A Leauki's Writings
In the past
Published on June 19, 2008 By Leauki In Pure Technology

(This is a reply to a question asked in the comments section of a previous article about Creationism. Question asked was about examples of scientific research in Islamic countries in the past.)

I am neither a religious scholar nor an expert on Islamic history.

But I do know the word "algebra" comes from Arabic and comes to us via a book written in Islamic Persia over a thousands years ago that describes algebra (as we know it).

Similarly the word "algorithm" is based on the name of another Islamic (Persian?) scholar who wrote a book about using Indian numerals (0123456789).

In fact, almost all of our mathematics (which is not technically a science, I assume) is based on research done in the Muslim world a thousand years ago, which is why we still read and write numbers right-to-left.



Don't believe me? Try these experiments:

Read the following word (spaces between letters are for effect), letter by letter. Hold a hand over the letters you are not yet reading:

C O M P U T E R

Notice how you read it from left-to-right, just like English (and the Latin alphabet) is supposed to be read?

Stay with me, I am coming to a point. Read the next word, from left-to-right:

M A T H E M A T I C S

It works again. Not try both words from right-to-left.

It doesn't work. Apparently English is read from left-to-right. We knew that.

Now try numbers. Using the same method, read the following number from left-to-right:

3 1 4 1 5 9 2 6 5 4

Yes. There is no decimal point in the number. They came later.

Can't tell what the value of the number is? Is it millions? Tens of millions? Hundreds of millions? Billions?

Something doesn't work here.

Try reading the number again, this time start on the right. You know what each digit means because of its position relative to the right side of the number.

3 1 4 1 5 9 2 6 5 4

Now you know if its 3 billions and something or not.

Reading the number from right-to-left works, from left-to-right does not.

Now use these two numbers:

3 1 4 1 5

9 2 6 5 4

And add them up. You can write them down (since you are copying them either right-to-left and left-to-right will work) and write the result under them, under a line, like this:


  3 1 4 1 5

  9 2 6 5 4

-----------

1 2 4 0 6 9

Did you find yourself writing the result from right-to-left?

Do you notice how our number system, which we got from Arabic-speaking Muslims, follows the direction of Arabic (and Hebrew) writing rather than Latin (and Greek) writing?

Now, Roman numerals are written and read from left-to-right, like Latin (and English) text:

M M V I I I

Although, since in contrast to words and Arab numerals the positions are not important, you can also read it right-to-left (or from the inside out, if you make sure to start at a good position).

In modern Hebrew, Arab numerals are used, as in English. But they are easier to read, because you don't have to skip incoming ndigits and read the number backwards to find out what they mean:

"There are 10000 fish in the sea."

"Yesh 00001 dagim baYam." (I reversed the number to simulate right-to-left writing.)

Note that unless you can immediately grasp how many zeroes there are in the number in the English text, you have to skip to the end of the number and read it right-to-left to know which number it is.


Muslims have (back then) made major advances in astronomy and architecture as well, but astronomy is really complicated and I really don't know anything about architecture. They were very advanced in the field of medicine, came up with the theory of bacteria causing diseases, found treatments, basically invented what we now know as dental surgery, and the use of anesthesia. Their books, translated into Latin formed the base of medical science in Europe for centuries.

Of course, many of the "Muslim" researchers were Jews. But the environment in which they worked allowed to scientific advancements unseen in the western (or Christian world) until, well, the age of humanism.


Comments (Page 2)
4 Pages1 2 3 4 
on Jul 11, 2008
Did you ever see much support for Creationism among the Jewish communities in America or elsewhere?


Good question given that Creationism bears its weight on Genesis, the first Book of Moses.
on Jul 11, 2008

Good question given that Creationism bears its weight on Genesis, the first Book of Moses.


Well, as was said before, Jews have a different interpretation of Genesis and most don't take it literal. I believe the Haredim do, but they are not concerned with convincing anybody else of that view.

Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, an orthodox Rabbi wrote in the 1880s about Darwin's theory:


This will never change, not even if the latest scientific notion that the genesis of all the multitudes of organic forms on earth can be traced back to one single, most primitive, primeval form of life should ever appear to be anything more than what it is today, a vague hypothesis still unsupported by fact. Even if this notion were ever to gain complete acceptance by the scientific world, Jewish thought, unlike the reasoning of the high priest of that notion, would nonetheless never summon us to revere a still extant representative of this primal form as the supposed ancestor of us all. Rather, Judaism in that case would call upon its adherents to give even greater reverence than ever before to the one, sole God Who, in His boundless creative wisdom and eternal omnipotence, needed to bring into existence no more than one single, amorphous nucleus and one single law of "adaptation and heredity" in order to bring forth, from what seemed chaos but was in fact a very definite order, the infinite variety of species we know today, each with its unique characteristics that sets it apart from all other creatures.


