Book Review of Torah Chazal and Science, Rabbi Moshe Meiselman
- Bina Greenspan
- May 25, 2020
- 41 min read
Bina Greenspan
2/25/20
Book Review of Torah Chazal and Science, Rabbi Moshe Meiselman
In order to give an honest and impartial book review, I plan to use quotes from Rabbi Moshe Meiselman’s Torah Chazal and Science and use quotes from Stephen Hawking’s A Brief History of Time as a means of comparison. By displaying these two different perspectives side by side, I hope to show which point of view is the most reasonable.
This is about the worldviews of a Rabbi and a theoretical physicist. I took long quotes from both Meiselman and Hawking (and Dawkins) to show how different these two mindsets are. I’m sorry these quotes are so long, but I’m just not smart enough to paraphrase such complexity.
Every person deserves the freedom to live authentically, provided that no one else is harmed from one doing so. Although I have disagreements with Rabbi Moshe Meiselman, I respect him as a fellow human being. My following critique of his book is not one of malice, but of love for science.
“Jewish tradition has always rejected what the prophet calls being peseach al shetei hasipim- ‘hobbling along on two branches” or “two views”- espousing dual allegiance, to God and to some other authority. This schizophrenic approach, with its ramifications for self-definition, has always led to confusion and tragedy” (Meiselman, xx).
This quote exemplifies a lack of understanding of not just how science works, but of the mental disorder of schizophrenia. It isn’t helpful to people suffering from this mental illness to have this serious diagnosis used so disparagingly and out of context.
Furthermore, this is an instruction to close your ears to opposing viewpoints. Science is about learning new ideas. The fact that our understanding of reality is constantly changing is a good thing!! What Meiselman seems to advocate for is to believe in his perspective of the world without hearing anyone else’s.
Ethologist and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins explains why one should seek out opposing viewpoints:
“The true scientist, however passionately he may ‘believe’ in evolution, knows exactly what it would take to change his mind: Evidence... If all the evidence in the universe turned in favor of creationism, I would be the first to admit it. As things stand, however, all available evidence favors evolution” (Dawkins, “Delusion”, 19).
“Reality doesn’t just consist of the things we already know about: it also includes things that exist but that we don’t know about yet and won’t know about until some future time, perhaps when we have built better instruments to assist our five sense…
“That is the wonder and the joy of science; it goes on and on uncovering new things. We should always be open-minded, but the only good reason to believe that something exists is if there is real evidence that it does (Dawkins, “Magic”, 15).
“Torah study is an encounter with the Almighty” (Meiselman, xxxiii).
This declarative statement is expressed many times in this 788 page book. Repetition is not a substitute for evidence.
Here is a comprehensive definition for what evidence is:
“We come to know what is real in one of three ways. We can detect it directly, using our five senses; or indirectly, using our senses aided by special instruments such as telescopes and microscopes; or even more indirectly, by creating models of what might be real and then testing those models to see whether they successfully predict things that we can see (or hear etc.), with or without the aid of instruments.
“Ultimately, it always comes back to our senses” (Dawkins, “Magic”, 18).
Rabbi Meiselman describes a story (on page five) where Rabbi Yehoshua claims that the gestation period of snakes is seven years long…because wild animals are more cursed than domesticated animals… However, the gestation period for snakes is clearly not seven years long. It’s only 28-45 days, and while some snakes can hold onto sperm for years, this is not considered the gestation period.
“The research duo believe the snake was able to achieve this feat by folding part of its uterus into a shape that was able to hold onto the sperm for long periods of time while preventing it from sneaking out and impregnating the host until she was good and ready” (https://phys.org/news/2011-10-insight-term-sperm-storage-animals.html)
The following quote is taken from a non-secure website, and so should be considered with a grain of salt:
“The majority of snakes do not store the sperm at all; even with those that do, it is usually for far less than seven years. There is no type of snake that has a seven-year gestation - instead, individual snakes can give birth for any number of time after mating, from several weeks to nine years or more. In the case of snake gestation, while this initiative resulted in a claim about snakes that is sometimes valid, it is not ultimately correct, and the data used as the basis for the calculation was not correct” (http://www.rationalistjudaism.com/2009/07/snake-gestation.html)
Meiselman’s argument here is that Rabbi Yehoshua knew more about snakes than modern science at the time did. The story of Adam and Eve led to snakes being cursed seven times more than a domesticated animal such as a dog… However, these superstitious beliefs of animals being cursed is insufficiently proven.
Modern science does not make the claim that snakes have a gestation period of exactly seven years. Even if this were true, Rabbi Yehoshua could have learned this from personal experience. A Roman philosopher (unnamed, conveniently), had tried to test the Rabbi.
If the Roman philosopher knew the supposed answer to this question, then the Rabbi could have too (despite his answer being incorrect). This is not evidence that the Torah comes from God.
The purpose of this story is to show how much smarter the Torah is than science:
“The Gamara then proceeds to relate another anecdote involving Rebbi Yehoshua and the non-Jewish philosophers. The emperor of Rome asked Rebbi Yehoshua the gestation period of (snakes). As before, Rebbi Yehoshua answered, ‘Seven years’
“‘But did the wise men of Athen not mate them and find that the female gave birth after only three? Challenged the emperor (again, conveniently unnamed person).
“‘It was already four years pregnant’, replied Rabbi Yehoshua.
“‘But were they not seen to copulate?’ protested the emperor.
“‘In this they are like humans, explained Rebbi Yehoshua, ‘who copulate even when pregnant’.
“‘But are the Greeks not wise?’ argued the emperor.
“‘Yes, but we are wiser,’ responded Rebbi Yehoshua confidently, where-upon the emperor challenged him to engage them in a debate. This the Rabbi did and defeated them utterly.” (Meiselman, 7,8).
This story surely contradicts Judaism’s commandment to be humble. Meiselman clearly has pride for his beliefs, or he wouldn’t feel the need to insult the intelligence of others.
Even if Rebbi Yehoshua had made a correct prediction about snakes, it is not a very profound one as it can be easily observed, even in ancient times. All one must do is observe the lifespan of snakes in captivity. This is insufficient proof of the Torah coming from God.
“Wherever the methodology of the Torah shebal Peh can be applied with confidence, it’s conclusions override even the direct evidence of empirical experimentation” (Meiselman, 34).
This quote shows, once again, the bravado of Judaism. This contradicts the mitzvah to be humble and modest. In contrast, scientists look for new clues in this game of mystery:
“A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations. For example, Aristotle’s theory that everything was made out of four elements, earth, air, fire, and water, was simple enough to qualify, but it did not make any definite predictions.
“On the other hand, Newton’s theory of gravity was based on an even simpler model, in which bodies attracted each other with a force that was proportional to a quantity called mass and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. Yet it predicts the motions of the sun, the moon, and the planets to a high degree of accuracy” (Hawking, 9,10).
