Talk:Jewish reactions to intelligent design
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Jewish reactions to intelligent design is part of WikiProject Judaism, a project to improve all articles related to Judaism. If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Judaism articles. |
|
Project Judaism To-do:
|
|
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
 |
This article is supported by the Intelligent design WikiProject.
This project provides a central approach to Intelligent design-related subjects on Wikipedia. |
||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. | ||
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
|||
Contents |
[edit] My comments
I was asked by someone to review this article. I think it looks pretty good overall, but I have three basic objections:
1. The article describes ID as an argument for the existence of God. Many ID advocates would disagree with that statement. They would say that ID can be used as an argument for God's existence, but that the theory in itself is not inherently theological.
2. I don't think the anthropic principle is really relevant. While many ID advocates have referred to this principle, it is separate from the ID argument itself, which primarily concerns biology.
3. The article claims that Haredim have expressed an openness to nonliteral interpretations of Genesis. This I believe is misleading. While it may be true of certain Haredi groups (e.g. Aish HaTorah, if you consider them Haredi), the Slifkin affair was a reminder that there is in fact widespread opposition to nonliteralism in the Haredi world. (The dominance of the Oral Law does not make them any more open to accepting an allegorical interpretation of Genesis.) marbeh raglaim 18:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Reset? and Restart?
The fact that the content of the Talk Page was "archived" (i.e. "reset", and in a sense "erased" or placed behind "intellectual fog") shows that the approach to the article and the discussion was unproductive and appears to be motivated by a strong desire to control and impose views rather than present and understand "Jewish views" on the subject of Intelligent Design and Evolution (ID+E) and engage in spirited, inspired and democratic dialogue on the Talk Page to sharpen issues.
The article seems to be commenting on so called "Jewish views" specifically on the Discovery Institute views of ID+E. If so, it should state this clearly and appropriately label the article. Not doing so is inappropriate.
The authors seem to think "Jewish views" are those expressed by Jewish organizations. Those are "Jewish organizational views" only .... On controversial issues or those beyond day to day issues organization views and actions often fail - as they did during the Holocaust when the major Jewish organization leaders failed their brethren and unfortunately frequently sabotaged rescue of Jews (e.g. persistent sabotage of Hillel Kook's and his Bergson Group's rescue efforts). Due to organizational bias the article does not include views of creative and insightful Jewish "individuals". This is contrary to "Jewish view", where the individual (the "Tzelem Elokim") is the focal point, not groups and organizations.
The article doesn't cover inspired scientific insights/models related to the problem. Considering that the issue is specifically about a scientific matter this is at best an anomaly and perhaps reflects the authors' mind set.
The article presents Jews as desiring to censor education, wishing to obstruct freedom of speech and thought, and fit to be inheritors of the losers of the Monkey Trial. The original cast lost because they wanted to prohibit teaching scientific models based on E (evolution). Surprisingly, the Monkey Trial II losers (the supposed holders of primarily "liberal" "Jewish views" on ID+E) seem to follow the Monkey Trial legacy and are intellectually losers because they want to say "verboten" to exploring models based on ID (intelligent design). The article portrays Jews as scientifically ignorant and unimaginative, and dogmatic. With this approach science teaching and research can be as dogmatic as was the Catholic church centuries ago. Do we, Jews, really want to control and limit imagination in a science on the way the world was formed at various levels (universe/multiverse, solar system, planet Earth, initial life on the planet, complex life forms, intelligence). Doesn't the separation of church and state doctrine imply that the only valid "Jewish view" is to leave science to scientist and not theologize or anti-theologize it? Both approaches would be wrong. Hopefully there are "Jewish views" which state that we must leave science to the scientists and have faith in the system of peer review to eventually flush out theories which skipped the track ... Those who wish to control the scientific enterprise in the name of "Jewish views" in effect want to sterilize scientific imagination and vistas and are as anti-science as was the Church when it tried to censor Copernicus etc.