Judaism reacts to scientific discovery and does not reject it if it forces one to reconsider one's understanding of scripture.

The (orthodox) Rabbinical Council of America write on their Web site:


In light of the ongoing public controversy about Evolution, Creationism and Intelligent Design, the RCA notes that significant Jewish authorities have maintained that evolutionary theory, properly understood, is not incompatible with belief in a Divine Creator, nor with the first 2 chapters of Genesis.


and quote Maimonides (1135 to 1204 CE):


"what the Torah writes about the Account of Creation is not all to be taken literally, as believed by the masses"


and continue:


For us, these fundamental beliefs do not rest on the purported weaknesses of Evolutionary Theory, and cannot be undermined by the elimination of gaps in scientific knowledge.

Judaism has always preferred to see science and Torah as two aspects of the "Mind of God" (to borrow Stephen Hawking's phrase) that are ultimately unitary in the reality given to us by the Creator.


http://www.rabbis.org/news/article.cfm?id=100635

Conservative and liberal authorities see things similarly.

So one wouldn't see much support for Creationism among Jewish communities because the (fundamentalist) Christian interpretation of the Torah has never been the Jewish one.

Science is just not a matter of religion.
on Jul 11, 2008
Are you saying that learning Hebrew and understanding biology don't go together (or shouldn't)?

I'm not sure I understand you.


Were you just trying to get in touch with your tribe? I don't understand why you would quit a job to attend a religious school if you didn't have religous aims.

And you even said you learned Hebrew so you could read God's words more accurately.
on Jul 11, 2008
Leauki posts #14
It is not Christianity (or Islam) that holds science back. It's Creationism in all its forms.


Leauki posts:
Did you ever see much support for Creationism among the Jewish communities in America or elsewhere?


Lula posts:
Good question given that Creationism bears its weight on Genesis, the first Book of Moses.


Leauki posts:
So one wouldn't see much support for Creationism among Jewish communities because the (fundamentalist) Christian interpretation of the Torah has never been the Jewish one.


Leauki,

Let's take Genesis 1:1,3 and apply that to what you've said above...

"In the beginning God created heaven and earth. 3 And God said: Be light made. And light was made."

The Christian and well as the Creationist interpetation of this is that out of nothing (ex nihilo), God made Heaven and earth. Of v. 3, God spoke and light was made.

Christianity (the religion) doesn't explain or teach HOW God created Heaven, the earth and light as He did. Christianity just teaches that He did...that God was the Creator of Heaven, of earth and light.

If Jewish communities believe that Genesis is true, how can they possibly not come to the same interpretation?

Science is just not a matter of religion.


Where truth is involved science can be and indeed is part of religion.

Truth is truth whether it manifests in theology which deals with the laws of God or experimental science which deals with the laws of nature. Science is truth whether learned in a laboratory or a seminary.

The conflicts between the two arise from pseudo science (i.e. Darwin's Macro-Evolution theory)or pseudo religion.

The discoveries made by science in its study of evolutionary processes, especially in the microbiological, genetics and geological fields, enforces the belief in of design in nature, which goes to affirm rather than disprove not only Genesis, but the existence of God.



on Jul 11, 2008
The (orthodox) Rabbinical Council of America write on their Web site:



In light of the ongoing public controversy about Evolution, Creationism and Intelligent Design, the RCA notes that significant Jewish authorities have maintained that evolutionary theory, properly understood, is not incompatible with belief in a Divine Creator, nor with the first 2 chapters of Genesis.


I agree with the RCA then, given the key 2 words in this are "evolutionary theory, properly understood."

"Properly understood" discounts Darwin's Macroevolution Theory.

Small change within speices is proven evolution science "properly understood"; whereas macroEvolution change from one kind of species into a completely different kind with different DNA is pseudo science that's impossible to be "Properly understood" becasue it's false.
on Jul 11, 2008
and quote Maimonides (1135 to 1204 CE):



"what the Torah writes about the Account of Creation is not all to be taken literally, as believed by the masses"


Apply this to Genesis 1:1,3

"In the beginning God created heaven and earth. 3 And God said: Be light made. And light was made."


Who then does Maimonides say created Heaven and earth if this isn't to be taken literally?

on Jul 11, 2008

Who then does Maimonides say created Heaven and earth if this isn't to be taken literally?


Do you know the difference between "not all" and "none of it"?
on Jul 11, 2008

The Christian and well as the Creationist interpetation of this is that out of nothing (ex nihilo), God made Heaven and earth. Of v. 3, God spoke and light was made.