“Rabbeinu Bachye writes in Kad HaKemach: ‘There is no form of wisdom that is not encrypted in the Torah. This includes the wisdom of astronomy and medicine” (Meiselman, 36).
Now, if this were true, why isn’t this information released to the public? Meiselman explains that only a select few can understand this true nature of reality, and those who are not pure enough don’t have access to this knowledge.
To contrast such an attitude, science is about learning. There is no supernatural force preventing one from learning science, while Judaism is a restrictive club that commands faith to those who aren’t pure enough to understand the rules.
“If we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist” (Hawking, 175).
Although the theory of gravity has not yet been combined with the other three forces of nature (strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, and electromagnetism), there is no reason to suppose a supernatural being must exist:
“What would you think of a detective who, baffled by a murder, was too lazy even to try to work at a problem and instead wrote the mystery off as ‘supernatural’?
“The whole history of science shows us that things once thought to be the result of the supernatural- caused by gods, demons, witches, spirits, curses and spells- actually do have natural explanations: Explanations that we can understand and test and have confidence in.
“There is absolutely no reason to believe that those things for which science does not yet have natural explanations will turn out to be of supernatural origin, any more than volcanoes or earthquakes or diseases turn out to be caused by angry deities, as people once believed they were” (Dawkins, “Magic”, 23).
“The Rambam had demonstrated in Moreh Nevuchim the all the wisdom of the philosophers was to be found in the words of Chazal cites an unnamed ancient text to the effect that Socrates derived his wisdom from Biblical Asaf HaKorchi and Achisofel. He quotes… to the effect that when Alexander conquered Jerusalem he placed his mentor Aristotle over King Shelomo’s library. The great philosopher then proceeded to steal Shelomo’s teachings and admix them with ideas of his one- such as the eternity of the world and the denial of hashgachah pratis- in order to disguise his source. The Rama concludes that it is fitting for every believing Jew to accept this approach” (Meiselman, 38).
Meiselman mentions famous people such as Socrates, Alexander, Einstein, and even Stephen Hawking a few times in his 788 page book. Unfortunately, the ideas these famous Goyim (non-Jews) contributed to the world are not explained by Meiselman at all.
What information, exactly, did Aristotle steal from King Shelomo (King David’s son)? “The eternity of the world”?
Yet another declarative statement lacking evidence.
Apparently, Meiselman thinks his audience is too impure for such information. Only the elites, “the pure” get to have access to the specifics. The impure Jews are required to believe these claims on faith alone.
In comparison, Stephen Hawking respected his readers. This is apparent in the way he explains complex information:
“Why don’t we see broken cups gathering themselves together off the floor and jumping back onto the table? It is forbidden by the second law of thermodynamics. This says that in any closed system disorder, or entropy, always increases with time…
“The increase of disorder or entropy with time is one example of what is called an arrow of time, something that distinguishes the past from the future, giving a direction to time… In order to survive, human beings have to consume food, which is an ordered form of energy, and convert it into heat, which is a disordered form of energy.
“Thus intelligent life could not exist in the contracting phase of the universe...Intelligent beings can exist only in the expanding phase” (Hawking, 144, 152).
Hawking also says that the “thermodynamic and psychological arrows of time would not reverse when the universe begins to recontract or inside black holes” (Hawking, 150)
“Every letter in the Torah was given to Moshe by HaShem upon Mt. Sinai. Whoever claims that Moshe added even a single letter on his own is classified as a heretic… There is profound wisdom in each and every letter. Nevertheless, that wisdom is so unfathomably deep that a person cannot possibly plumb its depths on his own. His only option is to pray that HaShem open his eyes” (Meiselman, 41).
Meiselman here is saying that one must believe the Torah is from God, and we must have faith that evidence exists.
Anyone without enough faith is committing an act of treason against all that is good and pure.
God gave the Torah to three million Jews at Mt. Sinai. How can three million witnesses be wrong?
This argument is bogus because disagreement with the leader Moshe Rabaynoo is a sinful act. Why risk such punishment in ancient times?
These ancient people didn’t have modern luxuries.
They lived in hunger and fear. The promise of a beautiful life in heaven? That’s what they lived for.
Furthermore, there was no technology back then to track how many people there actually were. Three million people? Or three thousand?
Either way, these ancient people lived painful lives. It’s not difficult to manipulate the human mind (psychedelic drugs prove this), especially impoverished people on the brink of extinction.
This is why science is so important. Science is a verb, a method teaching one how to think, rather than what to think.
Furthermore, an all powerful God wouldn’t show himself to the ancient people and then disappear from modern times.
An all powerful God would make himself detectable with our five senses.
Superman is considered to be a superhero.
He has extreme powers and uses them to protect people. God is also considered to be a hero… however, God created parasites that can eat you from the inside out. God allows children to be raped and murdered.
Why is God considered good when he allows so much evil?
Judaism argues that “free will” is the reason God allows terrible things to happen.
But what of the free will of a rape victim? God didn’t seem to mind violation of their will to not be raped. (Darkmatter2525). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQ0Vtk9ffGI
Neuroscientist Sam Harris argues that free will is an illusion. No one chooses their brain chemistry, their upbringing,...
"If a man's choice to shoot the president is determined by certain patterns of neural activity, which is in turn the product of prior causes-perhaps an unfortunate
coincidence of bad genes, an unhappy childhood, and lost sleep- what can it possibly mean to say that his will is 'free'?
“No one has ever described a way in which mental and physical processes could arise that would attest to the evidence of such freedom" (Harris, 6).
"Where is the freedom in being perfectly satisfied with your thoughts, intentions, and subsequent actions when they are the product of prior events that you had absolutely no hand in creating?" (Harris, 19).
"There are more bacteria in your body than there are human cells. In fact, 90 percent of the cells in your body are microbes like E.coli (and 99 percent of the functional genes in your body belong to them). Many of these organisms perform necessary functions- they are 'you' in some wider sense. Do you feel identical to them? If they misbehave, are you morally responsible?" (Harris, 24).
"Imagine what your life would be like if all your actions, intentions, beliefs, and desires were randomly 'self-generated'. You would scarcely seem to have a mind at all.
You would live as one blown about by an internal wind" (Harris, 28).
"The phrase 'free will' describes what it feels like to identify with certain mental states as they arise in consciousness" (Harris, 32).
Why is this so important? Harris explains:
"Losing the sense of free will has only improved my ethics- by increasing my feelings of compassion and forgiveness, and diminishing my sense of entitlement to the fruits of my own good luck." (Harris, 45).
