4 ms·

As you pointed out, the intended audience is Jews, but I think the point made in that line is obvious - not so much that if only because the Gentiles have their

As you pointed out, the intended audience is Jews, but I think the point made in that line is obvious - not so much that if only because the Gentiles have their churches and look with suspicion on the unchurched, rather read we feel that the Gentiles have their churches and look with suspicion on the unchurched. I.e. the point is in the psychology of the Jew, not to determine what everyone else is thinking (as that would be pretty ridiculous).

moocowduckquack 13y ago
I think I get you, I did take the more ridiculous meaning first time round. I still think the second version is still a bit ridiculous, as most gentiles don't have churches. It seems like this is maybe a specific use of the term gentile. I dunno, about the only thing I know of the word is it means someone who isn't jewish, which is a very wide range of people, so I find it hard to believe that jewish people in general are worrying that gentiles in general are looking with suspicion on the unchurched, I mean, what about all the buddhists, for instance? They aren't going to care, and there's loads of them. edit - I do agree with him that there is no general problem between having articles of faith on the one hand and following processes of knowledge on the other, there can sometimes be specific instances that create problems of course, such as if you believe the universe to be younger than the rocks you are studying. That said, I am not religious by inclination, but I do not think that religion and science are exclusive subjects so I have much I agree with him on. I just found some of the tone of the writing a bit odd and thought it seemed maybe a little shuttered.
- shliachtx 13y ago
  Well, you have a lot to learn about a Jewish mentality :-). I hope no one takes this offensively (as I am a "Chassidic" Jew), but Jewish people do (and I am generalizing here) have a certain inferiority complex about being accepted by people around them. This probably has a lot to do with being such a minority, and the fact that they have been persecuted many times over the generations, from the Cossack pogroms to Nazi Germany. I think, again, that you can take the point about churches per se in context, that is many Jews have lived in mostly Christian countries for most of recent history, so the church is just an illustration as far as the article is concerned. Concerning the age of the universe, it would seem that an honest person can take a theoretical approach, where science remains in the lab, and religion affects one's personal life. Science is after all, the study of truth. It would be paradoxical for someone to claim to be a scientist, while imparting a religious bias on everything he studies. I think that is the point the article is trying to make.
  - moocowduckquack 13y ago
    I am always happy to learn. I find belief fascinating, especially since I normally don't stretch much further with faith than expecting the sun to rise tomorrow, although even that in itself is a bit of a shot in the dark, especially if you try and take a long view. I get what you are saying about the use of gentile in this context. I guess the guy is used to living around non-secular Christians in the US, so is presumably using the word to mean the non-Jewish culture local to him, rather than all non-Jews. I just found it a bit jarring because I was relating it back to my own experiences in the UK, where church going is something of a rarity, even among those who class themselves as Christian. I know very little about Chassidic Jews, indeed I only just realised after looking it up that it is apparently the same thingy as Hasidic, which I also know very little about, though I at least knew the term Hasidic and now also now know one more thing about that, namely that it is apparently the same as Chassidic. I also think it might have something to do with big fluffy hats, and everyone likes big fluffy hats. I should probably seek to expand my knowledge in this area as it is a little bit sparse. :) Back on the article subject, I think that for me one of the best examples of the religious scientist has to be Georges Lemaître, who really should have a space telescope named after him at some point, given that he came up with the Hubble constant before Hubble did. His arguments with Pope Pius XII over Pius' use of Georges' cosmology to try and provide justification for Catholic theology seem to be astute, especially his point that it is a very bad idea to tie your faith to a scientific theory that may yet be disproved, especially when you are the leader of that faith. I actually had an argument about all this very recently with a mate of mine, who does not study science, but likes to take its side (I am not sure science cares for sides though). He takes the view that science and religion are rationally incompatible and that anyone who says they practice both is lying or mad. On the other hand, I take the view that anyone who says they are completely rational is either lying or mad anyway and that it is far from unusual to be immersed in religion as a faith and science as process. One is to do with your feelings towards the things you cannot discern and the other is a method of discovery for the things that you can. The nearest I get towards spirituality is the distinct feeling that many of the complex archetypes have some deeper pattern and existence, though I strongly suspect that nobody on the planet has ever got close to working out what those patterns actually are or what they represent and I certainly see no reason to regard them as conscious, at least not in any kind of way that we know how to use the term. Then again, perhaps Philip K. Dick is right and some kind of alien-god is communicating with sci-fi authors using beams of light. I would probably bet strongly against that last one though.

