephbet/ Alphabet........this alters the hegemony of the Brain to being left hemispherical centric=Abstract, linear and sequential. the ground for Theoretical Science....[/b]

sharky Tue Nov 22, 2011 3:18 pm

OH HAI!

http://www.lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=Genesis

Blessinz of teh Ceiling Cat be apwn yu, srsly.

The Anthropic Principle Cieling_cat_creates

Boreded Ceiling Cat makinkgz Urf n stuffs
1 Oh hai. In teh beginnin Ceiling Cat maded teh skiez An da Urfs, but he did not eated dem.

2 Da Urfs no had shapez An haded dark face, An Ceiling Cat rode invisible bike over teh waterz.

3 At start, no has lyte. An Ceiling Cat sayz, i can haz lite? An lite wuz.4 An Ceiling Cat sawed teh lite, to seez stuffs, An splitted teh lite from dark but taht wuz ok cuz kittehs can see in teh dark An not tripz over nethin.5 An Ceiling Cat sayed light Day An dark no Day. It were FURST!!!1

6 An Ceiling Cat sayed, im in ur waterz makin a ceiling. But he no yet make a ur. An he maded a hole in teh Ceiling.7 An Ceiling Cat doed teh skiez with waterz down An waterz up. It happen.8 An Ceiling Cat sayed, i can has teh firmmint wich iz funny bibel naim 4 ceiling, so wuz teh twoth day.

9 An Ceiling Cat gotted all teh waterz in ur base, An Ceiling Cat hadz dry placez cuz kittehs DO NOT WANT get wet.10 An Ceiling Cat called no waterz urth and waters oshun. Iz good.

11 An Ceiling Cat sayed, DO WANT grass! so tehr wuz seedz An stufs, An fruitzors An vegbatels. An a Corm. It happen.12 An Ceiling Cat sawed that weedz ish good, so, letz there be weedz.13 An so teh threeth day jazzhands.

14 An Ceiling Cat sayed, i can has lightz in the skiez for splittin day An no day.15 It happen, lights everwear, like christmass, srsly.16 An Ceiling Cat doeth two grate lightz, teh most big for day, teh other for no day.17 An Ceiling Cat screw tehm on skiez, with big nails An stuff, to lite teh Urfs.18 An tehy rulez day An night. Ceiling Cat sawed. Iz good.19 An so teh furth day w00t.

20 An Ceiling Cat sayed, waterz bring me phishes, An burds, so kittehs can eat dem. But Ceiling Cat no eated dem.21 An Ceiling Cat maed big fishies An see monstrs, which wuz like big cows, except they no mood, An other stuffs dat mooves, An Ceiling Cat sawed iz good.22 An Ceiling Cat sed O hai, make bebehs kthx. An dont worry i wont watch u secksy, i not that kynd uf kitteh.23 An so teh...fith day. Ceiling Cat taek a wile 2 cawnt.

24 An Ceiling Cat sayed, i can has MOAR living stuff, mooes, An creepie tings, An otehr aminals. It happen so tehre.25 An Ceiling Cat doed moar living stuff, mooes, An creepies, An otehr animuls, An did not eated tehm.

26 An Ceiling Cat sayed, letz us do peeps like uz, becuz we ish teh qte, An let min p0wnz0r becuz tehy has can openers.

27 So Ceiling Cat createded teh peeps taht waz like him, can has can openers he maed tehm, min An womin wuz maeded, but he did not eated tehm.

28 An Ceiling Cat sed them O hai maek bebehs kthx, An p0wn teh waterz, no waterz An teh firmmint, An evry stufs.

29 An Ceiling Cat sayed, Beholdt, the Urfs, I has it, An I has not eated it.30 For evry createded stufs tehre are the fuudz, to the burdies, teh creepiez, An teh mooes, so tehre. It happen. Iz good.

31 An Ceiling Cat sayed, Beholdt, teh good enouf for releaze as version 0.8a. kthxbai.

The Anthropic Principle Funny-pictures-cat-greets-dog-at-door

The Anthropic Principle Funny-pictures-cat-greets-dog-at-door

The Anthropic Principle STAND-BACK-THERE-IS-A-SCIENCE-IN-THIS-SHIT_d8c57b534bd87fe139ec98086b98de60

The Anthropic Principle Skeptical-cat-is-fraught-with-skepticism

http://www.torahscience.org/new.html

http://www.torahscience.org/sitemap.html thumbs up

http://www.torahscience.org/natsci/evolution.htm

A UNIFIED VIEW OF TORAH AND EVOLUTION
Eliezer Zeiger
Professor of Biology, UCLA
CEO, Torah Science Foundation
BASED ON THE TEACHINGS OF RABBI YITZCHAK GINSBURGH

The questions about the origin of life and its diversity are very important for most people. How did life originate? How did different species come about and how is the existing biological diversity preserved? Attempts to answer these questions can elicit fierce debate which is not usually found in other areas of knowledge. Among the many reasons behind the sensitivity of the subject is its central relevance to theology, scientific knowledge and human consciousness.

At the core of the concept of evolution is the implication of change, that what is being observed was not always as it appears today. Broadly, evolutionary change can refer to many dimensions: galaxies, languages, chemical elements, and the like. Biological evolution deals with the origin of life and of biological diversity. In this paper, I rely on the inner wisdom of the Torah, as found in Kabbalah and Chassidic philosophy, to describe what the Torah teaches about biological evolution. Using the emerging concepts of this analysis we can look at the scientific theory of evolution, and ask how the viewpoints compare. This exploration shows that Torah knowledge clarifies and rectifies the scientific perspective and a rectified viewpoint of the scientific theory of evolution in turns helps us understand the Torah teachings............................The Torah further teaches that there is a sequence of created acts, first light is created, followed by the firmament which separated the higher waters from the lower waters, and so on. This sequence of creations matches the order described in Kabbalah as the four categories of created beings, inanimate, vegetable, animal, and human, called medaber, "speaker." The creation sequence described in Genesis teaches us an important point about the evolutionary process. Progress occurs at the top, with the new, more advanced forms emerging as quantum leaps from the most advanced existing beings.

The four worlds: Kabbalah and Chassidic philosophy describe another sequential change: the creation of the four worlds. These worlds are best understood as consciousness dimensions, not space dimensions. The first world is the World of Emanation (Atzilut), a purely spiritual world in which there is no separate self-consciousness, just consciousness of God. Only complete saintly people (tzadikim) can experience this world. In Genesis, the world of Emanation corresponds to the first day, yom echad (literally, "one day"), in which there is no other consciousness than the consciousness of One. The other three worlds are called, relative to the World of Emanation, the three lower worlds: Creation (Briah), Formation (Yetzirah), and Action (Asiyah). In this sequence, there is a progressive descent from heavens (shamaim) to earth (aretz)—Breishit bara Elokim et hashamaim ve'et ha'aretz—in a cascade of decreasing levels of spirituality.

The World of Creation is a mental, formless world, in which there is a mostly spiritual consciousness of creation. The bara (created) act mentioned earlier resides in the World of Creation.

Forms come to the universe in the World of Formation. The forms found there however are of a general quality, as in the biological concepts of genera and species, without any manifestation of the individual. Maimonides wrote that the greatest possible emotional arousal takes place when one truly sees the beauty and wonders of creation, which according to Kabbalah, are identified with the World of Formation. This emotional arousal awakens the key emotions of love and fear in the soul, and connects the soul with the Creator.

The World of Action, is the so called “ordinary reality.” Our experience of reality is all concentrated within the World of Action. Empirical science resides in the world of action. The concept of individuals, this lion or this person is a concept from the World of Action, in contrast with the concept of genera and species, which is a World of Formation concept.

We therefore see a cycle of descending and ascending streams of Divine energy. In the descending branch, from the spiritual to the material, we find the 10 sefirot (Divine emanations), from keter (crown) to malchut (kingdom), and the four worlds, from Atzilut to Asiyah. In the other direction, we see ascending levels of creations, from the inanimate to humans. In the broadest terms, these streams represent the descending Divine energy, from heavens to earth, and the closing of the cycle, the ascending process of earth to heaven, represented by the evolution from the inanimate to humans. Thus envisioned, humans are found at the pinnacle of creation, betzelem Elokim, in the image of God.