"Losing a belief in free will has not made me fatalistic- in fact, it has increased my feelings of freedom. My hopes, fears, and neuroses seem less personal and
indelible... Becoming sensitive to the background causes of one's thoughts and feelings can-paradoxically- allow for greater creative control over one's own life.
“It is one thing to bicker with your wife because you are in a bad mood; it is another to realize that your mood and behavior have been caused by low blood sugar. Getting behind our conscious thoughts and feelings can allow us to steer a more intelligent course through our lives (while knowing, of course, that we are ultimately
being steered)" (Harris, 46, 47).
"The men and women on death row have some combination of bad genes, bad parents, bad environments, and bad ideas (and the innocent, of course, have supremely bad luck). Which of these quantities, exactly, were they responsible for?... Our system of justice should reflect an understanding that any of us could have been dealt a very different hand in life" (Harris, 54).
Greek philosopher Epicurus explained the contradiction of an all-powerful, all-loving God:
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/8199-is-god-willing-to-prevent-evil-but-not-able-then
If God is all powerful, he could have made the nature of reality more friendly to human survival. Why is most of planet Earth (oceans, deserts, snowy mountains...) so dangerous to live on? Why would a loving God kill innocent humans with natural disasters like hurricanes, tornadoes, and volcanic eruptions?
Why must pain be the only way to happiness?
Why must millions of people suffer at the hands of oppressive dictators?
Why so much genocide and violence?
Why is nature so cruel?
Eating adorable cows and chickens is a necessary evil. Humans have needed meat to evolve big brains, and we depend on these animals for protein today.
If God were compassionate, his rules of nature should have prevented such cruelty.
Beautiful things exist in nature, but they don’t prove supernatural beings exist. Everything that exists within space and time is real. Anything that exists outside of space and time, like a God, is a fabrication of the human imagination.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” (Christopher Hitchens). The burden of proof is on those who make a claim, and Meiselman fails to supply any evidence that God exists and is a loving creator.
“After describing the entire natural world at length in the third and fourth chapters of hilachos yesodei hatorah, from the spheres of heaven down to the four fundmental principles of this world- earth, water, air and fire- and the various types of soul, the Rambam summarizes as follows: ‘The early sages (i.e. Chazal) commanded that these topics not be expounded in public. Rather they may be revealed and taught only to lone individuals’” (Meiselman, 45).
Unfortunately, the entire natural world was not described at length whatsoever.
If these topics aren’t allowed to be discussed in public, how can Meiselman claim to have described them??
Additionally, Aristotle’s four principles (earth, water, air, and fire) are a bit outdated compared to what we now know:
“Up to about twenty years ago, it was thought that protons and neutrons were ‘elementary’ particles, but experiments in which protons were collided with other protons or electrons at high speeds indicated that they were in fact made up of smaller particles… quarks… We now know that neither the atoms nor the protons and neutrons within them are indivisible.
“The question is: What are the truly elementary particles, the basic building blocks from which everything is made? … Everything in the universe, including light and gravity, can be described in terms of particles. These particles have a property called spin. One way of thinking of spin is to imagine the particles as little tops spinning about an axis” (Hawking, 66).
Hawking goes on to differentiate between matter particles and force-carrying particles:
“A matter particle, such as an electron or a quark, emits a force- carrying particle. The recoil from this emission changes the velocity of the matter particle. The force-carrying particle then collides with another matter particle and is absorbed. This collision changes the velocity of the second particle, just as if there had been a force between the two matter particles. The force-carrying particles exchanged between matter particles are said to be virtual particles because, unlike “real” particles, they cannot be directly detected by a particle detector.
“We know they exist, however, because they do have a measurable effect: They give rise to forces between matter particles” (Hawking, 69).
Hawking explains the categories of force-carrying particles:
“Force-carrying particles can be grouped into four categories according to the strength of the force that they carry and the particle with which they interact… The first category is the gravitational force… Gravity can act over large distances and is always attractive…
“The next category is the electromagnetic force, which interacts with electrically charged particles like electrons and quarks, but not with uncharged particles such as gravitons… there are two kinds of electric charge, positive and negative… on small scales of atoms and molecules, electromagnetic forces dominate.
“The electromagnetic attraction between negatively charged electrons and positively charged protons in the nucleus causes the electrons to orbit the nucleus of the atom, just as gravitational attracting causes the earth to orbit the sun.
“The third category is called the weak nuclear force, which is responsible for radioactivity…
“The fourth category is the strong nuclear force, which holds the quarks together in the proton and neutron, and holds the protons and neutrons together in the nucleus of an atom” (Hawking, 69-72).
“Whenever a physical war is fought on earth, a spiritual war takes place simultaneously between the respective sarim of the earthly combatants” (Meiselman, 51).
This is yet another declarative statement lacking evidence. This is a common theme in Meiselman’s 788 page book. It’s important to be self aware of one’s own bias. All humans make mistakes, even Stephen Hawking:
“I realized that I had made a mistake: the no boundary condition implied that disorder would in fact continue to increase during the contraction. The thermodynamic and psychological arrows of time would not reverse when the universe begins to recontract or inside black holes” (Hawking, 150).
“Contact between humans and angels can take place only in the context of prophetic dreams or visions, while those experiencing them are either asleep or immersed in a state of trance” (Meiselman, 53).
If God is all powerful, he shouldn’t need dreams to contact humans. If he were real, he would be apparent to everyone. Personal testimonies of contact with angels are just not reliable.
“Chazal understood the human psyche because they were familiar with its source in the changless world of the tzuros” (Meiselman, 56).
Once again, Meiselman makes another declarative statement without evidence. What information, exactly, did the Chazal understand about the human psyche? Not mentioned. Meiselman says (with extreme repetition) that Judaism has the truth of the nature of reality, but only the elite can comprehend it. If these few righteous scholars are the only ones with access to this information, why haven't they simplified it enough for common people to understand? Furthermore, the world is certainly not changless!
--------
Change is constant. The universe itself is expanding:
“The farther a galaxy is, the faster it is moving away!.. It is a bit like what happens when one fires a rocket upward from the surface of the earth. If it has a fairly low speed, gravity will eventually stop the rocket and it will start falling back. On the other hand, if the rocket has more than a certain critical speed (about seven miles per second) gravity will not be strong enough to pull it back, so it will keep going away from the earth forever” (Hawking, 39).
Hawking then compares the universe to a balloon!
“In Friedmann’s model, all the galaxies are moving directly away from each other. The situation is rather like a balloon with a number of spots painted on it being steadily blown up. As the balloon expands, the distance between any two spots increases, but there is no spot that can be said to be the center of the expansion.
“The farther apart the spots are, the faster they will be moving apart… Our galaxy and other galaxies must contain a large amount of ‘dark matter’ that we cannot see directly, but which we know must be there because of the influence of its gravitational attraction on the orbits of stars in the galaxies.” (Hawking, 42, 45).
