Krugman: Views Differ on Age of Planet

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by Underdog

Most Jews think Ultra-Orthodox Jews are idiots - you're attributing the beliefs of a fundamentalist minority to the majority... Oversimplified generalizations don't have any place in science.

And you missed the edit in my last post about the Talmud... It's an ancient and ongoing debate among the Hebrews about how to translate the meaning of the Torah - it's not exactly scientific method, but it certainly is a call for evidence. Not every religion is created equally.

Actually I come from a Jewish family, and that is not how the ultra-orthodox are viewed. For example, Israel subsidizes the ultra-orthodox to NOT work in Israel so they can spend all day to "study." Yes there are a lot of reform Jews who hate the ultra-orthodox, but most Jews don't think the ultra-orthodox are "idiots."

And the Talmud is more similar to a legal code. Not a scientific journal. It's full of a lot of opinion, but not necessarily facts. Saying sections of the Talmud are equivalent to scientifically performed studies, is like saying the opinion page of the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal are the equivalent of scientific studies.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by SeanL

Actually I come from a Jewish family

Me too, but I don't buy into any of it - just like most Jews I've ever known (with the exception of a few dingbats)... I also know a lot of Christians (mostly American Catholics) who don't believe in a literal translation of the Bible either.

And the Talmud is more similar to a legal code. Not a scientific journal. It's full of a lot of opinion, but not necessarily facts.

I admitted that it wasn't scientific, but at least it was a rudimentary attempt at trying to debate the Torah - not just a bunch of people simply believing what mommy and daddy told them... You can't paint every religion on the planet with an American Fundamentalist Christian brush because that's not even close to how a chunk of the world approaches religion.

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by Underdog

Me too, but I don't buy into any of it - just like most Jews I've ever known (with the exception of a few dingbats)... I also know a lot of Christians (mostly American Catholics) who don't believe in a literal translation of the Bible either.



I admitted that it wasn't scientific, but at least it was a rudimentary attempt at trying to debate the Torah - not just a bunch of people simply believing what mommy and daddy told them... You can't paint every religion on the planet with an American Fundamentalist Christian brush because that's not even close to how a chunk of the world approaches religion.

The Talmud has as much validity as the Wall Street Journal editorial page. Nay, it has even less, because at least the opinion columns will occasionally cite a scientifically performed study.

The Talmud comes to its opinions purely based on anecdotal evidence. And anyone who is familiar with science knows that anecdotal evidence is not evidence of anything. The Talmud is useless.

And the only reason why the vast majority of individuals are any religion is because they were taught that from birth. Including Judaism.

Your faith is almost entirely a function of what family you were born into. Not because you arrived at some logical conclusion.

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by SeanL

The Talmud has as much validity as the Wall Street Journal editorial page. Nay, it has even less, because at least the opinion columns will occasionally cite a scientifically performed study.

The Talmud comes to its opinions purely based on anecdotal evidence. And anyone who is familiar with science knows that anecdotal evidence is not evidence of anything. The Talmud is useless.

And the only reason why the vast majority of individuals are any religion is because they were taught that from birth. Including Judaism.

Your faith is almost entirely a function of what family you were born into. Not because you arrived at some logical conclusion.

Here is a video that does a great job explaining this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV2VjdpVonY

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by SeanL

The Talmud has as much validity as the Wall Street Journal editorial page. Nay, it has even less, because at least the opinion columns will occasionally cite a scientifically performed study.

The Talmud comes to its opinions purely based on anecdotal evidence. And anyone who is familiar with science knows that anecdotal evidence is not evidence of anything. The Talmud is useless.

And the only reason why the vast majority of individuals are any religion is because they were taught that from birth. Including Judaism.

Your faith is almost entirely a function of what family you were born into. Not because you arrived at some logical conclusion.

I never said the Talmud was valid - I said it was an attempt at seeking a truth beyond the Torah... It was ultimately unsuccessful because the Hebrew scope of reality was built upon a mythology, but it was still an attempt to seek a firsthand understanding and not just take the words at face value... Without those kinds of baby steps, science would have never come about.

Besides, religion works best when it focuses on human interaction rather than trying to explain the universe - science doesn't cover philosophy. You shouldn't be so quick to dismiss EVERYTHING about religion just because it's not 100% true - if one little tidbit has value, then why ignore it? That's not very scientific.

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by Underdog

I never said the Talmud was valid - I said it was an attempt at seeking a truth beyond the Torah... It was ultimately unsuccessful because the Hebrew scope of reality was built upon a mythology, but it was still an attempt to seek a firsthand understanding and not just take the words at face value... Without those kinds of baby steps, science would have never come about.

Besides, religion works best when it focuses on human interaction rather than trying to explain the universe - science doesn't cover philosophy. You shouldn't be so quick to dismiss EVERYTHING about religion just because it's not 100% true - if one little tidbit has value, then why ignore it? That's not very scientific.

You said:

"Which is why most science (especially theoretical science) is dependent on consensus - no different than religion (take a look at how the Talmud was assembled for reference.)"

You directly compared science to religion. Saying scientific consensus is no different than religion. That is absurd. Scientific consensus is based on carefully tested evidence. Not superstitions. So no the Talmud is not the same as a scientific theory. Not even close.

Anthropology, psychology, and sociology are soft sciences. If you are concerned about human interaction and behavior I would study those subjects. Otherwise you are wasting your time.

And if any tidbit regarding religion is valid, then it is incidental. No knowledge of value that is gained by religion can't be gained with more validity by science times infinity.