Adam Kadmon, the Primordial Man: Kabbalah teaches that the sefirah of chochmah, wisdom, is associated with the World of Emanation. The sefirah of keter, crown, is above (more spiritual) than the sefirah of chochmah, and it is associated with Adam Kadmon, the Primordial Man. The concept of the Primordial Man is one of the most wondrous contributions of Rabbi Yitzchak Luria, the Arizal, to the understanding of creation. In the Arizal’s model of creation, the Primordial Man is the first creation after the vacuum that results from the tzimtzum, the contraction of God's Infinite Light that begins the creative process. The Primordial Man is depicted as pure light, Divine energy, without any form or vessels. Adam Kadmon is the manifestation of God's will to emanate the Divine world of Atzilut and create the three lower worlds of Beriah, Yetzirah and Asiyah. The two words which form the name Adam Kadmon allude to its paradoxical nature of being, on the one hand a created being—Adam—while on the other hand a manifestation of primordial Divinity—Kadmon. Why is the very first emanation after the tzimtzum, before the pure Divine consciousness of the World of Emanation, named "man"? Because God intended from the outset of creation to create man, the culmination and pinnacle of creation, in His image—"the end is wedged into the beginning." Primordial Man, unlike physical man, is pure light and totally devoid of form. Primordial Man is best thought of as the complete program of the universe, embodying the potential of everything that will ever exist. Thus, in evolutionary terms, Primordial Man is the ultimate common ancestor of the universe that conveys a human image because the program of the universe is designed to culminate in a rectified and fully evolved human being that embodies a universe returning to God.
The human being and creation in the vision of the Izhbitzer: The Ishbitzer Rebbe (Rabbi Mordechai Yoseph Lainer of Izhbitza, 1800-1854) provides us with a wondrous teaching about the relationship between human beings and the rest of the living creatures. In Breishit 1:26, we read Vayomer Elokim na'ase Adam, “And God said let us make man”. Why "us" in the plural?! Rashi comments that God was planning man’s creation together with the angels. However, the Izhbitzer, in his classic Mei Hasheloah, published about the same time than the Darwin’s “Origin of Species”, writes:
In the beginning, God created all the creations. Then the creations understood their limitation that they did not have anyone to unite their life with the Holy One, and that by means of man all the stages of creation (encapsulated in the Ten Sayings of Creation) will be united with the Creator, and that the inanimate will give its power to the plants and the plants to the animals and the animals to man, so that man will worship with his power the Holy One. When the creations saw what they were lacking, they used their power from below to cause an "arousal from Above" for the creation of man. "And Elokim said 'Let us make man,'” and the Holy One told the creations that all of them give of their power to contribute to the creation of man, so that man will have a part of all of them, so that if man will be in need, they will all help him because when it is bad for man it is bad to all creatures like in the generation of the flood, and when is good for man is good for all creatures as well.
So what is the Izhbitzer saying? First, he is saying that man is the culmination of the creative process. Second, that all the rest of creation, the inanimate, the plants and the animals were waiting as it were for the creation of man, so that they could fulfill their need to praise their Creator. Third, the most amazing teaching of the Izhbitzer is that all creatures contribute to the creation of man, answering God’s invitation: “na'ase Adam.”
The age of the universe: One of the most wondrous teachings of Chassidut is that the universe is re-created, ex-nihilo, every split second. This is not meant to be metaphorical but an aspect of ordinary reality, although like frames in a movie separated by blank spaces, the speed of the movie does not make it possible to visualize the separate frames.

Every soul has a root in one of the four worlds described above. The Alter Rebbe (Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi, founder of the Chabad-Lubavitch Chassidic Movement, 1745-1812) taught that the relatively few souls that originate in the world of Emanation (Atzilut) can experience the continuous re-creation of the world all the time. He also taught that with the proper meditation, all of us can have a glimpse of continuous re-creation, and that such an experience lifts us above time and space.

So, what is the age of a universe that is continuously re-created anew every split second? Age is a function of elapsed time, and the occurrence and elapsing of time depends on the world in which time is measured. Time as we experience does not exist in the world of Emanation; in fact past, present and future co-exist in that world (reference to Time, Space and Consciousness in B’Or HaTorah 15). Time is created in the world of Creation, and it gets progressively slower in the worlds of Formation and Action. Time slows down in the lower worlds because their yeshut (being, materiality) slows things down, as if adding inertia to the world.

How can we estimate how differently time elapses in the worlds of Action, Formation and Creation? There is a story about the Ba'al Shem Tov, the founder of the Chassidic movement, related by the Tzemach Tzedek, the 3rd Chabad Rebbe in his book, “Derech Mitzvotecha.” The Tzemach Tzedek relates that the Ba'al Shem Tov had a vision and, after that experience, wrote a letter describing an event as though it had already happened even though at the time of the vision it had not yet happened. The Tzemach Tzedek explains that when a tzadik, living here in the World of Action, has a vision, he ascends in his consciousness for a rega (a moment, "eye-wink") to the World of Formation. A rega is a measure of time described in the Torah which is approximately 1/23 of a second. The Tzemech Tzedek explains that a rega in the World of Formation corresponds to 15 years in the World of Action, which we inhabit, a ratio of about 1:1010. This would mean that an event that lasts 1 day in the World Formation would last 1010 days in the world of Action. If we further take into account the quantum leap in the extent of yeshut between the worlds of Creation and Formation then clearly one day up there is equivalent to billions of years down here!

And so, we may say that the Torah description of the 6 days of creation belongs literally to the higher created worlds, whereas a scientist making measurements related to the age of the observable physical universe relates exclusively to the consciousness of the World of Action. The perceptions of time emerging from the text of Genesis and from scientific measurements will relate to each other by ratios qualitative similar to those described above. There is therefore no qualitative contradiction between the age of the universe inferred from Genesis and that measured by scientific means, the two perceptions of time represent different states of consciousness defined by the worlds in which they originate.

Koach hamedame, the power of imagination. Koach hamedame is an important trait of the soul. It arises from the sefirah of binah, which has two levels (partzufim), the higher binah and tevunah. The simple differentiation between the two is that the higher binah corresponds to the soul's ability to grasp ("to catch," litfos) a lightening flash of wisdom (chochmah), whereas tevunah corresponds to the soul's ability to integrate ("to absorb," liklot) the new understanding. Tevunah in turn has two levels, tevunah aleph and tevunah beit or higher and lower tevunah. Chassidic philosophy explains that koach hamedame originates in the in the most external dimension of the lower tevunah.

The confusion of the Jewish people in the desert when Moses did not return from the mountain on the 40th day as he had promised (Exodus 32:1) is given by our sages as the archetypical example of misguided koach hamedame. The source of confusion was a miscalculation in the counting of the 40 days. Rashi explains that the Satan used the confusion of the Jewish people to misguide them, by showing them an image in the sky that they interpreted as Moses being dead. The mistaken belief that Moses had died led the people to seek another leader and to build the golden calf, the greatest collective sin in Jewish history.

Koach hamedame can function in either an unrectified or a rectified state. Rabbi Nachman of Breslev equates the unrectified state of koach hamedame with the yetzer hara, the evil inclination. When someone starts a business fully convinced that it is certain to succeed and the business fails, or if someone incorrectly believes that his or her best friend is lying when in fact the other person is telling the truth, they are being misguided by an unrectified koach hamedame.

On the other hand, a rectified koach hamedame is the source of creativity and, in its higher expression, of prophesy. The rectification of the koach hamedame is a central aspect of our spiritual work. Tevunah is identified in Chassidut with the archetypal soul of Rebecca, the second matriarch, the wife of Isaac. Guided by a rectified koach hamedame, and following the deep level of understanding experienced in her heart, she is the one to decide which of her two sons is truly worthy of receiving the blessing of his father..
Tevunah arouses love and fear in the heart (it is the spiritual/mental life-force of love and fear). The arousal of love and fear (awe) of the Creator is the most potent tool for the rectification of the koach hamedame.
Koach hamedame in biology: The creative faculties of koach hamedame find a high level of expression in the empirical nature of biology. Elegant, high resolution experiments require a high level of creativity, and interpretation of experimental results has, at its core, a requirement for integration that was described above as typical of tevunah.
What about an unrectified koach hamedame? Research in biological evolution is particularly vulnerable to a collective consciousness driven by an unrectified koach hamedame. One problem area is the experimental verification of hypotheses. Many of the invoked evolutionary processes are assumed to take very long periods of time, thus precluding experimental testing. Consider, for example, the question of the origin of life on earth. Large research programs are currently investing vast human and financial resources in the study of possible ways in which living creatures might have evolved from random chemical reactions in conditions presumed typical of early geological times in the planet. At the time of this writing, the two competing scientific theories for the origin of life on earth are “a hot, volcanic origin” (autocatalytic carbon dioxide fixation within a hot volcanic flow in the presence of metal catalysts), and the classical “pre-biotic soup theory” in cold oceans.
What is being ignored is that the chemical reactions under analysis represent a tiny fraction of the number of steps that would be required to produce a living organism from a random process. The reason that well trained, intelligent scientists work comfortably in such nearly absurd conditions, is that the entire process is presumed to have lasted billions of years, leading to the rationale that a very large number of unknown processes could somehow generate a living organism.
The vanishing probability of such outcome has been discussed extensively and will not be elaborated further in the present article. What is important to note is that the passionate, emotional defense of the model explaining the appearance of life on earth as the outcome of a random process is typical of thinking driven by an unrectified koach hamedame. Equally important, this analysis tells us that the rectification of the koach hamedame in the collective consciousness of the scientific community should in turn result in rectified scientific models that are certain to revolutionize our understanding of life on Earth.
Torah-Science methodology: Some Torah sages think that all scientific knowledge originates from a consciousness driven by an unrectified koach hamedame and it is therefore corrupt. They further believe that the Torah is the blueprint of the universe and therefore includes in it all the rectified scientific knowledge. This school of thought believes that a Torah scholar or a Yeshiva student should not waste any time studying science. On the other end of the spectrum, some scientists believe that religion teaches us about moral values but it is irrelevant to our understanding of the universe.