“We live in a galaxy that is about one hundred thousand light-years across and its slowly rotating; the stars in its spiral arms orbit around its center about once every several hundred million years. Our sun is just an ordinary, average sized, yellow star, near the inner edge of one of the spiral arms” (Hawking, 37).
“Some of the heavier elements produced near the end of the star’s life would be flung back into the gas in the galaxy, and would provide some raw material for the next generation of stars.
“Our own sun contains 2 percent of these heavier elements because it is a second- or third-generation star, formed some five thousand million years ago out of a cloud of rotating gas containing the debris of earlier supernovas.
“Most of the gas in that cloud went to form the sun or got blown away, but a small amount of the heavier elements collected together to form the bodies that now orbit the sun as planets like earth.
“The earth was initially very hot and without an atmosphere.
“In the course of time it cooled and acquired an atmosphere from the emission of gasses from the rocks. This early atmosphere was not one which we could have survived. It contained no oxygen, but a lot of other gasses that are poisonous to us, such as hydrogen sulfide.
“There are other primitive forms of life that can flourish under such conditions. It is thought that they developed in the oceans, possibly as a result of chance combinations of atoms into large structures, called macromolecules, which are capable of assembling other atoms in the ocean into similar structures.
“They would thus have reproduced themselves and multiplied. In some cases there would be errors in the reproduction. Mostly these errors would have been such that the new macromolecule could not reproduce itself and eventually would have been destroyed.
“However, a few of the errors would have produced new macromolecules that were even better at reproducing themselves. They would have therefore had an advantage and would have tended to replace the original macromolecules. In this way a process of evolution was started that led to the development of more and more complicated, self-reproducing organisms.
“The first primitive forms of life consumed various materials, including hydrogen sulfide, and released oxygen. This gradually changed the atmosphere to the composition that it is today and allowed the development of higher life forms such as fish, reptiles, mammals, and ultimately the human race” (Hawking, 120, 121).
11) “The credibility of all other sources is tainted by their general acceptance of superstitious beliefs. Only Chazal, who were committed to fighting superstition, could be trusted to evaluate the experimental evidence for non-natural treatment” (Meiselman, 78).
The fact that Chazal are a group of ancient men shows that Meiselman does in fact worship superstition. No member of Chazal is currently alive, so why are the diseased the only ones who can be trusted with experimental evidence?
Meiselman believes that Chazal’s souls still exist, however, philosopher Matthew Alper states compelling evidence to the contrary:
“Twice I had undergone two complete transformations of my so called “eternal self”. First, my conscious self was transformed by psychedelic drugs. Then, a year and a half later, my original self was restored, this time by an antidepressant drug known as monoamine oxidase inhibitor.
“But I thought consciousness was supposed to be conceived in spirit, fixed, eternal, immune to the laws of physical nature.
“If this were true, how was it that the core of my conscious experience had been altered, twice now, by ingesting physical substances? How was it that a combination of molecules- raw matter- could affect something as allegedly ethereal as consciousness, that which was supposed to represent my immutable transcendental soul?
“To believe that matter could affect one’s spirit, that it could impact one’s soul, would be the equivalence, it seemed, to believing that one could throw rocks at God” (Alper, 9).
11A. “Every believing Jew acknowledges that there are types of causation that cannot be subjected to scientific analysis” (Meiselman, 85).
11B. “For anyone other than Chazal themselves, questioning their conclusions is called being melagleg al divrei Chachamim- ‘mocking of the words of the sages’- a crime with very serious consequences” (Meiselman, 108).
Judaism has many strict rules to prohibit critical thinking. Meiselman repeats this many times throughout this 788 page book. In contrast, Stephen Hawking encourages critique, by being honest about his beliefs and explaining them in great detail:
“Gravity is so strong that space is bent round onto itself, making it rather like the surface of the earth” (Hawking, 44).
“It is possible for both space and time to be finite without any edges or boundaries” (Hawking 44).
“Chazal was forced to rely upon the wisdom of the gentiles or upon tentative understandings” (Meiselman, 111).
Meiselman clearly has bigotry against non Jews. He thinks Judaism has profound truths understandable only by the most pure elite Jews, while gentiles are inferior beings with inferior souls.
Meiselman has no concept of what evolution really is, so he doesn’t realize that there is only one species of human in modern times.
We are all one, no group of humans has superior souls than another group.
This type of tribalism is toxic to the survival of our species!
In contrast, Stephen Hawking used his sense of humor to connect with others. Hawking was a well educated and wealthy man, but he was sympathetic to issues common people often must endure:
“The weak anthropic principle states that in a universe that is large or infinite in space and/or time, the conditions necessary for the development of intelligent life will be met only in certain regions that are limited in space and time.
“The intelligent beings in these regions should therefore not be surprised if they observe that their locality in the universe satisfies the conditions that are necessary for their existence. It is a bit like a rich person living in a wealthy neighborhood not seeing any poverty” (Hawking, 124).
Another example of this is when Hawking describes black holes:
“The boundary of the black hole, the event horizon, is formed by the paths in space time of rays of light that just fail to get away from the black hole, hovering forever just on the edge. It is a bit like running away from the police and just managing to keep one step ahead but not being able to get clear away!” (Hawking, 99).
I personally find it endearing that someone like Hawking, who never had any sort of trouble with the law, would use such an example to describe black holes. It seems like this was his way of empathizing with common people.
“When Friar Pablo confronted the Ramban with a midrash implying that the Mashiach had already been born, the Ramban replied, ‘I do not believe in the haggadah’. Thus even the Ramban seems to say that one need not accept every midrash!” (Meiselman, 130).
If one can pick which midrash to believe in, where is Meiselman’s validity in any of his arguments? How can one be expected to know which midrash is sensible? There seems to be no end to Meiselman’s self contradictions! In comparison, Stephen Hawking offers critical thinking skills in his text:
“One possible answer is to say that God chose the initial configuration of the universe for reasons that we cannot hope to understand. This would certainly have been within the power of an omnipotent being, but if he had started it off in such an incomprehensible way, why did he choose to let it evolve according to laws that we could understand?” (Hawking, 122).
“Can God make a stone so heavy that he can’t lift it?” (Hawking, 166).
“There is no difference between Chazal’s interpretations of pesukim and thier pronouncements in other fields, such as medicine, astronomy or natural science. Whenever they make definitive statements we must know that they are revealing Divine wisdom” (Meiselman, 132).
This is yet another example of Meiselman bringing up subjects of science while simultaneously ignoring them completely. If this were a true book of science, Meiselman would have described what medicine and astronomy are, and what they mean to him.
He offers no examples here of the subjects at hand, and insists on capitalizing the “d” in the word divine. This shows his ego to be as bloated as his 788 page book. Judaism claims humility to be a virtue, but obviously this virtue doesn’t apply to such a righteous man like Meiselman!
