Classes (May 12)

We had 3 classes today. The first was given by Rabbi Gershenfeld and he tried to convince us that the world has an intelligent designer. He showed that the beginnings of things are often hidden, a seed to a tree, semen and egg to a human, etc. Rabbi Gershenfeld argued that in modern philosophy since Descartes, we use the maxim that all decisions should be based on logical explanations. Meaning, even if we are not 100% sure, that we must choose the more logical choice. He then used arguments from analogy, a waterwheel irrigates an area must have a designer then the world, so much more complex than the waterwheel, must have a designer.

The first argument he talked about that is against design is the common problem of evil, introduced by John Stuart Mill. Mill states that there is evil in the world, disorder in the world, and then there must not be a creator since if something is created by a perfect God, and then the result would be perfect. Therefore, there is no creator. Rabbi G argued that a design in itself proves a designer, regardless of its level of perfection. You cannot disprove a designer based on your own opinion of perfection; if you go into a room and think it is ugly, does that disprove that someone designed the room? I think this argument misplaces the burden of proof, as someone arguing for a designer must prove a designer, as opposed to proving there was no designer.

He said we live in an imperfect world because humans sin and cause problems to the world, i.e. Chernobyl. God gave us free will, and therefore some of us sometimes sin and cause problems to the world. He suggested another possibility, that God made evil so that humans can help. If there as no evil, we could not help less fortunate. Another argument is that humans are not complete, we make mistakes and have to grow and become more refined, or Godlike.

He then went on to argue from a scientific standpoint, that the scientists agree, regardless of whether they believe in God, that the world being here and have life is extremely unlikely considering all the exact levels we must have in relation to electrons, neutrons, ET all. (I do not understand most of this stuff) This leads to 3 common arguments: 1) Infinite Universes, and our circumstance is unusual, but possible since there are so many universes. This is called the multiverse hypothesis. 2) Only our universe, we are just very lucky that it happened to work out for us in our world. 3) Only our universe, and the physical laws, precise turning of physical constants to make intelligent life possible is just a coincidence. All three of these are very unlikely, compared to the possibility of an intelligent designer. Therefore, according to our principle related stated above that we must accept the theory that is more logical, design theory is more logical than any other theory, since the odds of any of the 3 arguments made are extremely small. Stephen Hawking: “The odds against a universe like our emerging out of something like the Big Bang theory are enormous. I think there are clearly religious implications.”

My biggest problem with any of his arguments, even though I do think there is a creator, is his arguments from analogy. A friend and I tried to find a premise to connect designs we witness to the design of the world, but failed. Just because things we see being produced must have a creator, does not mean we can make assumptions that a thing like the earth, has a creator. We have no reason to compare the earth to a thing created, since the creation of the earth is incomprehensible to us, especially compared to the making of a waterwheel.

The second class was given by Tom Steinberg about Teffilin. He made a very inspiring speech, saying that true happiness is needs 3 aspects: Intellectual through the mind, emotional through the heart, and physical through the body. He starts by showing 2 examples in the Gemara, where Rabbis generally supported not being overly happy, but in these 2 circumstances they showed great happiness and it was accepted because they were wearing Tefflin. The main prayer we say when wearing these Tefflin is the Shema:

Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord alone.

(Praised be the name of the glory of God's sovereignty for ever and ever)

You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. Take to heart these instructions with which I charge you this day. Impress them upon your children. Recite them when you stay at home and when you are away, when you lie down and when you get up. Bind them as a sign on your hand and let them serve as a symbol on your forehead; inscribe them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.

This paragraph has many words which show unity, such as love, one, etc. A sign is often a symbol for something much bigger. A sign with an arrow pointing to New York represents something much larger than the sign itself, and wearing the Teffilin and praying is a sign for our connection to god. It is to remind us that we can have this special relationship with God emotionally, physically, and intellectually. Also, the letter on the head part of Tefflin is a Shin with numerous branches, supposed to be representing the different branches of our thoughts and hidden brain, and much as a tree’s core is hidden in the ground, our core is hidden in our head. This stuff is very far fetched, but is still inspiring and definitely a cool topic to think about. I doubt I will lay Teffilin on a regular basis, but maybe sometimes. The last class was a group Talmud discussion with Rabbi Fully Eisenberger. We dealt with a circumstance where a Jew was negotiating to buy a piece of land, and another Jew, without the knowledge of the negotiation, swept in and bought the land. When he found out that the other Jew was in negations, he offered the land as a present. He did not want to sell it, as it is bad in Judaism to sell the first piece of land someone buys in Israel, but he can give it as a gift. The Jew who was in negotiation refused to accept it as a gift, as it is said, “He that despises gifts shall live.” Neither ended up benefiting from the land, and was called the land of the rabbinical students as it was an issue they argued over. There are some interesting things to consider in this story. Was the 2^nd Jew wrong to buy the land? Should it be accepted as a present? Who is the just owner? I think that the 2^nd Jew is the owner, but he took it upon himself when hearing that someone else was in negotiation, to give the land as a gift. He became a more special person by rising to this level, as did the original one in the negotiation. Out of this seemingly bad experience, two Jews were able to rise above their own material desires to become more “holy.” I think this shows how we can benefit from bad experiences, and that bad things happen for a reason.