On the other hand, important leaders of the Jewish people, such as Maimonides, the Maharal of Prague, and the Alter Rebbe (and more recently Rabbi Avraham Yitzchak Kook, the first chief Rabbi of modern Eretz Yisrael) understood and taught that the essence of scientific inquiry is to explain the natural laws that govern a Divinely created universe, and thereby to fulfill the commandment to know the Creator from studying His creation, as well as the commandments to love and fear Him and to sanctify His Name by Jewish, God-fearing scientists being at the forefront of scientific discovery.

Efforts to unify Torah and science have intensified in the last few decades, particularly in studies of Kabbalah and science. The secret of these advances is the understanding that Kabbalah unravels the inner wisdom of the Torah in such a way that makes it possible to uncover precise parallels between Torah and science. For example, the Kabbalistic model of Creation developed by Rabbi Yitzchak Luria, the Arizal, explains the origin of the universe as an initial contraction (tzimtzum) followed by the projection of a line (kav) of Divine radiation into the apparent vacuum created by the tzimtzum and then the manifestation of 10 sefirot in the original partzuf of Adam Kadmon. There are wondrous parallels between this Kabbalistic model of creation and the current understanding of the origin of the universe developed by contemporary physics, with corresponding key points in each model being readily identifiable.

At the core of scientific knowledge is the scientific method, a systematic building of models of the universe based in observations, their verification by rigorous experiments and the development of theories that explain and integrate these observations.

At the core of Kabbalah is Divine wisdom. Kabbalah is described as the inner wisdom or soul of the Torah. The power of Kabbalah is that it provides a correspondence (the Hebrew root of the word Kabbalah translates as “parallelism”) between the revealed knowledge of the Torah, and the hidden characteristics of the Creator, an infinite and ultimately unknowable Being.

Kabbalah is uniquely suited to unify Torah and science because of its structural precision, which yields highly informative models of God’s attributes and their relation to the universe. Kabbalah is also unique in its wondrous internal consistency. Karl Popper (1902-1994), one of the most respected philosophers of science, specified internal consistency as the first requirement for a valid scientific theory. The layman’s version of the internal consistency requirement is that “if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and sounds like a duck, it is a duck.” Stated differently, if the theory of relativity postulates that no object in the universe can move at speeds exceeding the speed of light, and such an object would be found, the theory would lack internal consistency.

Internal consistency is a key attribute of Kabbalah because Kabbalah helps us understand Torah concepts that defy common sense and often contradict our ordinary perception of reality. Because of the apparent contradiction between many Torah concepts and ordinary reality, secular people often look at religion as superstition. For similar reasons, some religious Jews relate to many Torah concepts as metaphors or allegories. In contrast, Kabbalah teaches that the entire Torah is of Divine origin and true.
.............................

sharky Tue Nov 22, 2011 3:31 pm

The Anthropic Principle Funny-pictures-cat-door-talk-ceiling-cat

http://www.torahscience.org/sitemap.html

"And its Leaf for a Remedy"
Photosynthesis in Science and Kabbalah

An Editorial Note:
We read in Pirkei Avot (The Ethics of the Fathers) 3:17: "Anyone whose wisdom exceeds his good deeds, to what can he be compared? To a tree whose branches are numerous but whose roots are few, and the wind comes and uproots it and turns it upside down; as is stated: And he shall be like a lonely tree in arid land and shall not see when good comes; he shall dwell on parched soil in the wilderness, on salt-land, not inhabitable (Jeremiah 17:6)." But anyone whose good deeds exceed his wisdom, to what can he be compared? To a tree whose branches are few but whose roots are numerous, so that even if all the winds in the world were to come and blow against him, they could not move him from his place; as it stated: And he shall be like a tree planted by water, toward the stream spreading its roots, and it shall not feel when the heat comes, and its foliage shall be verdant; in the year of drought it shall not worry, nor shall it cease from yielding fruit (Jeremiah 17:".

Examples based on plants abound in the Torah. Man is likened to "a tree in the field", and in King David's Psalms, a Tzadik, a Righteous person, is likened to a "date palm" and a "cedar of Lebanon". Photosynthetic organisms are unique among living creatures in their ability to convert light energy into food. In Kabbalah and Hasidic philosophy, light is an essential symbol for Divine emanation. Photosynthetic organisms such as plants are therefore unique in their ability to relate and absorb the Divine energy embodied in light directly, without any intermediaries. In contrast, humans depend on light-derived food that has first been assimilated by a plant.

The Torah Science Foundation is pleased to present "And its Leaf for a Remedy: Photosynthesis in Science and Kabbalah" to our web site visitors. This groundbreaking article explores the interface between photosynthesis, one of the most extensively studied processes on Earth, and basic principles of Kabbalah and Hasidic philosophy. The article provides an example of the use numerical relations between key scientific and kabbalistic concepts as a powerful research tool to unravel correspondences between Torah and science. It also explores the wondrous parallels between the kabbalistic concept of the union of the Higher waters and lower waters, and the dynamics of photosynthesis and water movement in plants.

An exciting new discovery in plant photobiology describes how the activation of stomatal movements in plant leaves by blue light is reversed by green light (Plant and Cell Physiology 41, 171-176, 2000). Because blue and green photons are both abundant in solar radiation, this finding implies that stomata in leaves are continually oscillating between active and inactive states as they absorb blue and green photons. As described in "And its leaf as a remedy", the blue color corresponds to the sefirah of Lovingkindness, and the green color corresponds to the sefirah of Beauty. This means that, in terms of Divine energy, stomata are continuously oscillating between Lovingkindness and Beauty. The Torah Science Foundation hopes that the rigorous investigation of these Torah-science parallels will help us understand that "ultimately, all of creation is interrelated, [and] in every particle the universe is encoded" as noted in the Torah science methods article.

1. Introduction
What can one profit from attempting to harmonize Torah-the Divine intelligence that transcends human intellect-with the findings of science? A detailed answer to that question demands a study of its own. Let us here identify two central points that will be developed through the course of this paper.

The first concerns the contribution which science can make to the study of Torah. By virtue of its dealing with genuine and observable reality (as based upon empirical experience), science describes mechanisms and objects that are grasped naturally by the human senses (and consequently are clearly understood by the mind). When we attempt to explain some aspect of Torah-especially the delicate and difficult concepts articulated in Torat hanefesh (literally, 'the Torah of the soul', i.e. Kabbalah)-we are forced to rely upon analogies to help us concretize the matter. If a correspondence exists between a Torah concept and a process or conclusion arrived at by science, then we have a very powerful instrument of explication at our disposal. An abundance of such correspondences, even in regard to a single Torah concept, makes it all the easier to demonstrate that concept.

Indeed, it is incumbent upon us-as taught by the holy Ba'al Shem Tov -to extract some kind of meaningful spiritual lesson from everything we encounter and experience, including the scientific knowledge revealed to us. Every quality that we discover in the world helps us clarify some corresponding quality in our own soul, making it possible to learn from nature the ways by which man can rectify himself.

The second point relates to the enhancing effect that the Divine wisdom of the Torah has upon the pursuit of scientific study (see "The wisdom on King Solomon"). This is mainly due to the fact that all reality (and especially the reality of nature) is predicated upon the wisdom of Torah, for "the Holy One, blessed is He, looked into the Torah and then created the world." (See Zohar II, 161a). The ultimate paradigm for the world is man himself, as stated by Kohelet (Ecclesiastes 3:11): "…also has He set the world in their heart", rendering man a microcosm. G-d devised, in creating man, the human ability to understand the entire natural realm through the use of those concepts and archetypes embedded in his own conscious and super-conscious being.

This paper will focus more directly on the first point mentioned above. Nevertheless, it is our hope that the identification of some of the correspondences that exist between scientific models and those of the Torah (please see "Torah science methods" in this web site) will inspire scientists to explore the possibility of using the Torah to forge new directions in their scientific work. As these explorations open new horizons, the enriching of contemporary scientific models with those found in the Torah will hopefully expand research horizons, and help scientists to construct more multi-dimensional and complex theories, capable of explaining a wider range of phenomena......................