15) “The Gemara teaches that the tendency for babies to die as a result of circumcision is hereditary and that it is passed on specifically through the mother. Thus if two of a woman’s sons die in the course of circumcision, her subsequent sons should not be circumcised. Moreover, if the sons of two sisters die in the course of circumcision, the sons of a third sister should also not be circumcised” (Meiselman, 158).
Wow! Why should it take two baby murders to prevent a third baby from being murdered?? I’m pro abortion, but killing live babies who are already born is heinous!! Wicked! This needs to stop!!
Stop mutilating and killing baby boys!
Children can’t consent to this permanent mutilation!
And quit referring to women like cattle! Just because women can make babies, that doesn’t make it our soul purpose!
“It is not clear that anorexia triggered by the removal of the kidneys would render an animal treifah, even if in the ordinary course of event it will lead to death” (Meiselman, 167).
Religious animal torture isn’t okay. It’s one thing to test new cures for diseases on animals. At least the animal is being used to help everyone else.
Animals used for this should be treated as heros and made to be as comfortable as possible. It’s a whole other matter, however, to torture an animal for your religious rules of kosher.
It doesn’t make you an intellect, Meiselman. It makes you a bully!
17. “The Torah explicitly forbids petzua daka- a man with specific sorts of damage to his testicles- from marrying a Jewish-born woman. An instance of such damage mentioned in the Gemara is their penetration by a needle… Rav Moshe’s initial reaction to the inquiry is that the prohibition should not apply in this case, because the Gemara takes for granted that any injury that makes a man into a petzua daka also renders him infertile, whereas contemporary medical experience shows that men continue to be fertile after undergoing biopsies… The disagreement between the Gemara’s prognosis and current experience tells us that a change in nature must have occured… the biological reality we face is not always the same as that confronting Chazal” (Meiselman, 194).
First of all, let people marry who they want!
Stop dictating other people’s lives!!
Meiselman thinks an infertal man shouldn’t marry a Jewish woman because he thinks women are only good for making babies.
That simply isn’t true!
The declaration that the nature of reality was different in ancient times sounds spooky, but that doesn’t make it true.
Meiselman repeats this declaration again and again throughout his 788 page book, but fails to list any compelling evidence.
“When a halachah is contradicted by a mere theory, we simply do not accept that theory” (Meiselman, 198).
Why should this decision be so simple?? Clearly, Meiselman does not know what a scientific theory is! The word “theory” has a different meaning in scientific use than in normal, everyday use:
“A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws.
“There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory. Laws describe things, theories explain them. An example: There's a law of gravity, which is the description of gravity. It basically says that if you let go of something it'll fall. It doesn't say why.
“Then there's the theory of gravity, which is an attempt to explain why. Newton’s Theory of Gravity did a pretty good job, but Einstein's Theory of Relativity does a better job of explaining it.
“These explanations are called theories and will always be theories. They can’t change into laws, because laws are different things. Laws describe, and theories explain. Just because it’s called a theory, doesn’t mean that it’s just a guess. It's been tested. All our observations are supported by it, as well as its predictions that we've tested.
“Also, gravity is real! You can observe it for yourself. Just because it's real doesn't mean that the explanation is a law. The explanation, in scientific terms, is called a theory” (http://www.notjustatheory.com/index.html).
“It is implicit in the Rashbas view that Chazal did not derive their scientific knowledge from their non-Jewish contemporaries” (Meiselman, 209).
Here is yet more bigotry against gentiles. Chazal is too holy and spiritual to speak with those evil goyim! What, exactly, is this scientific knowledge Meiselman is claiming to be his own? He doesn’t say!
Apparently, Meiselman thinks his own readers are too impure for such information. This reminds me of a dog peeing on a tree to mark its territory, “this is MY tree! MY pee is the superior urine! Any dog who tries to pee here will answer to my powerful snapping jaws!”. LOL. At least canines are adorable and cute. Religious fundamentalists? Not very cute.
“The inhabitants of the earth are being judged at all times and are usually found worthy of punishment” (Meiselman, 215).
Yet another baseless claim. Meiselman must be a real misanthrope to hate humanity so bad.
“A previously married woman who does not consider re-wedding for ten years will be subsequently unable to conceive… It is merely a statement of fact” (Meiselman, 215).
Does Meiselman know what “merely” means?? He misuses this word frequently. This is yet more bigotry against women. Meiselman fails to consider women as sentient human beings, and reduces us to mere breeders. Now THAT’S the correct use of a “mere”!
“According to the Maharshal, there is actually an ancient charem against using these remedies, lest their failure to work under very difficult circumstances cause people to mock the Chachamim” (Meiselman, 227).
Isn’t your God all powerful? Why would his remedies fail??
And no one is above mockery! Not me, not you, and especially not the Chachamim. We are all a part of the human condition. If that’s not a mockable offense, I don’t know what is.
"Life would be tragic if it weren't funny." (Hawking, 5 Times Stephen Hawking Made Us Laugh While Teaching Us About The Universe).
“The mitzvah of circumcision provides another instance in which Chazal’s assessment overrides that of modern medicine. Immediately after a bris milah is conducted, the mohel must suction the wound in a traditionally prescribed manner. The Gemara tells us that failing to perform metzitzah after circumcision poses a danger to the infant... As in the case of the jaundiced baby, this danger is defined by halachah, relying upon Chazal’s judgement. Unlike many other situations, we do not allow contemporary medicine to determine whether a threat to life exists” (Meiselman, 239).
Meiselman seems to think men are expendable and women are mindless breeders. “It’s okay to kill baby boys, as long as women are under MY control, I can have as many babies made as I want born and mutilated!”.
“Chazal understood the situation better than the physicians. For this reason we rely upon their judgement unswervingly, even if medical opinion says otherwise” (Meiselman, 240).
It’s a real shame Meiselman never shares this superior information he boasts of so constantly. He is so rigid and refuses to adapt to new ideas.
“He never indicates what he means by “proof”, but it seems clear that even strong scientific argumentation- whether based upon theoretical considerations, or observation and experimentation- would not be sufficient… As for the heavens, their changelessness simply shows that they are not composed of form imposed upon matter in the same way that earthly objects are” (Meiselman, 264).
Meiselman finally delves into some science by page 264! Unfortunately, his science vocabulary is extremely vague and mixed with gibberish.
“Since the total amount of mass and energy never changes, the universe must be eternal” (Meiselman, 265).
Now, this is a fascinating idea, but is a very bold assumption. Meiselman is comparing time with mass and energy in a child-like way. Let’s compare this to Stephen Hawking:
“Now twice zero is zero. Thus the entire universe can double the amount of positive energy and also double the negative gravitational energy without violation of the conservation of energy” (Hawking, 129).