Please do not speak for Christianity. It has already been mentioned (by other Christians) that not all Christians agree with your interpretation of their religion.

So, let's say "The Creationist interpretation [...]" and work from there.



Christianity (the religion) doesn't explain or teach HOW God created Heaven, the earth and light as He did. Christianity just teaches that He did...that God was the Creator of Heaven, of earth and light.


Yes, as does Judaism.

Genesis does indeed not state HOW G-d created the heavens and the earth. For all we know He could have done it over millions of years using evolution and everything.

That would explain the fossils and not contradict Genesis. Who are you to tell me that G-d didn't create a human being who descended from the same ancestor as the ape G-d also created?



If Jewish communities believe that Genesis is true, how can they possibly not come to the same interpretation?


Nobody but Creationists has ever come to those interpetations. You are talking about millenia old legends here, shared by many Semitic peoples. Genesis is a summary of those legends, written down to explain the world to the Children of Israel.

Genesis is true, if you believe it, in that G-d created the world. He did create man and the animals and all the plants and the planets. But He did not do it in what we perceive as days and He did not do it in what we perceive as time.

If you read the Torah literally, I man _really_ literally, you get funny results, apart from inconsistencies with carbon-dating and fossils.

We have been through this before, with KFC and angels. Angels are often described as corporeal in the Bible, as is G-d. However, neither is meant to be understood literally. The "hand of G-d" is not a physical hand. And Eve was not made out of Adam's rin. And that's not even touching on the fact that the word for "rib" used ("tsala", Tsadi Lamed Ayin) also means "side".

You are taking a text literally that was written at least 3000 years ago in a language you don't understand, a text containing words that for all we know could have meant something else back then and were in any way always meant to be a legal work.

Genesis means not that G-d literally created the world in six days, it means that Jewish law has to be applied as if the relationship between humanity and G-d and the rest of the world were as defined by the Torah.

The Torah was and is a work of law written for a Semitic people. If you believe that G-d gave the Torah to Moses on Mount Sinai, you will understand that what Moses received was what Moses could comprehend.

If you want to take the Bible literally, go ahead; but that will mean that you will end up with a religion with a corporeal G-d (who has a hand and talks like man). Or you accept that the Bible is not meant to be taken literally and G-d is non-corporeal.

It's your choice:

LITERAL (world created in six days, no evolution, corporeal god)

or

METAPHORICALLY (we don't know how the world was created, perhaps evolution, non-corporeal god)


on Jul 11, 2008

"Properly understood" discounts Darwin's Macroevolution Theory.


Darwin doesn't have a "Macroevolution Theory".

And the "properly understood" evolution they were referring to is Darwin's theory.

But you hold it with Darwin like you hold it with the Talmud (and the Bible), don't you? It's not what he/it says, it's what you claim he/it says.

on Jul 11, 2008

Where truth is involved science can be and indeed is part of religion.


Science is not concerned with "truth".

I am a bit sick and tired of your lies about the Talmud, evolution, Darwin, Christianity, everything really.

on Jul 11, 2008

Were you just trying to get in touch with your tribe?


What's the matter with you? Why does the story have to be so complicated with you? There is nothing tribal about it. Hebrew is just a language spoken by six million people. I have books and DVDs in Hebrew. It is like English or French or German.

Here's an example (with subtitles):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mvhuh3Un2-g

And here's a picture of a Tintin comic book in Hebrew, just taken on my desk:

http://www.netneurotic.net/bin/tintinh.jpg



I don't understand why you would quit a job to attend a religious school if you didn't have religous aims.


Who said anything about a religious school? I was at the University of Haifa (as I said).

http://www.haifa.ac.il/index_eng.html

And, yes, I did quit my job to go there. But don't worry, I am not unemployed now. I got the same job back. (I am not only interested in and eager to learn religion, languages, and biology but also networking and debugging.)

I have studied at a university in Germany and a college in Ireland as well.


And you even said you learned Hebrew so you could read God's words more accurately.


Yes, I did. And it worked. It was one of the best things I have ever done in my life.

But what I'm not getting is why you deduce from that that I would have to be ignorant of biology. In my experience people, including myself, who are eager to study one subject are usually equally eager to study other subjects as well.

Incidentally, I did meet many people (from the US) in Israel who did quit their jobs to go to a religious school. I cannot see why that would be surprising or shocking.

Isn't that what religion is supposed to do?

on Jul 11, 2008
In case you are curious, the title of the Tintin book reads:

"Otsro shel Raqham HaAdom"

"His treasure of Rackham the red" = "The treasure of Rackham the Red"

That's "adom" as in "Adam", both based on "adama", meaning the red soil or clay.