1. Oxygen (Respiration), Food (Digestion)

http://www.torahscience.org/natsci/photo2.html

In Science

In the process of photosynthesis, plants convert light (solar energy) into carbohydrates. There are three end-products from this process: The first two, oxygen and food (carbohydrates), are formed directly by the process itself. The third, fuel (specifically, various forms of fossil fuel), is a long-term byproduct of carbohydrates and will be discussed in a separate section.

The oxygen produced through photosynthesis is an important source of the oxygen necessary for human respiration. The carbohydrates produced by photosynthesis form the foundation of nature's food chain; without them complex life forms, like man, would be incapable of surviving. Since the Industrial Revolution, the third end-product-assorted fuels (mainly carbon and petroleum)-has become the most important source of inorganic energy available to the human race, a resource without which modern life (as presently lived) could not thrive.

In Kabbalah

We will now contemplate, through the prism of the Torah's inner wisdom, the spiritual significance of photosynthesis producing oxygen for breathing and food for digestion. The Kabbalah teaches that the human respiratory system (and respiration in general) corresponds to the sefirah of Crown (, keter), whereas the digestive system (and digestion in general) corresponds to the sefirah of Kingdom (, malhut). The entire process of photosynthesis is, as its name implies, driven by light (visible electromagnetic radiation) emitted by the sun day after day, hour after hour. It is therefore understood that sunlight is responsible for the continued functioning here on earth of all life support systems-from respiration (corresponding to Crown, highest of the sefirot) to digestion (corresponding to Kingdom, the last), and all systems in between.

The survival of all creation is hence framed by these two sefirot, as alluded to by the numerical equivalence of the two phrases (keter malhut, 1116) and (bereishit bara, In the beginning, He created…, 1116), both equal to 1116.

With the discovery of photosynthesis, it became evident that light is the physical foundation of all creation (as is equally apparent from the Bible's identification of light as the first specific element of creation that G-d called into being-"And G-d said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light"). Hence we can add the numerical value of Light (, or, 207) to that of (1116), giving: 1323. The average value of these three words (1323, divided by 3) is 441, the numerical value of Truth (, emet, 441 or 212).

Since the process of photosynthesis is responsible for the formation of the physical systems that correspond to the ten sefirot, we will now ponder the relationship between the light driving that process and the names of the sefirot "produced" by it.

Altogether, the names of the sefirot from Crown to Kingdom [including Knowledge (, Da'at)] contain 42 letters:. Our Sages tell us that the Name with which the universe was created was the 42-letter Name, of which it is said (Zohar II 234a; III 256b) :

"this is the gate to G-d, the righteous will come through it" (Psalms 118:20) - it is the name of 42 letters, with which the higher and the lower were created.
There is a chapter in Pardes Rimonim [by Rabbi Moshe Cordovero (1522-1570), known by his acronym Ramak] entitled Is the Keter synonymous with Ein-Sof? (i.e. the Infinite One). After deliberating the matter, the Ramak concludes that the sefirah of Crown is not equivalent to the Ein-Sof, the latter representing an incomparably higher level of Divine being.

The numerical equivalence pointed out in Kabbalah between the words (207) and the Infinite (, ein sof, 207) behooves us, in line with the Ramak's above conclusion, to envision the word as hovering above the names of the other sefirot, thereby bringing the total number of letters to 45. The number 45 is the numerical value of Man (, Adam), the allusion being that light is necessary in order to sustain the constellation of sefirot metaphorically associated with the human form [as alluded to in the verse (Ecclesiastes 3:11): "also the world did He place in their heart"-"man is a microcosm"]. And as we will see further on, man's perfection in the future-to-come will hinge on his direct use of light.

The number 45 is also the 9th triangular number , designated as 9. As such, the word complements the names of the sefirot both substantively (as was explained above) and aesthetically, by allowing us to order the total 45 letters in a triangular geometric form, like so:

The Anthropic Principle 45letters

Upon contemplating the above triangle, we discover that the sum of its letters is equal to 3549, or 3 · 7 · 13 · 13 as factored into prime numbers. Furthermore, we discover that the numerical value of the letters of through is equal to 1729, or 13 · 19, while the value of the remaining letters- through equal to 1820, or 13 · 20. The letters of the two words (composing the bottom line of the triangle) are equal to 242. The numerical value of the triangle's first four lines, containing the words , is 302; while its central axis, composed of the letters , is equal to 496, the numerical value of itself!

cont...................................

http://www.torahscience.org/natsci/photo3.html

MoMo Tue Nov 22, 2011 3:59 pm

Quite contrary to a popular misrepresentation of the Bible, the Torah/Instruction is not obsolete..........Yahshua Messiah/Jesus Christ was Torah Conscious and Observant. Beware of those who tell you otherwise. thumbs up

http://www.inner.org/torah_and_science/converting-wisdom-nations-1.php

The first two parshahs of the Torah are of a universal nature. The setting is humanity in general. Noach/Noah was also a great scientist, he was the first to invent a plow and with that brought a measure of peace to the people of his generation. Then he was able to construct this truly tremendous structure called the ark, a structure that was able to contain all the animals—not a small feat by any measure. Noach was not Jewish; he was almost Jewish and was one of the greatest tzadikim of the generations before Abraham. In this respect, we should mention that if Adam had succeeded in his test and not eaten from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, he would have become the first Jew. So Adam had the potential to become the first Jew. Likewise, about Noach, the Torah says that he was a righteous and sincere man, still he was not yet Jewish. The first Jew was Abraham. There were many tzadikim/Righteous before Abraham, but what set Abraham apart was his self-sacrifice for his fellow men. Noach did not sacrifice himself in order to save the people of his generation. Indeed, for this reason the flood was named after Noach,2 because he did not pray and try to save his generation it is attributed to him. The first one to pray for the people of his generation was Abraham,3 even though he was not successful. The high point of self-sacrifice for others was Moses, whom we first meet when he places himself at risk to save another Jew and who later prayed that God forgive the Jewish people and succeeded in saving his generation.

Non-Jewish Wisdom
To begin, let us spend some time understanding the following famous statement made by the sages. They tell us:

Believe that the nations possess wisdom, but do not believe that they possess Torah/Instruction.

On the one hand, we need to know that the non-Jewish nations have wisdom and that we should learn from this wisdom and incorporate it in some way. On the other hand, if non-Jews claim to possess Torah, this is by and by a false statement, and we are told to discredit it point blank. This is the key statement of the sages regarding the wisdom of the nations.

The first question we need to address is what is the difference between Torah and wisdom? More specifically, the Torah itself is God's wisdom. In the Zohar it says that the Torah comes from wisdom [God's wisdom]. So if some other wisdom is true, it must also have come from God. Any true wisdom is God's wisdom. So what is the difference between the two?

As with every statement of the sages, this one too has a multitude of explanations, each uncovering a deeper dimension in the sages’ wisdom.

Torah is a Way of Life
The simplest explanation is that the word "Torah" stems from the verb meaning "to guide."4 In other words, the Torah guides us in how to live our lives, how to go about day after day, whether life be good or not so good.

If we look at Noah we can understand that his wisdom was expressed in his ability to build this tremendously complex sea-vessel called the ark. Noah was able to carry out all of God's commandments which led directly to incredible technological success. As we noted, Noah was an inventor even before he was commanded to build the ark. He invented the plow. This, the sages say, is why he was called "Noah," which means "rest," because he bettered the condition of humanity by providing it with new technology. Just as today, the more technology we have, the easier life is and the more the quality of life can increase.5

Noah was really involved with quality of life. Until his generation the Earth was cursed, because of Adam's Primordial sin and Cain's murder of his brother, Abel. By inventing the plow, Noah sweetened (i.e., he dissipated and transformed) this curse, to a large extent. So we can see Noah as a type of applied scientist, someone whose concern for the well-being of humanity fuels his search for new technology that will alleviate suffering and bring tranquility.6 Relatively speaking, the invention of the plow was more important than the invention of the computer.

But, all of this is wisdom, it is not Torah. Knowing how to help people, whether it be physically or psychologically, makes a good technologist. But, this is not the ability to provide people with a way of life. We see this very clearly in our generation. Scientists and inventors do not necessarily know how to live better lives than other people. To be a brilliant scientist or successful technologist does not mean that one knows how to bring Divine awareness to people, to imbue them with the awareness that there is a Creator of the universe. All the more so that they cannot answer questions relating to purpose: Why did the Creator create us in the first place? Based on science and technology alone, there is no purpose (tachlit). This is the simplest explanation of the difference between wisdom and Torah. The Torah is a way of life given by the Almighty.

Torah Totality vs. Points of Wisdom
Now let us explain the difference between Torah and wisdom in more depth. In their statement, the sages use the verb "Believe": "Believe that the nations possess wisdom." The way that this verb is written in Hebrew can be understand as either passive—as we have translated it so far (this is the literal translation)—or a call for action, which would render the translation: “Bring the wisdom of the nations into belief.” In other words, you should not simply passively believe that there is wisdom in the nations, but you should act to discover how the wisdom that the nations possess can become a foundation for belief. This is like bringing the wisdom of the nations under the wings of faith, because the most important thing that it lacks is faith, as we explained. This should be the underlying goal of the Jewish people's relationship with the wisdom of the nations.