“In Newton's theory, if a pulse of light is sent from one place to another, different observers would agree on the time that the journey took (since time is absolute), but will not always agree on how far the light traveled (Since space is not absolute).
“Since the speed of light is just the distance it has traveled divided by the time it was taken, different observers would measure different speeds for the light. In Relativity, on the other hand, all observers must agree on how fast light travels.
“They still, however, do not agree on the distance the light has traveled, so they must therefore now also disagree over the time it has taken. (The time taken is the distance the light has traveled- which the observers do not agree on- divided by the light’s speed- which they do agree on.)
“In other words, the theory of relativity put an end to absolute time! It appeared that each observer must have his own measure of time, as recorded by a clock carried with him, and that identical clocks carried by different observers would not necessarily agree” (Hawking, 21).
27) "Apparently all our Baalei HaMesora were in agreement that scientific theory, even when backed by much evidence and argumentation, remains only that- theory- and does not thereby fulfill the Rambam's requirement of proof. For this reason, they remained steadfast in their opposition to the "modern" view of eternality right down to the mid-twentieth century, when scientists themselves concluded that perhaps the universe did have a beginning after all" (Meiselman, 269).
I’m really sorry to have to repeat myself… But Meiselman leaves me no choice!
“In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.. Some people think that in science, you have a theory, and once it's proven, it becomes a law. That's not how it works. A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is our best explanation for the fact of evolution. (http://www.notjustatheory.com/index.html)
I'm glad Meiselman finally mentioned Einstein in his 788 page book on page 267. However, his description of Einstein's theory of relativity is extremely vague. No equations like "E=mc squared" in this entire book.
It made me feel so disappointed. Why bring up Einstein with so superficial a biography of him?? Meiselman is so mean to tease me this way.
His wording is so disingenuous to say "perhaps" the universe did have a beginning "after all". That's just not the way a person of science would talk about the big bang.
28) "Throughout history there have always been Torah Scholars who kept abreast of all the latest scientific developments... This has created a situation in which the world views of many observant Jews have been molded primarily by secular academia, while with respect to Torah they retain the notions of early youth. This places them on a 'slippery slope' in which assumption after assumption of the modern world is accepted unquestioningly, while traditional views are perceived as 'in need of modification' at best" (Meiselman, 271).
It's a shame Meiselman won't name his referred to Torah Scholars who kept up to date with scientific developments. Not a single example given.
If the Torah is from God and contains secrets of the nature of reality, then why would Torah Scholars need to keep up with those evil non-Jews? Those terrible Goyim who steal Jewish youth minds should be the ones keeping up with the Torah Scholars!
Meiselman clearly has bigotry against non-Jews. He also has bigotry against young people, to claim we accept information unquestioningly. How rude!
29) "Apparently, he eventually accepted his rebbe's authority on the matter of contradictions between Chazal and scientific theory. As we will soon see, there are other places in the safer where he makes the point even more forcefully" (Meiselman, 285).
Groan! Please don't kill me for being an atheist. I need to know that I did everything I could in this life, because it's the only one I have.
30) "The Torah is its own independent system" (Meiselman, 331).
DING DING DING! The millionth time Meiselman makes a baseless declaration! How many more pages until two million? Probably not many!
31) “...intermediary status between birds and mammals or special adaption to the dark- the platypus may very well be the mystery creature referred to by Chazal" (Meiselman, 337).
Oh, please, anyone with an imagination can describe a mutant half mammal, half bird! Meiselman's understanding of how evolution works is uninformed. It takes millions of years for a species to change into a new species. A vague description of two different animals in “intermediary status” is not a good description of the platypus. If God is all powerful, his message would have been way more detailed.
32) "There is nothing wrong with leaving an issue unresolved. Scientists live with apparent contradictions all the time" (Meiselman, 358).
If this happens all the time, why won't Meiselman provide any examples of this?
33) "Similarly, when the Torah declares that the punishment for causing damage to another person is ayin tachas ayin-literally, 'an eye in place of an eye'- the Torah explains that what is meant is a payment of money" (Meiselman, 394).
Meiselman wants to make the world blind. He hates women, baby boys, Goyim, and scientists. Now he advocates revenge! Sure, he only means with money, but his choice of wording frightens me.
34) "Each generation of researchers continues to be fully persuaded that theirs is the final picture" (Meiselman, 424).
Meiselman, if you complain that science changes too much, you can't also complain that anyone is fully persuaded of anything, or why would science change at all?
35) "...every aspect of Creation has been fashioned with great wisdom. He mentions, for example, the perfect structure of the eye" (Meiselman, 480).
If the human eye is so perfect, why do glasses, binoculars, telescopes, and microscopes all exist?
36) "It is significant that in his famous ban on philosophy the Rashba does not forbid its study altogether, but only before the age of twenty-five" (Meiselman, 543).
If the Rashba knew the secrets of reality, he shouldn't feel so insecure about Goyish philosophy. It's so authoritative of him to restrict information.
And why is this man called "the"? Not very humble.
This shows yet more of Meiselman's bigotry against young people, and against non-Jewish people.
37) "Distinctions must be made, the first being that between established fact and scientific theory" (Meiselman, 570).
Oh, please! Gravity is a theory. Why won't Meiselman test that? Jump! That's all it takes to know the value of a scientific theory.
My personal opinion:
Evolution is a controversial topic only because many people do not fully understand what it means.
They sabotage their own offspring because of fear and ignorance. If there were a mandate in the educational system requiring this subject to be taught to children, humanity would have an increased chance at future survival.
Dogs have protected humans in exchange for food and shelter. The changes that wolves endured are examples of how evolution works.
There are millions of types of species of animals on Earth, each with its own unique skills for adaptation to their environment. When a species fails to adapt to its environment, it becomes extinct. The superior intelligence of human beings has allowed humanity to become the most dominant animals on Earth.
Human brains are so complex that there is still much mystery as to how they work. One fact that is for certain is that these brains have allowed humans to adapt rather than perish.
Darwin’s Evolution by Natural Selection describes an accurate story of human history.
Young children greatly benefit from this knowledge of how they came to be. Without this scientific explanation of reality, people would not have the opportunity to understand what and who they are. Humans, and all of planet Earth, are made from trillions of tinier things, atoms, which obey the laws of physics.
Everything is made of stardust! Young children must be taught this, or they are susceptible to squandering their human experiences as adults.
Without the awareness that everything is made of stardust, life is less poetic and beautiful. There is less to appreciate about the fantastic nature of human existence when ignorance is prevalent.
Ethologist and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins:
“Complex organisms – like humans, crocodiles, and Brussels sprouts – did not come about suddenly, in one fell swoop, but rather gradually, step by tiny step, so that what was there after each step was only a little bit different from what was already there before” (Dawkins, 27).