moocowduckquack 13y ago

I think I get you, I did take the more ridiculous meaning first time round. I still think the second version is still a bit ridiculous, as most gentiles don't have churches. It seems like this is maybe a specific use of the term gentile. I dunno, about the only thing I know of the word is it means someone who isn't jewish, which is a very wide range of people, so I find it hard to believe that jewish people in general are worrying that gentiles in general are looking with suspicion on the unchurched, I mean, what about all the buddhists, for instance? They aren't going to care, and there's loads of them. edit - I do agree with him that there is no general problem between having articles of faith on the one hand and following processes of knowledge on the other, there can sometimes be specific instances that create problems of course, such as if you believe the universe to be younger than the rocks you are studying. That said, I am not religious by inclination, but I do not think that religion and science are exclusive subjects so I have much I agree with him on. I just found some of the tone of the writing a bit odd and thought it seemed maybe a little shuttered.

shliachtx 13y ago
Well, you have a lot to learn about a Jewish mentality :-). I hope no one takes this offensively (as I am a "Chassidic" Jew), but Jewish people do (and I am generalizing here) have a certain inferiority complex about being accepted by people around them. This probably has a lot to do with being such a minority, and the fact that they have been persecuted many times over the generations, from the Cossack pogroms to Nazi Germany. I think, again, that you can take the point about churches per se in context, that is many Jews have lived in mostly Christian countries for most of recent history, so the church is just an illustration as far as the article is concerned. Concerning the age of the universe, it would seem that an honest person can take a theoretical approach, where science remains in the lab, and religion affects one's personal life. Science is after all, the study of truth. It would be paradoxical for someone to claim to be a scientist, while imparting a religious bias on everything he studies. I think that is the point the article is trying to make.
- moocowduckquack 13y ago
  I am always happy to learn. I find belief fascinating, especially since I normally don't stretch much further with faith than expecting the sun to rise tomorrow, although even that in itself is a bit of a shot in the dark, especially if you try and take a long view. I get what you are saying about the use of gentile in this context. I guess the guy is used to living around non-secular Christians in the US, so is presumably using the word to mean the non-Jewish culture local to him, rather than all non-Jews. I just found it a bit jarring because I was relating it back to my own experiences in the UK, where church going is something of a rarity, even among those who class themselves as Christian. I know very little about Chassidic Jews, indeed I only just realised after looking it up that it is apparently the same thingy as Hasidic, which I also know very little about, though I at least knew the term Hasidic and now also now know one more thing about that, namely that it is apparently the same as Chassidic. I also think it might have something to do with big fluffy hats, and everyone likes big fluffy hats. I should probably seek to expand my knowledge in this area as it is a little bit sparse. :) Back on the article subject, I think that for me one of the best examples of the religious scientist has to be Georges Lemaître, who really should have a space telescope named after him at some point, given that he came up with the Hubble constant before Hubble did. His arguments with Pope Pius XII over Pius' use of Georges' cosmology to try and provide justification for Catholic theology seem to be astute, especially his point that it is a very bad idea to tie your faith to a scientific theory that may yet be disproved, especially when you are the leader of that faith. I actually had an argument about all this very recently with a mate of mine, who does not study science, but likes to take its side (I am not sure science cares for sides though). He takes the view that science and religion are rationally incompatible and that anyone who says they practice both is lying or mad. On the other hand, I take the view that anyone who says they are completely rational is either lying or mad anyway and that it is far from unusual to be immersed in religion as a faith and science as process. One is to do with your feelings towards the things you cannot discern and the other is a method of discovery for the things that you can. The nearest I get towards spirituality is the distinct feeling that many of the complex archetypes have some deeper pattern and existence, though I strongly suspect that nobody on the planet has ever got close to working out what those patterns actually are or what they represent and I certainly see no reason to regard them as conscious, at least not in any kind of way that we know how to use the term. Then again, perhaps Philip K. Dick is right and some kind of alien-god is communicating with sci-fi authors using beams of light. I would probably bet strongly against that last one though.