The Torah is a totality. When a topic is discussed in the Torah it is seen from all possible perspectives. The Torah is described as a perfectly clarified wisdom (חכמה ברורה ); everything is present, nothing is missing. In contradistinction, the truths included in the wisdom of the nations are considered point-like. Let us explain this terminology.

One of the most important models in Kabbalah is called point-line-area (נקודה קו שטח ). This is a developmental model charting development in stages from the simple to the complex. The terminology that this model uses is of course geometric and there are reasons for this in Kabbalah that are beyond our present scope. [The Arizal also uses a parallel model called point-sefirah-partzuf that we will return to later on.]

Since a point is dimensionless, it represents the simplest geometric structure. A line has one dimension, and an area (or to use more rigorous geometric language, a plane) has two dimensions. Obviously, after the plane, we have three-dimensional bodies called volumes, and there are an infinite number of n-dimensional spaces beyond that. Still, in Kabbalah development is considered complete once a structure becomes 2-dimensional. One of the reasons for this is that in Kabbalah completeness is indicative of maturity and rectification. The most important quality of completeness is known as inter-inclusion, whereby, every element in a structure holographically includes all the other elements.

From the perspective of this model, all structures initially have only a single element. They are still point-like. If the initial structure has vitality, it can develop and finer sub-elements can be explicitly expressed. The structure is then considered line-like and may possess any number of n distinct elements. At its final stage, the structure becomes area-like and each of its n elements is discovered to be a complex structure in itself, which holographically include the same n elements revealed at the line-like stage. Thus in the area-like stage, a structure will have n2 elements—representing its most mature and well-developed state. When its full makeup of n2 elements becomes explicit, the structure is considered characteristically inter-inclusive.7

Now, let us return to our distinction between Torah as a totality vs. the truth found in the wisdom of the nations inherently being in the point-like stage. As a totality, the Torah represents not only a way of life, but a complete portrayal of reality. Whatever topic you may learn in the Torah, know that were you to invest yourself in it fully, you would come out with a full, mature, and complete understanding of it and how it relates to every other topic or issue in reality. That is what we mean by Torah being a totality. But, the wisdom of the nations can only portray fragments of reality. For this reason, the wisdom of the nations can never be treated as a complete system. Whatever true knowledge it is able to glean from reality that knowledge will always remain (on its own) incomplete.

Practically, this not only means that you cannot base your way of life on the wisdom of the nations, it also means that you can never relate to it us a complete systematic portrayal of reality. For example, take quantum mechanics. There is an ongoing argument about whether this portrayal of the sub-atomic realm is complete, i.e., whether there may be some hidden variables or other factors that still lie hidden. Thus, even physicists are acutely aware of the fact that the most advanced physical theory we have today is plagued by the inherent limitations it places on our ability to understand reality.8 If we ask the question from a Torah perspective—is quantum mechanics complete?—the answer is a resounding no! There is no complete theory based solely on the wisdom of the nations.

Incorporating Points of Wisdom into the Torah’s Totality
Something that is point-like cannot develop on its own to become area-like. In fact, the problem with the wisdom of the nations is that because it is discovered by a bottom-up approach—i.e., man observing reality and describing it—it lacks the infinite vitality found in any point of wisdom in the Torah. Thus, even though there are undeveloped topics in the Torah, we consider them to be in a seminal form. The moment that they enter the thoughts and prayers of an individual, who is devoted to the study of the Torah, they will invariably develop on their own and reach a mature area-like state. But, when it comes to points of wisdom originating in non-Jewish thought, the infinite vitality is missing and must be introduced externally in the form a force driving the development.

Of course, the external force that can foster such growth is the Torah itself. To understand this point better, let us turn back to human conversion. Though a convert is considered to have a special connection with the Almighty even before his or her conversion, this connection is considered point-like; the usual terminology for describing this is that a potential convert has a Jewish spark.9 This brings us back to the parallel model of point-sefirah-partzuf mentioned above. It is the point-like spiritual influence of the spark that draws the prospective convert to Judaism. Once the conversion takes place, the convert is able to develop his connection with the Almighty to a fully mature state. As such, there may be no difference in stature and complexity between the connection with God of the converted Jew and the native Jew. Now, just as sparks of humanity need to develop by joining the Jewish people, so points, or sparks of true wisdom need to be fully developed by being incorporated into the Torah.

Lest we imagine that the process of gathering these human sparks is a relatively minor theme in Judaism, Rebbe Nachman of Breslov states that as long as there are still potential converts who have not converted, the Mashiach cannot appear on the historical stage.10 Likewise, by analogy, as long as there are sparks of true wisdom among the nations of the world that have not yet been incorporated into the Torah, the Divine wisdom with which the Mashiach will guide the world, cannot be presented before us.

Yet, as much as the redemption depends on incorporating the wisdom of the nations into the Torah, paradoxically, the Torah remains a complete and unchanging totality throughout the process. Likewise, as much as the Jewish people draw potential converts, this is not because of an inherent lack within us, but again there is a certain paradox at work here. The discussion of the reasons for these two analogous paradoxes is beyond our present scope. Still, let us say that this special relationship can be likened to a complete and whole organism [the Jewish people, or the Torah] that invites into itself those smaller cell-like organisms [potential converts or points of wisdom] that have a strong affinity with it.

.................................................................................................................................................

Abraham's purpose as the first Jew was to begin to glue the original pieces of holiness back together. He began to do so in the context of his own family, which led to the creation of the Jewish people, whose purpose is to redeem and bring together all the sparks of holiness.

Wisdom, Understanding, and Knowledge
The sages tell us to believe that there is wisdom among the nations, but not to believe that they have Torah. We have been looking at the difference between Torah and wisdom. Let us now see another Kabbalistic approach to answering this question.

In Kabbalah, wisdom is one of the three intellectual faculties called wisdom, understanding, and knowledge. The Hebrew acronym for these is Chabad.13 Human intellect is incomplete without the combined contribution of all three faculties. In fact, we find that these three faculties correspond to the structural make-up of the human brain: wisdom to the right lobe, understanding to the left lobe, and knowledge to the posterior lobe. Thus, when the sages tell us that we should believe that there is wisdom among the nations they are also pointing out there is no true understanding or true knowledge among the nations. Without the Torah, it is next to impossible for a person to develop clarified faculties of understanding and knowledge. Hardly a prejudiced belittling of the nations’ intellectual ability, this statement can only be understood by first defining the differences between wisdom and understanding, and wisdom and knowledge.

To do so, we must first stress that we are now looking at these three sefirot—wisdom, understanding, and knowledge—as different methods of human reasoning. Because wisdom is the first of the three faculties, we might jump to the conclusion that it also represents the highest type of reasoning. However, the Torah recounts that when Moses set about to search for qualified judges to appoint to the high court, he was able to find wise men, but he was unable to find men who possessed true understanding. Thus, wisdom is more common and natural than is understanding.

Rashi offers us definitions for wisdom, understanding, and knowledge as methods of reasoning when he comments on the gifts given to Betzalel, the artisan named by God to design and construct the desert Tabernacle.14 The Torah describes Betzalel as a man whom God has filled with wisdom, understanding, and knowledge. Rashi explains that wisdom is the ability to learn new ideas or points of wisdom from one's teacher, whereas understanding is the ability to "understand [on one's own] one thing from another."

Rashi's definition of understanding includes both the power of deductive reasoning—the ability to logically derive "smaller" constituent parts from within the context of a "greater" whole—and the power of inductive reasoning—the ability to extrapolate, induce, or abstract new, "greater" knowledge from what one already knows.15 True understanding, we are taught in Kabbalah, refers to inductive reasoning (while deductive reasoning is considered a lower form of understanding). Let us continue to elucidate this distinction.

Inductive and Deductive Reasoning
Understanding includes both deductive and inductive reasoning, but deductive reasoning is likened to the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge while inductive reasoning is the fruit of the Tree of Life. Deduction fosters a sense of certainty in one’s conclusions while the knowledge attained through induction is always subject to revision by the changing reality around us. As such, the use of deductive logic tends to be (at least initially, and especially as developed in ancient Greek philosophy) motivated by an egotistic search for self-aggrandizing knowledge, which can crown its possessor with laurels of self-importance. This follows the Kabbalistic identification of the Tree of Knowledge with the source of the impure realm of kelipat nogah, the source of the ego.16

The Torah is equated with the Tree of Life, “It [the Torah] is a tree of life to those who cling to it.”17 Logically, clinging to the Torah, translates into accepting its inductive method and inductive conclusions regarding reality, which can lead at best to an approximation of reality at any given moment. Inductive reasoning is based on a statistical appraisal of reality, forced upon the human mind by the realization that reality as we perceive it is the sum total of the actions of human beings who possess free will and together with God’s own absolutely free will.