Dawkins goes on to describe in his book, The Magic of Reality, How We Know What’s Really True, how this can be possible:
“The question of who was the first person, and when they lived, doesn’t have a precise answer. It’s kind of fuzzy, like the answer to the question: When did you stop being a baby and become a toddler? At some point, probably less than a million years ago, but more than a hundred thousand years ago, our ancestors were sufficiently different from us that a modern person wouldn’t have been able to breed with them if they had met” (Dawkins, 42).
Dawkins also provides a few thought experiments in this book. They allow the reader to fully imagine this history of humanity in a contextual and nuanced way. The truth about how humanity became the dominant species of Earth is far more fascinating than anything fabricated.
A well-educated population is a tremendous boon to the economy. The advantage of every human being understanding evolution would be momentous.
Children should be taught how to think, not what to think!
Evolution teaches children to think critically and to question what they are told. The entire process of discovering this theory involved immense questioning from skeptics.
Only through scientific evidence can clues to the mystery of life be found. A scientific mind can be changed upon evidence. This allows for better adapting skills, which are very important for well-adjusted adults to learn as children!
38) On page 581, Meiselman uses the following hoax as proof that science is unreliable:
“ Where light would have made the trip in 2.4 thousandths of a second, the neutrinos made it there 60 nanoseconds faster – that’s 60 billionths of a second – a tiny difference to us but a huge difference to particle physicists! The implications of such a discovery are staggering, as it would effectively undermine Einstein’s theory of relativity and force a rewrite of the Standard Model of physics” (https://www.universetoday.com/89135/breaking-the-speed-of-light/?fbclid=IwAR3dwD2ZYSizw1Su29q9BEQKeTKyJBBXXK9Md9a0r7dOk6WOSwMzD1awiBE).
Here is an explanation for why the above claim is a mistake:
“Speedy neutrinos? Not so fast. The shocking result that neutrinos apparently travelled from Switzerland to Italy faster than the speed of light may have been due to a malfunctioning fibre-optic cable, says OPERA, the Italian collaboration of physicists that made the first, surprising claim.
“The physicists of the OPERA collaboration shocked the world last September when it reported that neutrinos from a particle accelerator at CERN near Geneva, Switzerland, arrived 60 nanoseconds earlier at their detector in the Gran Sasso cavern in Italy than they would have if they had been travelling at the speed of light.
“The OPERA collaboration has informed its funding agencies and host laboratories that it has identified two possible effects that could have an influence on its neutrino timing measurement,” says a statement on CERN’s website. “These both require further tests with a short pulsed beam. If confirmed, one would increase the size of the measured effect, the other would diminish it.”
“The first effect concerns “an oscillator used to provide the time stamps for GPS synchronizations”. It could have led to an overestimate of the neutrino’s time of flight, according to the OPERA statement. In other words, in this scenario, the neutrinos would have actually travelled even faster than OPERA initially reported. “We are not fully sure of the stability of the timing,” says Stanco.
“The second possibility suggests that neutrinos did not travel faster than light, as many physicists already suspected. It involves a cable connecting a GPS receiver to a computer above the Gran Sasso lab. The GPS signal was meant to ensure the clocks in Geneva agreed with the clocks in Gran Sasso, but it's time stamp had to travel 8 kilometres from the surface to the underground lab. The team at OPERA had to subtract that signal’s travel time from their final result to get the true neutrino flight time.
“The cable connecting the GPS receiver to the computer that sent the timestamp to Gran Sasso may have been malfunctioning when the measurements were performed, introducing 60 nanoseconds of delay. If it was, it would have made the neutrinos appear to arrive 60 nanoseconds too early.
“Einstein made the revolutionary suggestion that gravity is not a force like the other forces, but is a consequence of the fact that space-time is not flat, as had previously been assumed: it is curved, or ‘warped’, by the distribution of mass and energy in it.
“Bodies like the earth are not made to move on curved orbits by a force called gravity; instead, they follow the nearest thing to a straight path in a curved space, which is called a geodesic… The fact that space is curved means that light no longer appears to travel in straight lines in space” (Hawking, 29, 31).
“Einstein’s famous equation (is) E=mc squared. E is energy, m is mass, and c is the speed of light, and the law that nothing may travel faster than the speed of light. Because of the equivalence of energy and mass, the energy which an object has due to its motion will add to its mass.
“In other words, it will make it harder to increase its speed. Only light, or other waves that have no intrinsic mass, can move at the speed of light” (Hawking, 20).
Because a particle is moving so fast, the speed gives off energy which weighs the object down. Light particles are so tiny, they travel the fastest of any other kind of particle!!
39) "Science has learned to live with many paradoxes" (Meiselman, 582).
Science IS the action of learning. Science is not an evil villain out to destroy humanity. Stop with this wording, Meiselman! You're killing me!
40) "Even many seemingly simple scientific questions still await fully satisfactory answers" (Meiselman, 582).
Does the following quote sound “simple” in any way??
“Despite the fact that the universe is so uniform and homogeneous on a large scale, it contains local irregularities, such as stars and galaxies.
“These are thought to have developed from small differences in the density of the early universe from one region to another. What was the origin of these density fluctuations?” (Hawking, 122).
41) "Why is the sky dark at night?... No matter which way one looks, one should see- at some distance or other in the infinitude of space- a star. So why is the night sky not dazzlingly bright?... In any event, scientists are used to living with unresolved questions" (Meiselman, 583).
Stephen Hawking explains this:
"In an infinite static universe nearly every line of site would end on the surface of a star. Thus one would expect that the whole sky would be as bright as the sun, even at night. Olber's counter argument was that the light from distant stars would be dimmed by absorption by intervening matter.
“However, if that happened the intervening matter would eventually heat up until it glowed as brightly as the star.
“The only way of avoiding the conclusion that the whole of the night sky should be as bright as the surface of the sun would be to assume that the stars had not been shining forever but had turned on at some finite time in the past.
“In that case the absorbing matter might not have heated up yet or the light from distant stars might not yet have reached us" (Hawking, 6,7).
42) "The scientist generally searches for rules that are compatible with his prior worldview" (Meiselman, 588).
Meiselman, if this unnamed scientist you speak of is in love with his prior worldview, then what is he searching for? New information? Why would someone in love with their prior worldview be looking for new information? You are describing yourself!!
43) "Sirius is the brightest star in the night sky. It is known from modern observations to be white in color. Nevertheless, in the writings of many ancient authors, including renowned astronomer Ptolemy- it is described as red" (Meiselman, 591).
Ptolemy thought earth was the center of the universe. Although he is important to the history of cosmology, his perspective isn't above criticism!
