Rabbi Sacks on 'The Great Partnership' | Rabbi Jonathan Sacks
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 вер 2024
- For too long, people have thought that religion and science are destined to be in conflict. I believe this is fundamentally wrong. Each is as important as the other, and when we understand the relationship between them, we will be able to appreciate 'The Great Partnership'.
Learn more about Rabbi Sacks' work at www.rabbisacks...
Perfect...I think like that for a long long time...we need science to understand the word of God and science needs the word of God to understand better science....for this reason we have so much confusion....intolerance....misunderstanding in the world...and this is suffering...
💡Rabbi, thank you for this brilliant, vital explanation. You have clearly shown us the human situation.
For me as a physicist it is easy to see how at the edge of the scientific searching a new philosophical way of how things really works is needed. Rabbi Sacks video makes me recall a very interesting discussion put by Carlo Rovelli with respect to Physics and Phylosophy (arxiv.org/pdf/1805.10602.pdf). I could imagine the Rambam and its ideias of 'time' for currently research that for me is the most difficult question in sicence today! But in the guide for the perplexed I, chap 73 he gives us a hint! Thank you for the great job Rabbi!
Rovelli is a beautiful writer and profound thinker like Sacks - definitely seems like it would be interesting to combine their voices in one philosophical conversation!
Well meaning as the idea of this great partnership is, it's only possible because science has finally put religion in its place, debunking the myths of the Abrahamic religions as well as the polytheistic ones and making adherence to religious doctrine optional instead of compulsory on pain of imprisonment, excommunication or worse. The real test of whether religion and science are compatible is how religion reacts when scientific discoveries contradict holy writ, and in this regard the track record of religion is very poor.
Perhaps you'd care to explain what you understand as "Abrahamic religions." Could you also list the scientific discoveries that allegedly contradict holy writ, presuming by the term "holy writ" you mean the Bible. It's quite a silly statement since science has an alarming track record of contradicting itself.
It should be self-evident that the term "Abrahamic religions" refers to the three monotheistic religions which claim spiritual descent from Abraham. Those three religions are: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. I do not restrict my comments solely to these three, but these are the three with which I am most familiar.
By "holy writ", I mean not only the Bible or other scriptural sources but all doctrines espoused by religious authorities based on their readings of those scriptures. On that point, the judgement against Galileo describes the heliocentric model of the solar system as follows: "That the sun is the center of the world and motionless is a proposition which is philosophically absurd and false, and formally heretical, for being explicitly contrary to Holy Scripture;"
web.archive.org/web/20070930013053/astro.wcupa.edu/mgagne/ess362/resources/finocchiaro.html#sentence
Did you get that last phrase? "EXPLICITLY CONTRARY TO HOLY SCRIPTURE." You may not think that the heliocentric model of the solar system contradicts holy writ, but the Inquisition evidently thought it did it. The Vatican got around to admitting as much several centuries later.
Since you asked for a list of scientific discoveries which contradict holy writ (something with which Google can help you better than I can), there is also the matter of Adam and Eve supposedly being created out of dust and a bit of Adam's rib respectively. Innumerable discoveries in the fields of biology and medicine render this myth a bit simplistic, to say the least.
As for science's record of contradicting itself, there is a kernel of truth to your otherwise ridiculous statement that "science has an alarming track record of contradicting itself." In fact, if you had omitted the word "alarming" you would have been correct. The whole process of scientific discovery is that different theories of how the world works are gradually eliminated through experimentation in favour of the one that has the most evidence to back it up. Galileo and Copernicus were proponents of the heliocentric model, but there were other eminent astronomers who advocated the geocentric model on what were (at the time) perfectly valid scientific grounds.
The whole history of scientific discovery is one of continually encountering new paradoxes, mysteries, and contradictions, grappling with them, and eventually resolving them as new evidence comes to light. Those who condemned Galileo and threatened him with torture unless he recanted did so not because they were opposed to science per se, but because one particular scientific discovery directly contradicted church teaching. They were not interested in resolving the contradiction through investigation or debate, they saw a challenge to the church's authority to dictate "the truth", and they crushed it.
Religion and science are perfectly capable of coexisting (if they weren't, the former would have crushed the latter long ago), in fact they have coexisted ever since they were first invented. The real test of whether they are COMPATIBLE is how religion reacts when science produces a discovery that challenges one or more core beliefs that religion espouses. The reaction of religious authorities down through the ages to such discoveries is quite instructive. @@messiahspeople
But I think he is saying that scientific knowledge and religious understanding are about totally different arenas of human endeavor and they are not reducible to one another. It was the mistake of earlier eras, and sometimes of our own, to try to do so.
But do we need a god so as to have a religion?......
Religion brings people together?
Andrew Barnard ideally yes. If it is not perverted
It can, yes - sometimes in unique ways.
Indeed. In our world where science and logic are being upheld as the basic and ultimate solutions to the problems we face nowadays, it is easy to forget how much religion has shaped and influenced our society as well. Just as we need both logical thinking and emotions and feelings, it is much better for the world to have two different approaches to overcome the issues we face, rather than just relying on one side or another.
Very Well Done! Including all of previous short videos.
Wonderful as always from Rav Sacks. Interesting note is that Albert Einstein said that Science without religion is lame & religion without science is blind (or was it the other way around?).
According to Prof. Chomsky the word would fellowship.
Fabulous
EXACTLY.....the Messianic Age that will be a COMPLETE RELIGION....Jewish view, and no other. Without a doubt SUPERIOR to other self focused and extremely carnal.
This is amazing
Very well put; Thank you.
Amen
Thank you for this gorgeous, evocative and intriguing series of metaphors. It is true - both an MRI scan and a portrait are important, true and beautiful in their ways. But there is something about the depth of humanity and keenness of human insight and observation revealing in a portrait, even and sometimes especially the most purely secular kind, that speaks to the spirit.
In a way that an MRI scan, key to health and life as that is, does not. At least not in that regard.
If we put this video aside, there are still things that humans can't explain by combining both science and religion. For example- how the world was made, one side says it's made of the big bang and the other says it's made by God, or maybe the big bang created the world but God created life? Some things still needs that explanations, and they are not easy to combine the two thing into one.
אולי אפשר לומר שהתשובה היא שהאל ברא את העולם-באמצעות המפץ הגדול?
Amazing stuff Rebbe this is my favorite video of yours
Wonderful thoughts RAV
Thank you 🙏🙏
כמו הספר כך הסרטון, ברור מבריק וחכם,
מדהים איך כל פעם מחדש הדברים נראים ברורים יותר, ונעימים לאוזן, ולמחשבה בעיקר.
תודה!
This is weird and full of false equivalence and other issues. I’d like a book on this topic, one that’s peer-reviewed or at least debated. His conclusions at the moment don’t hold up.
The book is The Great Partnership: Science, Religion, and the Search for Meaning (2014)
in which he goes into much futher detail. It's been reviewed and debated many, many times. Happy reading! a.co/gDLS3V4
Knowledge =/= scholarship
I don't think he is saying religion and science are the same at all.