 |
||||
 |
|
|||
converted as text only, go to www.arniegotfryd.com for links
Convergence
Exploring the Interplay of Science and Faith 15 Elul 5766 - 8 Sept. 2006
- Volume 1, Issue 12 B"H
In This Issue
Abraham Principle - G-d is a Verb
Beyond Description (Part 1 of 2)
Worldly Wisdom
Sign Up
Quick Links
About Dr. Arnie Gotfryd, PhD
Faith and Science Seminars
Teaching The Art Of Aromatherapy To Soothe And Heal
A bubble bath that improves memory. A kitchen cleaner that wards off nausea and energizes. A scented handkerchief that calms a patient entering the MRI. The benefits of aromatherapy are real. Learn the uses, healing properties and how-tos of using aromatherapy to heal and de-stress from the University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.>>
The Return: The Incense Offering
..The ketoret possessed the unique capability to sublimate the evil odor of the animal soul within its heavenly fragrance..>>
This issue is
generously sponsored by
Morry Koperwas
To sponsor an issue, click here.
NOTE: If you prefer to receive this newsletter as text only, CLICK HERE.
A Word of Wisdom
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When a scientist attempts to explain the fundamental laws of nature,he is stepping away from his field — the natural sciences — into a completely different area, one that has nothing to do with him at all. ..like an astronomer offering medical advice.. it has no more value than an amateur’s opinion.
-The Rebbe, Mind Over Matter, p.145, (to order see above)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Principle - G-d is a Verb
Normally people think of G-d as a constant, like a rocky refuge on the stormy seas of time. Something solid you can count on, an absolute to which everything else is relative. This is all true, but it’s only part of the picture. Once we see G-d as a creative dynamic within the flow of time, the whole concept comes to life. The waves on the beach, birth and death, seasons and songs, all take on a divine quality.
Applying pure logic systematically and consistently to his study of nature, Abraham recognized the divine creative dynamic in the cosmos. And his conclusions were confirmed by the Torah itself, for of the many names by which G-d is known in the Hebrew Bible, the most essential name is the one associated with time.
In English, this divine name is translated as “The Eternal” which has a static implication, like the earth under your feet. But in the original Hebrew, this name is a verb, a dynamic, referring to all of existence continuously coming into being ex nihilo, from nothing to something. The very letters of that Hebrew name, /Yud/, /heh/, /vav/ and /heh/, spell out four forms of the verb to be: Was, is, will be, and continuous coming to be.
This is the notion of G-d being above time, within time, creating time at all times.
Today we have an advantage over the ancients. When they tried to envision continuous creation of diverse beings from a single source, they had to think hard, meditate, and imagine things totally outside their range of experience. Not so you and me. We have modern technology to provide vivid analogies of how continuous creation works.
For instance, a tv image of a tree, as static as it looks, is being refreshed by a new set of scanning electrons some 60 times per second. It’s a new picture every moment. That was Abraham’s view of reality as well, a new world every moment. And in recent years, physics has come to accept this view of reality as well.
Bringing creation out of the dusty past and projecting it into the eternal now is about as radical a shift in thinking as you could get. Suddenly the Creator was no longer the great-grandfather god who politely exited the universe for bigger and better things after so kindly fashioning it in the first place. Instead of just being reverently acknowledged as a prehistoric First Cause, the Creator is now seen as an intimately present Current Event.
In a world of constant change, yes He is the constant. But also the change.
previous chapters..
Beyond Description (Part 1 of 2)
During an autumn stroll, a mother and her school-aged daughter were admiring the beautiful array of colored leaves. They were discussing what lay behind this quietly spectacular transformation.
“Mom, why do the leaves change color?”