As stated above, deductive reasoning begins with generalities (givens) that are then analyzed to yield particular truths. Inductive reasoning phrases a general principle after studying related particulars. Anyone learning Torah will immediately recognize that the sages reason inductively: first, they study the particular verses pertaining to the matter at hand together with the sayings of the sages that preceded them, and then they generalize. From the general conclusion, new particulars can be deduced. But, if a new piece of information is brought forth, the general principle may need to be revised. Thus, the rectified human reasoning of the Torah relies on both induction and deduction, but necessarily in that order: first induction (the Torah), then deduction (logical analysis of principles in order to yield particular statements).

The mistake of the modern academic approach to the Torah is that it places its belief in human reason (i.e., deductive reasoning) above its belief in the truthfulness of the Torah. This mistake is what turns the Torah into just another field of human study, on par with all other fields of inquiry. The end-result is that mistaken generalities (fostered by an egotistic certainty in one’s logical abilities), which contradict the Torah, come to taint one’s outlook on the Torah and one’s ability to experience it as the source of life: the Tree of Life.

Now, it is clear why Moses could not easily find people who had true understanding, because it is only by the devoted study of the Torah—in a state of true selflessness in the presence of the Torah's ever unfolding revelation of Divine truth—that an individual can develop his understanding, that is, his capability for inductive reasoning. The wisdom of the nations does contain within it the ability to understand, but primarily in the sense of deductive reasoning, the intellectual ability to analyze and reduce. Thus, when the sages say that the nations possess wisdom they mean to say that their wisdom does indeed include the the lower dimension of understanding, i.e., deduction, but not the higher dimension, induction. But, one who studies Torah in depth develops his inductive reasoning.

There is of course a limited state of inductive reasoning in science as well (actually at the heart of modern science, for the empirical scientific method of today is based on the progression from particulars, observed details, to hypothesized generalities, from which are deduced yet unknown particulars to be tested by experiment). Perhaps the best example of this is Einstein’s theory of General Relativity. Given the classic view of the cosmos known as Newtonian gravity, Einstein did not arrive at General (or Special, as was the case at first) Relativity by deduction but by induction.

Likewise, it seems that for the current state of physical theory to produce a Grand Unifying Theory, inductive reasoning is called for. Still, the moment that true unification is sought, it should be clear that such a level of insight into the mechanisms at work in the universe cannot be attained without including the eternal and ever-present contribution of the Creator Himself. For induction to produce absolute results, knowledge of the Torah and an awareness of the Creator are necessary. Einstein was able to arrive at the General theory of Relativity without these because his end-result was to sever gravity from the other three forces in nature. Though he gave us a far more complete understanding of gravity than had Newton, his inductive reasoning, being as it was void of Torah, in the end left gravity hanging as the odd-man-out.

In short, we should be aware that any book that we read that contains ideas and theories that do indeed work but do not incorporate the wisdom of the Torah (and are not under the wings of faith), such a book is based on wisdom, but it does not contain true understanding or knowledge. These are good things, because they can be used to better the quality of life. But to truly understand the workings of the universe, one must convert this wisdom by incorporating it into the Torah.

Holy Spirit
Now, let us analyze the difference between wisdom and knowledge. On the same verse describing the spiritual gifts bestowed upon Betzalel, Rashi continues to explain that knowledge represents an even greater intellectual faculty than understanding, which is called ru'ach hakodesh, or literally, the holy spirit. The holy spirit is the mind's power to be totally tuned into God's will. Rationality is not necessarily aligned with the Creator's will. In other words, God's will does not always agree with what a person would think to be rational.

As a sefirah, knowledge is located on the middle axis, just under will, the lowest aspect of the sefirah of crown.18 As such, knowledge is a hundred percent aligned with God's will. This is expressed in the Kabbalistic principle that many times, when the sefirah of crown is counted, the sefirah of knowledge is not. This is because knowledge represents the super-conscious manifestation of the crown, hence the two sefirot—crown and knowledge—are actually two representations (one conscious, the other super-conscious) of the same faculty.

One of the best illustrations of knowledge as we have explained it in our present context is that of the advice offered by a tzadik, a righteous and holy individual. Many people go to tzadikim for advice. The Bible describes the advice offered by a tzadik, as advice from afar, meaning that even if you would learn the entire Torah through and through, even if you were the greatest student of Torah (a true talmid chacham, a real gadol) you would never come up with the advice given by the tzadik to a particular problem. This is because the tzadik is blessed with the holy spirit and is able to tap into, as it were, the Divine will. There are innumerable stories told about the surprising advice given by tzadikim and by their even more surprising results.

Mathematical Completeness
Let us end the first part of our topic by noting a beautiful numerical relationship. We have already noted that, quoting the language of the Zohar, “Torah comes from wisdom,” implying that Torah and wisdom are not the same thing. Though the revelation of the Torah is from wisdom, the ultimate source of the Torah is above wisdom in the very essence of God (as explicitly stated in the Zohar: "the Torah and the Holy One blessed be He are one"). The Torah unites all three faculties of the intellect wisdom, understanding, and knowledge, which indeed can only fully develop in the mind through the study of Torah. The numerical value of these four words in Hebrew, תורה חכמה בינה דעת , is 1225, which is a unique number; it is both a square and a triangular number: 1225 = 352 = 49. We mentioned in passing above that square numbers symbolize completeness, maturity, and inter-inclusion, the properties of rectification. Whenever the numerical value of a number of words together equals a square number, it tells us that these words go together and complete one another.19

Elsewhere, we have dealt with the significance of numbers that are both triangles and squares. The only 2 numbers before 1225 that share this property are (the trivial) 1, and 36; 36 = 62 = 8.

Because 1225 is an odd number, it shares another property with 1 that 36 does not have: it has a midpoint. The midpoint of 1225 is 613, the total number of commandments in the Torah.20 Indeed, the most notable phrase in the Pentateuch whose gematria is 1225 is זֶה שְּׁמִי לְעֹלָם וְזֶה זִכְרִי לְדֹר דֹר (“This is My eternal Name, and this is My memory from generation to generation”21). The Zohar notes that this verse implicitly refers to the 613 commandments, exactly as they are divided into 248 positive and 365 prohibitive commandments. The value of the word שְּׁמִי (My Name) with the first two letters of Havayah (י ־ה ) is 365; the value of the word זִכְרִי (My memory) with the final two letters of Havayah (וה ) is 248.

Based on a class given on the 30th of Tishrei, 5769 in Chicago

Continue to part 2

Notes:

1. Exodus 12:49.

2. "For the waters of Noach…" (Isaiah 54:9).

3. Who prayed for the people of Sodom and Gemmorah (parshat Vayeira).

4. תורה לשון הוראה .

5. By leaving more time for spiritual pursuits.

6. We may surmise that Noah was also the first psychologist, able to alleviate suffering not only through technological means, but through the spiritual weight of his character as a tzadik.

7. This is the central reason that in our teachings we attribute “completeness” to square numbers, those numbers that can be expressed as n2, where n is some integer. These numbers clearly express an inherent state of inter-inclusion.

8. For a philosophical perspective on this debate see Karl Popper's Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics.

9. See Kabbalah and Meditation for the Nations, pp. ??? for a deeper explanation of the nature of a prospective convert's connection with God.

10. In fact, we know that the lineage of the Mashiach is paved with converts, the most important of which is Ruth the Moabite princess who converted and married the judge Bo'az.

11. There are also so-called "new souls" that were not part of Adam's original soul. These souls were not affected by Adam's sin and descend in righteous individuals in every generation and serve as beacons of purity and direction.

12. As the Ba'al Shem Tov writes in his well-known letter.

13. The Chabad Chassidic movement was so-named because of the central role that the intellect plays in it.

14. To construct the Tabernacle, Betzalel had to both be a scientist and an artist. The sages note his ability to permute the letters with which the heavens and the earth were created. This suggests his scientific prowess. Betzalel, constructed the Tabernacle as a microcosm mirroring the cosmos in all its complexity. The Tabernacle was also full of tremendous physical beauty, reflecting Betzalel’s gifts as an artist.
Numerically, the sum of the Hebrew words for “art” (אמנות ) and “science” (מדע ) equals the gematria of “Torah” (תורה ), indicating that Torah indeed reflects both aspects of human knowledge and creativity.

15. For a full discussion of this topic, see our Hebrew volume, Teshuvat Hashanah, pp. 291ff.

16. For the reader well-versed in the language of Kabbalah, we may now add that deductive reasoning stems from the lower two-thirds of the partzuf of Ima, which are left naked and therefore lead eventually to self-consciousness and self-aggrandizement. Inductive reasoning stems from the top third of the partzuf of Ima, which always remains concealed by the extending foundation of the partzuf of Abba, and therefore their mental processes do not fall into self-consciousness.

