4 ms·

1) more complicated discussion that what can be done here Not necessarily - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_principles_of_faith https://en.wikipedia.org/w

1) more complicated discussion that what can be done here Not necessarily - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_principles_of_faith https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_principles_of_faith 2) do some believe that? sure. I tend to argue that while we say one can't define god, one of the attributes attributed to god is "truth" (last word of Exodus 34:6). Many have a hard time associating God who is defined by as truth with a god who is like Loki who is just here to trick us by putting our senses against us (i.e. what we can observe).

wycats 10y ago
Further, Maimonides, who enumerated the principles of faith accepted by Orthodox Jews, also held that Genesis could/should be interpreted allegorically[1]. > Some medieval philosophical rationalists, such as Maimonides (Mosheh ben Maimon, the "Rambam") held that it was not required to read Genesis literally. In this view, one was obligated to understand Torah in a way that was compatible with the findings of science. Indeed, Maimonides, one of the great rabbis of the Middle Ages, wrote that if science and Torah were misaligned, it was either because science was not understood or the Torah was misinterpreted. Maimonides argued that if science proved a point, then the finding should be accepted and scripture should be interpreted accordingly. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretations_of_Genesis#Rabbinic_teachings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretations_of...
- js2 10y ago
  Maimonides always amazes me. What an incredible position to advocate for in the middle ages.
pmarreck 10y ago
Interesting. Calling God "truth" sounds nice, but at least in science, what is considered "true" is constantly debated and is not a static, immutable thing. That said, if a consensus of learned people decide a new thing is true, religions should accept it IMHO
- compsciphd 10y ago
  and the argument would be that our understanding of God increase as we understand creation even more. on the flip side, if one's faith is based more in the god of the gaps, i.e. the "magical" aspects of creation, of course one's faith will be tested or discarded as science's knowledge increases as the gaps shrink and shrink (and fits with clark's "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.")

wycats 10y ago

Further, Maimonides, who enumerated the principles of faith accepted by Orthodox Jews, also held that Genesis could/should be interpreted allegorically[1]. > Some medieval philosophical rationalists, such as Maimonides (Mosheh ben Maimon, the "Rambam") held that it was not required to read Genesis literally. In this view, one was obligated to understand Torah in a way that was compatible with the findings of science. Indeed, Maimonides, one of the great rabbis of the Middle Ages, wrote that if science and Torah were misaligned, it was either because science was not understood or the Torah was misinterpreted. Maimonides argued that if science proved a point, then the finding should be accepted and scripture should be interpreted accordingly. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretations_of_Genesis#Rabbinic_teachings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretations_of...

js2 10y ago
Maimonides always amazes me. What an incredible position to advocate for in the middle ages.

pmarreck 10y ago

Interesting. Calling God "truth" sounds nice, but at least in science, what is considered "true" is constantly debated and is not a static, immutable thing. That said, if a consensus of learned people decide a new thing is true, religions should accept it IMHO

compsciphd 10y ago
and the argument would be that our understanding of God increase as we understand creation even more. on the flip side, if one's faith is based more in the god of the gaps, i.e. the "magical" aspects of creation, of course one's faith will be tested or discarded as science's knowledge increases as the gaps shrink and shrink (and fits with clark's "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.")