“Well, dear, in the spring and summer, the leaves make food for the tree. Inside each leaf, there are millions of tiny green molecules called chlorophyll. The chlorophyll makes the food by collecting light from the sun, carbon dioxide from the air, and water from the ground. Then it puts them all together to make sugar and starch. In the autumn, the tree stops making food because it doesn’t need any in the winter. When that happens, the chlorophyll breaks down, and with it goes the green color. By that time, the other molecules in the leaf become more obvious and they give off the red, orange and yellow colors that we see today.”
“That’s not what Grandma says,” commented the little girl.
“No? What does she say?”
“She says G-d paints them. . . one at a time.”
Whom should the child believe? Mom? Grandma? Both? Neither?
Those who side with Grandma are to be admired for their piety. Still, it is unfair to totally reject Mother out of hand. Is it not possible that the scientific explanation has some truth and some value? If so, it is unwise to reject it out of ignorance. It would amount to saying, “Religion, I know and like; but science, I don’t really understand. Therefore religion is better.”
Sometimes people reject a scientific explanation because it seems to conflict with the religious view. True, there is nothing wrong with accepting one view over another, but on what basis? Can one rule out an explanation based on direct observations and plain logic? After all, one trusts observations and sound reasoning in other areas of life; why not here? Faith is fine, but here is a problem with “blind faith” that ignores the observed facts and rational deductions of science.
Those who side with Mother are to be praised for their sophistication. Still there may be more to Grandma than meets the eye. One should at least know whether religion provides insights into the natural world, before rejecting it. It is unfair to say, “Science, I know and like; religion, I don’t really care to understand. Therefore science is better.”
Rejecting religion out of ignorance is no better than rejecting science out of ignorance. It’s like the story of the rabbi and the scientist who wound up seated together on an airplane.
“You must be a rabbi,” opened the scientist.
“Yes, I am,” confirmed his neighbor.
“I know all about Judaism,” quipped the scientist.
“Do you really?” the rabbi responded, a little piqued.
“Sure: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
“I see. And vhat, may I ask, is your occupation?”
“I am an astrophysicist.”
“Oh, really?” The rabbi paused a moment, then countered, “I know all about astronomy.”
“Come now, Rabbi. What do you know about astronomy?”
“Tvinkle, tvinkle little stah.”
Some would reject the religious view in the leaf color debate because they imagine G-d to have human dimensions and features. They envision Him as an invisible, bearded baritone holding a nylon paintbrush, a tin of latex paint and a stopwatch to make sure all those leaves get done on time. Of course they reject the religious explanation of natural events as a childish fantasy. On those terms, who wouldn’t?
But what if “He” is an Absolutely Infinite Being using the brush of photoperiodically-induced cellular physiology dipped into pigments like chlorophyll and carotene? Surely if the Creator is capable of making something from nothing, He can also regulate existing chemicals and processes.
Neither science nor religion is as stiff and boxed-in as many people think. Science has room for the Creator, and religion has room for science. Individual scientist or theologians, or even whole sects of them, may be too biased or uninformed to recognize this, but authentic science and authentic religion are quite compatible and even complementary.
What is the basic difference between scientific and religious explanations of events? Followers of either system accept the validity of our sensory experiences. So too will they agree pretty much on what they observe in terms of temperature, weight, volume, brightness, duration, etc. They should also agree on the validity of sound, logical proofs and deductions. Where they differ is in the questions they answer.
Essentially science is concerned with how the world works, while religion addresses why the world works that way. Without knowing what for, what good is the what?
Worldly Wisdom
Love is like a pineapple,
Sweet and undefinable.
- Piet Hein, Danish Poet
The world is trembling. But our deeds help, because we are all connected, no matter what. Think good and it will be good.
Sincerely,
Arnie Gotfryd, Ph.D.
email: arnie@gotfryd.com
web: http://www.arniegotfryd.com
Forward email
This email was sent to info@pearlmancta.com, by arnie@gotfryd.com
Update Profile/Email Address | Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe™ | Privacy Policy. Powered by
Faith and Science Network | 3727 Chesswood Drive | Toronto | Ontario | M3J 2P6 | Canada
Home to The Complex Creation part III