17. Proverbs 3:18.

18. The sefirah of crown is divided into 3 heads, whose inner experience are faith, pleasure, and will.

19 One of the most beautiful and simple examples is from the beginning of the Torah. The combined value of Adam (אדם ) and Eve (חוה ) is 64 = 82!

20. 613 is therefore likened in Kabbalah to the number 1, as both are the midpoint of a triangular-square number: 613 is the midpoint of 1225, and 1 is of course the midpoint of 1!

21. Exodus 3:15

http://www.inner.org/torah_and_science/waters.php

MoMo Wed Nov 23, 2011 8:55 am

The Anthropic Principle Lol_cat_intersting

The Anthropic Principle Funny-pictures-cat-explains-meaning-of-life

The Anthropic Principle Celebrity-pictures-nimoy-lolcats

Part 2

http://www.inner.org/torah_and_science/converting-wisdom-nations-2.pdf
http://www.inner.org/torah_and_science/index.php

Converting the Wisdom of the Nations – part 2from Harav Yitzchak Ginsburgh
What about Science?
One of the most profound problems that trouble Judaism in the modern era is the
apparent lack of serious integration of the findings of science into Torah study. We are
hard pressed to find a serious Torah authority and scholar who has taken upon himself
to do this.
One might argue that the reason for this is that science is man‐made and therefore
speculative in nature, constantly evolving and providing only an approximate
description of reality, while the Torah is a God‐given eternal and absolute truth. The two
simply cannot be mixed. The argument might be made that were we to integrate
scientific theories and findings into the Torah, once science changed its theories we
would be in a fix.
But, the fact of the matter is that such integration has been achieved in the past, not
once, but twice. The first integration was performed in the Mishnaic era (approximately
2000 years ago). The sages of that period successfully integrated the astronomical,
geometric, and arithmetic knowledge of the ancient world into Torah.1 The second
integration was carried out almost single‐handedly by Maimonides (approximately 1000
years ago), arguably the greatest Torah scholar since the Talmudic era. Maimonides did
for Greek philosophy and science what the sages had done for the science of their own
era. Like the sages before him, Maimonides incorporated his integrated view of reality
into legal matters.2
Just as predicted, since the time of the Mishnah and Maimonides, science has
changed its theories (more than once). Neither the sages, nor Maimonides feared these
changes even though they could probably foresee that there would be people who
would foolishly attack the Torah as a whole by pointing out the outdated science
incorporated into it. But, the truth is that no matter how outdated the science of their
time appears today, the method used by the sages and by Maimonides ensures that the
integration will be true and relevant even after the science no longer is. Their method
and the one that we can use today just as successfully are similar to the conversion of a
non‐Jew to Judaism, as noted in part 1.

..............................................................................................................................
Converting Quantum Mechanics
Now that we have covered the conversion process in some detail, let us take a pertinent
physical example of a prominent piece of wisdom of the nations and see how the process
applies to it.
Quantum Mechanics is a very powerful and rigorous theory, which has stood the
test of decades of experimentation. Still, Quantum Mechanics is a non‐Jewish theory,
because as we have defined it above, it is only consists of a physical body. In translation
13
to physics, this means that it only describes material reality, but it does not require or
even include a conscious recognition of the Creator. Knowledge that is not imbued with
Divinity is non‐Jewish knowledge. It can be the best, most useful knowledge in the
world, just as numerous non‐Jews are good people, but it is still not Jewish. The first
step in converting this knowledge is to realize that it is not Jewish.
But, perhaps more than any other wisdom of the nations today, quantum mechanics
wants to be converted. How so? Almost every single scientist who has studied quantum
mechanics feels that it is incomplete at some basic level. There is an almost supernatural
(definitely irrational) desire amongst physicists for framing quantum mechanics into a
grand unifying theory31 that will properly unite the four basic physical forces (the
strong, weak, electromagnetic, and gravitational). Being unified and expressing oneness
is a particularly Jewish trait. The essential statement of Jewish faith is the Shema, “God is
one!” So, we can definitely say that quantum mechanics wants to be converted.
Elsewhere,32 we have dedicated a great deal of discussion to the possibilities of
integrating quantum mechanics into Torah. We refer the reader there as that discussion
can form the basis for the stage of separation, inspired understanding of quantum
mechanics that begins its conversion into Torah
Now, let us add a few words about the sweetening stage. We noted earlier that
external wisdom has become part of Torah when it cross‐fertilizes with the Torah. When
we have reached the stage that we can use quantum mechanics to attain a new
interpretation or understanding of some topic in Torah, then quantum mechanics has
truly been integrated. But, this also implies that the Torah should be able to reveal new
understanding in the external wisdom. In other words, the Torah is able to shed new
light on quantum mechanics.

The normal order is that first, the external wisdom is integrated, providing new
insight into Torah and only then can the Torah truly fertilize it. The reason for this is that
the external wisdom, which represents knowledge from below, is relatively feminine,
while the Torah, which is knowledge from Above, is relatively masculine. Their
integration is known in Kabbalah as the unification of the higher and lower wisdom, or
the marriage of the male and female waters. When male and female unite, the Torah tells
us that the female awakens first.33 In other words, the external wisdom is first to awaken
the Torah—i.e., provide new insight into Torah. Only subsequently, does the awakening
of the lower wisdom from below prompt a similar awakening of the higher wisdom
(Torah) from above, fertilizing the lower wisdom.
Applying this to the integration of science with Torah, we expect that first science
will reveal new insight into Torah. Only then will Torah provide new insight into14
science. In practice, in most areas that we have treated over the years, we have only seen
limited examples of the second stage occurring, but when they do, they are truly
powerful.34

ConclusionThis article would be incomplete without referring the reader to the large amount of
work integrating the current wisdom of the nations into Torah at the Gal Einai Institute.
Incidentally, the name ʺGal Einaiʺ ( גל עיני ), which literally means ʺUnveil my eyesʺ (or,
ʺOpen my eyes), is taken from the verse, ʺUnveil my eyes and I will see the wonders of
Your Torahʺ ( גַל עֵינַי וְאַבִּיטָה נִפְלָאֹות מִתֹּורָתֶךָ ). The numerical value of the full verse (which is
also used as our logo) is 1839, exactly the same as the value of the sages saying that
served as the inspiration for this article, ʺBelieve that the nations possess wisdom, but do
not believe that they possess Torahʺ ( חָכְמַה בַּגֹויִם תַּאַמִין תֹּורָה בַּגֹויִם אַל תַּאַמִין ). Written a bit
more dramatically,
חָכְמַה בַּגֹויִם תַּאַמִין תֹּורָה בַּגֹויִם אַל תַּאַמִין = גַל עֵינַי וְאַבִּיטָה נִפְלָאֹות מִתֹּורָתֶךָ
The fundamental work on this topic is a short pamphlet titled ʺThe Torah Academyʺ
(which is currently being expanded into a full‐length book). The Torah Academy sets up
the basic correspondence between the areas of wisdom considered scientific today and
the sefirot. In each area of wisdom, numerous articles and book length texts have been
written based on the lectures and seminars given on that topic. We encourage the reader
to pay a visit to the Torah and Science section of our website.

1. Denigrators of the need for integration between science and Torah would argue that the
sages’ developed their natural knowledge in parallel to the non‐Jewish nations. However, this is
both implausible as it suggests that the sages lived in a sterile environment without any
connection with their surrounding, clearly not the case. In addition, there seems to be testimony
from the sages themselves to the contrary (see for instance Pesachim 94b).

2. Perhaps the most important and most far‐reaching example can be found in chapter 3 of
Hilchot Yesodei Hatorah.

3. The Ba’al Shem Tov (Keter Shem Tov ???) taught us this important principle based on the
verse, “The wise man takes [upon himself] the commandments” (Proverbs 10: Cool

. The Ba’al Shem
Tov explained that the plural form of “commandments” in this verse refers not to multiple
commandments, but to the two dimensions inherent in the performance of every commandment.

4. For example, a legal stipulation regarding conversion is that conversion is individual, i.e.,
you cannot convert an entire people all at once. Case in point is the story of the kingdom of
Kazar, whose people converted en masse, but did not remain Jewish and ultimately returned to
their Christian and Islamic roots.

5. See in length in Transforming Darkness Into Light.
15

6. The potential convert would define him or her self with the words “I am not Jewish.”

7. Yoreh De’ah 268:2. See the full text to see how it clearly reflects the process of submission,
separation, and sweetening.

8. Of course, the argument that the Jewish people are homeless, troubled, and stricken with
suffering in the Shulchan Aruch is not the only one that can be used.

9. Ruth 1:16‐17.

10. Over the years, some non‐Jewish melodies were converted into Jewish melodies. In each
case, the final result was slightly different from the original.