I have a German edition of the book as well.
on Jul 11, 2008
In my experience people, including myself, who are eager to study one subject are usually equally eager to study other subjects as well.


Tell that to lulapilgrim.

And it's just totally false. English teachers usually hate math, and computer scientists usually hate body building.
on Jul 13, 2008

"In my experience people, including myself, who are eager to study one subject are usually equally eager to study other subjects as well."

Tell that to lulapilgrim.


Lulapilgrim does not strike me as someone eager to study any subject.

We talked about studying the Bible a bit and she told me that a superficial view of it is enough for her.

Specifically she said, if I recall correctly, that knowing that "Elohim" is plural is enough for her and she didn't need to know that it is a majestic plural treated as a singular in the Bible and not the right plural (Hebrew has two plurals) for what she wanted to understand it as. She was also not interested in what the words in the Bible really mean, what other words they are related to, or what the roots of the words mean.

But you haven't explained what the connection is between studying Hebrew and not knowing biology.




And it's just totally false. English teachers usually hate math, and computer scientists usually hate body building.


I said "people who are eager to study one subject", not "English teachers". Most people have a profession, but that doesn't even imply that they are eager to study (that subject or any subject).

When you say "English teachers" it is clear to me that you and I have a totally different idea of what type of people we are talking about (an English teacher is not a particularly typical example) and when you say "body building" it is clear to me that we are not talking about the same when we speak of "studying".

What I mean is that people EAGER TO STUDY one subject are usually also eager to learn other subjects. Most of those are probably not into doing sports so much, certainly not body-building (in fact, that would be the opposite steretype). And very few of those become humanities teachers.

But I think you will find that someone who isn't an English teacher and who has an interest in linguistics and is knowledgable will very probably be similarly interested in and knowledgable about other subjects as well. Being interested in anything is a skill one learns while being interested in something specific. You can observe that even in parrots.
on Jul 14, 2008
We talked about studying the Bible a bit and she told me that a superficial view of it is enough for her.


She was also not interested in what the words in the Bible really mean, what other words they are related to, or what the roots of the words mean


Leauki,

You've come to the wrong conclusion about me. I'm most interested in tudying the Holy Bible and God willing, it will be something I do for the rest of my life.

Specifically she said, if I recall correctly, that knowing that "Elohim" is plural is enough for her and she didn't need to know that it is a majestic plural treated as a singular in the Bible and not the right plural (Hebrew has two plurals) for what she wanted to understand it


This is going back to our discussion about the Blessed Trinity, a doctrine revealed by Christ and defined by the Catholic Church. In God there are three Persons in one divine Essence, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, really distinct, equal and of one substance. The Father is Unbegotten, the Son Begotten of the Father, and the Holy Ghost Proceeds from the Father and the Son.

No disrespect intended, but it's you Leauki, who is coming up short in understanding how the plurality of persons is implied in the Hebrew name of God---Elohim--which is plural in name, though used with a singular adjective and verb.

Let's go over it again.

Just like the upholders of Jewish monotheism, Catholics dogmatically believe in One God, the One Divine Being, having One Divine Nature. This ought not be an obstacle to Jewish belief in a plurality of persons, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost (Holy Spirit)is implied in the plural name of God--Elohim. This is hinted at in the OLd Testament and more fully revealed in the New.

Let's start with Genesis 1:1. If we were to translate Genesis 1:1 literally, according to the plurality and oneness of Elohim, it would translate as such: "In the beginning the Gods, He created heaven and earth." Following this, would it not be as incorrect to charge Jews with believing in a plurality of Gods becasue they designate God by the plural name Elohim (which btw is used 2,570 times in the OT) as it is to charge Catholics with believing in a plurality of Gods because they worship the One true God--the same God the Jews worship--in a tri-unity of persons?

As we've already discussed, not only do we find the plurality of persons involved in the name Elohim, but this one God is spoken of in Genesis 1:26 as if the Father were conferring with the Son and the Holy Ghost: "Let us make man in our own image and likeness." Here are 3 other quotations which imply the same plurality of persons:

"Behold Adam is become as one of us" Genesis 3:22.
"Come ye, therefore, let us go down, and there confound their tongue." Genesis 11:7.
"Whom shall I send, and who will go for us" Isaias 6:8.

Leauki, the Christian concept of monotheism, that is, oneness in substance and triuneness in persons alone can explain the plural sense in which the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob speaks to us through the Testament of the Jews.

Christians are fortified in their belief in the Trinity, for we have the Word of Almighty God: "There are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one." 1St.John 5:7. It is "in the name of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Ghost" (and not in the names of these persons), three in ONe, that Christ sends forth His Apostles to teach and to baptize.

Pax Christi.
4 Pages1 2 3 4