“So what is the resolution of this age-old mystery? Perhaps the most historically defensible explanation is that the Greeks and the Romans had a tradition of associating the star Sirius with the color red and redness, in much the same way that they associated the star with dogs, and with heat and fire.
“It was not the visual appearance of Sirius they were speaking of but the cultural attributes of the star. We now know that there exist other Roman sources that also describe Sirius as 'sea-blue' and likewise contemporary Chinese sources that use the term 'white'”.
44) "It is forbidden to hold false beliefs. For example, the Rambam labels a person who believes in God's corporeality a heretic" (Meiselman, 619).
I don't blame people for having false beliefs, because all humans are guilty of that. The human mind is often irrational. We all have bias and emotions that influence us. It's just nice to be self-aware of this, Meiselman!
45) "God sometimes brings suffering upon a righteous person undeservedly, simply to increase his reward in the hereafter" (Meiselman, 621).
If the person is righteous and undeserving of suffering, why shouldn't an all-powerful God simply refrain from torture?
If God created reality so that joy depended on pain, he is a sadist. I'd rather be banished from heaven forever than to spend a minute with such a mean God! Torture is not nice! Murder is bad!
46) "Not only did the events in the Chumash actually occur, they contain profound lessons... Whoever treats them as meaningless of trivial (is) classified as a kofer, which would deprive him of the privileges of membership in the Jewish people" (Meiselman, 631).
Ouch! Rejection sure does hurt. I'm sad to lose my privileges... of being forced to cover myself in extremely modest attire... of feeling terrified to eat non-kosher food for the first time... of getting screamed at by Rabbis for not davening (praying) with enough concentration... so very sad to lose these privileges...
47) "And do not give your seed to be passed to Molech as a prohibition against relations with a non-Jewish woman" (Meiselman, 633).
Yet more of Meiselman's rampant bigotry against non-Jews.
48) "A student of Rebbi Yochanan was punished severely for questioning a teaching of his mentor" (Meiselman, 635).
Aw, that poor student. What a bummer! I'm so glad to be living in modern times in a first world country!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
49) "Since evolution does not fit with this view, evolution must be rejected. We do not modify our understanding of the Torah in order to accept a theory partially; we simply reject the theory" (Mesiselman, 650).
Darwin's theory of evolution teaches that you don't have to be the strongest or the smartest to survive. You must be adaptable to live long enough to reproduce. Meiselman thinks failing to adapt is a good thing. He lacks a basic understanding of what science is, and the insecurity of knowing this creates an extremely authoritative person.
50) "When it comes to our observance of the Torah, we do not care about external proofs. We do not care about historical evidence. We do not care about archaeological findings" (Meiselman, 652).
Come on, Meiselman, you're scaring me. If you don't care about my perspective, why should I care about yours?
I do anyway, which is why I'm reviewing your book. You seem like a scary man, Meiselman. Please stop scaring me. I'd be obliged.
51) "Asking the Torah scholar the scientific age of the universe is exactly comparable to asking the scientist what happened five minutes before the big bang. In a different context, Stephen Hawking once compared such questions to asking, 'What is five miles north of the North Pole?'" (Meiselman, 666).
It is not "exactly comparable" because the North Pole exists within space and time, while God doesn't. Anything that exists outside of space and time is, by definition, not real.
52) "The criminal misinterpretation of the Torah is an offense for which one forfeits one's portion in the World to Come" (Meiselman, 670).
If the Torah were truly from an all-powerful God, no one would want to discredit him in any way.
53) "Many Orthodox shuls in America spontaneously mixed social dancing. Some Orthodox Rabbis looked the other way. It was a time when serious battles were being waged over the observance with Shabbos, kashrus, and the laws of family purity" (Meiselman, 683).
Oh, Meiselman! Mixed dancing isn’t some spontaneous phenomenon! Quit hating on young people, you grump!
54) "Humility is an absolute precondition for the study of Torah" (Meiselman, 684).
Meiselman, if you were humble, you wouldn't be trying to dictate other people's lives.
55) "Our task is simply to suspend our reasoning and obey- just as Avraham vinu did... The implication of this passage is that Avraham's greatest trial was not the offering of his son but the sacrifice of his intellect" (Meiselman, 686).
Meiselman, Avraham tried to murder his own son because he was told to by his imaginary friend. Let's not condone murder, okay? You are really scaring me!
56) "We cannot allow an eishes ish no matter how tragic the case to remarry without a get. We cannot permit a giyores (female convert) to marry a Kohen; and sometimes the cases are very tragic" (Meiselman, 720).
Yet more restrictions on women! Meiselman offers false sympathy for women who he tells to die alone. A woman who does not receive a "get" (Jewish divorce) from her ex-husband may never remarry.
Personally, I have interacted with a few Jews who highly recommend violence against any man who refuses to give his ex-wife a get. These individuals think they are doing these women a favor! They are reinforcing a patriarchal system of oppression against women. Let women marry whomever they chose!!!!!!!! It's that simple.
In conclusion, this is the most terrible book I have ever read. I'm glad to have survived it and have gained a great deal of perspective from reading an opposing viewpoint.
I know taking long quotes from books doesn't qualify as a real essay. My English professors would all be horrified!
I wanted to compare Meiselman to Stephen Hawking, rather than Meiselman to myself.
Of course I am nowhere near as smart as Stephen Hawking was. I can say for certain that Hawking was much smarter than Meiselman is.
His perspective is logical, while Meiselmans isn't.
These long quotes from each perspective prove that.
I know I have bias for my world views, and so I feel the only fair way to be impartial is to use long quotes from others.
I do state some personal opinions, but I am honest about this and try to be as respectful as possible.
Humans are deeply emotional beings, and it’s important to be self-aware of this.
My emotions of disgust for Meiselman are based on logical reasons.
I hope I have not violated any copyright laws.
There is just no way for me to paraphrase so much dense information.
I worked hard typing out these long quotes but I in no way claim them to be my own.
Obviously, I'm not a scientist, just a science enthusiast.
Citations
Meiselman, M, 2013, Lakewood, NJ, Edited by Gavriel Rubin, Israel Bookshop Publications
Sam Harris, Free Will, 2012, New York, NY, Simon & Schuster
Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time From the Big Bang to Black Holes, 1988, New York, NY, Bantam Books
Dawkins, R, (2012), The Magic of Reality, How We Know What’s Really True, Great Britain, England, Transworld Publishers
Dawkins, R, The God Delusion, 2006, Great Britain, England, Bantam Books
Alper, M, 2001, The "God" Part of the Brain: A Scientific Interpretation of
Human Spirituality and God
Snake gestation:
Epicurus:
Faster than light hoax:
Explanation of this hoax:
newscientist.com/article/dn21510-was-speeding-neutrino-claim-a-human-error/
Comments