11. Conversion is truly a universal process and applies equally to non‐Jews as well as to Jews
(and to the Almighty, as we have noted). What need does a Jew have for conversion? The answer
is that spiritually, every Jew can undergo this process of submission, separation, and sweetening
in respect to his or her animal soul. Focusing on the animal soul, a Jew can say “I am a non‐Jew.”
For most people, it is the animal soul that defines their being, their thoughts, their consciousness
and therefore they too can say, “I am a non‐Jew.”

The idea here is that regardless of whether you are a Jew or a non‐Jew there are psychological
and spiritual forces that make up your identity that are non‐Jewish in the sense that they conceal
God from you and make you feel separate and improperly autonomous from Him. Being non‐
Jewish really means being a corporal reality without a Divine reality. The process of conversion
involves infusing this corporal reality with Divine awareness allowing it to relate to God, to serve
God, and to come close to God. And again, whether you are Jewish or not, this requires a process
of conversion whose first stage is recognizing that I am not yet Jewish. Thus a Jew too is always
full of profound humility, recognizing that for all the favors that God has bestowed upon him by
creating him a Jew, still, there are many parts of his identity that are far from ideal.

12. Unfortunately, in many cases, the conversion is motivated by an ulterior motive and not
because of the true desire of the potential convert to come closer to God by joining the Jewish
people.

13. We are here of course speaking only of 100% orthodox Rabbis who truly understand the
difficulty of accepting a convert into the Jewish people and who fully follow the letter of the law.

14. Until recently, and in some part of the world even today, conducting a conversion of a
non‐Jew to Judaism is considered illegal, punishable, even by death. But, there were great
individuals, who in an example of total self‐sacrifice for a potential convert, did carry out
conversion. One example such selfless conduct was Rabbi Zalman Zezmer, one of the greatest
intellects of Chabad and a disciple of the Alter Rebbe, the founder of Chabad. Rabbi Zalman was
captured and sentenced to exile to Siberia by the Czarist regime for having performed
conversions. He was one of the few Rabbis of his time who had the audacity to do so. In the end,
he passed away before the sentence could be executed.

15. As explained in depth in the Mittler Rebbe’s maʹamar, ' .ויספו ענוים שמחה בהוי

16. Berachot 5b.

17. Menachot ???.

18. There are of course Rabbis and Torah scholars who think that science contradicts Torah
and therefore does not warrant serious consideration as wisdom of the nations. They fear that
giving legitimacy to science will encourage the Torah‐bashing science is used for by some people
and even some scientists. The truth is that only pseudo‐science contradicts the Torah and only
mistaken interpretations of the Torah are at odds with scientific findings. Still, fear is many times
caused by arrogance. The fear of the seeming contradiction is then a front for a sense of arrogance over science. Indeed, some fears are positive, but usually the fear of engaging science is strongly
motivated by one’s feeling of self ( .(ישות
16

19. See for example the discussion of Kabbalah’s 15 bodily contact points appearing in Body,
Mind, and Soul, pp. 231‐4.
When first studying this topic in Kabbalah, many people are tempted to immediately identify
these contact points as parallel language for the Eastern chakras, thereby immediately accepting
the notion of chakras as positive and “kosher” in the eyes of the Torah. Nothing could be more
self‐defeating. The initial attitude should be (as is the case in fact) that chakras are not at all part
of the Torah.

They are part of a tradition that is diametrically opposed to Torah since it does not
recognize the existence of one God. Still, there is some wisdom in the notion of chakras that
might be converted and integrated into Torah. The separation stage allows one to find the
appropriate topic in Torah into which this wisdom might be incorporated (in this case the five
Kabbalistic partzufim and their respective points of contact in the human form). Finally, once the
points of wisdom have been converted, they reappear in a completely new form and with new
names altogether. In fact, if the reader of that section in Body, Mind, and Soul, were not informed
that in a ʹprevious lifeʹ the contact points were Eastern chakras, he might not even realize it.

20. Proverbs 31:30.

21. For a great deal more on this, see our article on the Periodic Table.

22. Besha’ah She’hekdimu 5672, p. ???.

23. Sukah 52b and Yalkut Shimoni Isaiah 425. See also Yerushalmi Ta’anit 3:4.

24. Siftei Cohen to Leviticus 1:14.

25. Numbers 28:15.

26. Chulin 60b.

27. A careful reading of the verses in Genesis 1 reveals that initially the sun and the moon
were equally luminous, but subsequently the moon was made less luminous than the sun.

28. To a certain extent, this is like a child building a sandcastle on the beach only to destroy it
in order to build a new one.

29. Megilah 6b.

30. Zachariah 8:6.

31. Without a doubt, the physicist who was most stricken by this irrational need was Albert
Einstein, who spent most of the last 20 years of his life searching for a way to unify our
understanding of the 4 physical forces in nature. We can see this as an example of Einstein’s
Jewish soul being affected by the yearning within physics to reach a unified state, just as many
times we see that Jewish souls are greatly moved when they see a non‐Jew yearning to grow
closer and serve God, to the point of demanding to become Jewish.

32. See our series on Quantum Mechanics, Relativity, and String Theory.

33. Leviticus 12:2.

34. One of the most important examples, which has already been verified scientifically, is the
role of the second X chromosome in the female fetus, a topic we discussed in length in the late 70s
and early 80s.

MoMo Wed Nov 23, 2011 9:13 am

The Anthropic Principle YHShWH-Jesus-Christ-Hebrew-Meaning-Spelling-Human-GOD

http://www.agudatbris.com/writtings2010/kabalah_revelation_messiah_yahshua.pdf

Kabbalah: the Revelation of King Messiah YahShua

“Now to him who is able to establish you by my full message - the proclamation of Messiah YahShua,
according to the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past, but now revealed and made known
through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal Elohim, so that all nations might believe and
obey him— to the only wise Elohim be glory forever through Messiah YahShua! Amien.” (Romans 16:25-27)
Kabbalah has been clouded in confusion, legend, myth, and misrepresentation because authentic Kabbalah
has been hidden for thousands of years... until the coming of King Messiah YahShua.
The word Kabbalah ה ל ב ק comes from the root word ל ב ק which means, “to receive.” Kabbalah
then is received revelation by the Holy Spirit. Kabbalah seeks to encourage a relationship between an eternal and mysterious Creator – Yahweh, the Ayn Sof, the Incomprehensible One, and the mortal, finite creation – mankind,
made in the “image of the Express Image of the invisible Elohim.” (Genesis 1:26 & Colossians 1:15)
According to Scripture, knowledge of Yahweh was transmitted to the Patriarchs, prophets, and sages
( היה מ כ H חäKhämim in Hebrew, literally meaning “wise ones”) and in turn given to His people Israel.
Israel, as the priests of all mankind was to convey these teaching to the rest of mankind.
Unfortunately, though Israel was called to be a “Kingdom of Priests” (Exodus 19:6) foreign conquest and
persecution drove Israel’s spiritual leadership into hiding; the knowledge they had went underground making it
secret, fearing that it might be misused if it fell into the wrong hands. They stop the public use of the name of
Yahweh, hiding behind titles like El Shaddi, El Elyon, Adonai, and Elohim.
The Sanhedrin leaders were also concerned that the knowledge of the ה ס ו דרתתו “Torat Ha’Sod”
meaning the “Mystical Torah” would be trampled on by the philosophers, theologians and preachers of the Gentiles...........................................

http://rabdavis.org/yahshuas%20%20kabbalah.htm

All Yahshua's actions were informed by Judaism and the tenets of its faith, and that is lost or even considered anathema to most professed believers, because they have been taught, erroneously, that His advent signaled a new path to redemption, a path that leads to Hellenistic Christianity, and it's opposition to Judaism. Yet, any unbiased, informed believer can realize through Yahshua's kabbalah and His mission that He was not only our paschal lamb to provide reconciliation unto HaShem, but he was also to usher in the Future Kingdom of G-d, established within the framework and parameters of a Messianic Judaism that upholds the practice of Torah. And not through another religion that has lost its Jewish roots, namely Christianity.

Amein

http://www.mashiyach.com/kabbalah.htm

Sponsored content

The Anthropic Principle

The Anthropic Principle

Re: The Anthropic Principle

Re: The Anthropic Principle

Re: The Anthropic Principle

The Dawkins Delusion

Re: The Anthropic Principle

Re: The Anthropic Principle

Re: The Anthropic Principle

Re: The Anthropic Principle

Re: The Anthropic Principle

Re: The Anthropic Principle

Re: The Anthropic Principle

Re: The Anthropic Principle

Re: The Anthropic Principle

Re: The Anthropic Principle

Re: The Anthropic Principle

Re: The Anthropic Principle

Re: The Anthropic Principle

Re: The Anthropic Principle

Re: The Anthropic Principle

Re: The Anthropic Principle

Re: The Anthropic Principle

Re: The Anthropic Principle

Re: The Anthropic Principle