It is advised to go back to the drawing board in the article and survey a much broader range of "Jewish views". Also, if some Jews/group spokesmen are closed minded, dictatorial or limited in their thinking, or are motivated by politics rather than scientific views on ID+E, that should be made explicit.Emesz 21:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that Jewish organisational views should not be purported to represent the views of all Jews. This aside wikipedia requires verifiable third party publications, as it is a tertiary source. This means that organisational views are going to be overepresented, it is the role of editors not to place WP:UNDUE weight on these sources, and accurately represent what they portray. User:Metz has done excellent research on the topic, but I do have concerns about his style and tone in creating encyclopedia articles.--ZayZayEM 03:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Disambiguate the Title
ZayZayEM - as you noted in the archived material, the article title is ambiguous and seems to refer to the so called "Discovery Institute" views, rather than ID+E in general. The first step seems to be correcting the title and then work on the article as needed thru a democratic process and realize that no one "owns" it. It is hoped that whoever contributes to the article has no political, religious or secular/anti-religious agenda and merely aims to have a factual and valuable article on the subject.Emesz 11:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Individual Views vs. Group Think
While Jewish organizational views certainly do not represent all Jews (there is that old joke, two Jews, at least three opinions), it's hard to ignore that Jews are very involved organizationally. Joining the AJC, the Federation, the ADL, AIPAC, Hadassah, etc. is frequently an "alternative" Jewish affiliation for secular Jews. They are actively involved as Jews in secular organizations rather than in synagogues. Of course, Jewish leaders tend to be involved in many such organizations. It is a community that has very strong leadership processes in place. Being a volunteer, belonging to these organizations, contributing to them, is a part of being Jewish. And these organizations do speak for Jews and represent Jewish opinion. And we have Jewish newspapers that report on them too (and now Jewish blogs and websites). So while these organizations may not speak for every Jewish individual, they are influential and very representative of the community. --Metzenberg 10:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Metzenberg, glad that a dialogue is developing. Since many points were raised in my remarks I am moving your response to this new category to give it its "space". As other issues are responded to suggest they be handled similarly.
- True that one of the strengths of the Jewish people is building Kehilot (communities) of various types. Nonetheless organizations such as WJC, AJC, ADL, OU .. are more like acronyms than Kehilot. A clear example was during the Holocaust when senior Jewish organizational "leaders" and organization men invested their creative energies into sabotaging rescue by inspired individuals like Hillel Kook, while "ordinary" Jews behaved extraordinarily and supported Hillel Kook and rescue of their brethren. There are many reasons for this seeming contradiction of "Jewish views" at such a critical and tragic time.
- In many ways emphasis on views of of organizations and Jewish "organization men" is an anti-Jewish view, or rather may reflect emergence of a new Jewish view (by some Jews) - a shift away from valuing thoughtful individuals and worship of group think. In Jewish tradition we don't quote views of acronymic groups, but of great, thoughtful, inspired individuals. We have Avraham Avinu, Majshe Rabbeinu, ... the Rambam, Rashi, the Maharal, Hazon Ish, Chofetz Chaim ... Rabbi Solovaitchik ... and NOT WJC, AJC, ADL, OU. In deep Jewish discourse I heard many references to names of such individuals as just listed, but as far as I recall never to views expressed by the Jewish acronymic groups or their spokesmen. As you know we place great emphasis on Tzelkem Elokim (man created in God's image), which is surely not reference to organizations or their spokesmen, but to the solitary individual. Rabbi J. Soloveitchik's book title, The Lonely Man of Faith, comes to mind. In many ways that also reflects the Jewish mystic view of God, who is also in some sense a solitary and even lonely figure: an individual and not an acronym's representative.
- Quotes by Rabbi Norman Lamm comes to mind: “Group action--yes; group thinking no” and “Mutual commitment to ideals--yes; the stifling of all dissenting notions--no.”
- Also a quote (paraphrased) by Zussia: “If in the after life I will be asked why wasn't I like Avraham Avinu, I will have a good answer: I wasn't born with his qualities. If I will be asked why I wasn't like Moshe Rabbeinu I will also have a good answer: I wasn't born with his qualities. If I will be asked why I wasn't Zussia I will be unable to answer.”
- Also quotes from the Kotzker Rebbe: Man must “guard himself and his uniqueness, and not imitate his fellow ... for initially man was created in his own image, and only afterwards in the image of God.” and “A person must renew himself, and his world with him, each and every day. But one who does not do so, and rather performs his deeds as a mechanical function, does nothing other than the actions of a monkey. Just as this monkey has no personality of his own, but rather copies his own actions and his fellow, so too this person.” and “If I am I because I am I and you are you because you are you then I am I and you are you. If I am I because you are you and you are you because I am I then I am not I and you are not you.”
- In many ways the above thoughts characterize the Jew, even the Jewish people. Shifting the emphasis to Jewish organizational views is to some degree a non-Jewish view.
- To shapen the point, total shift of emphasis to Jewish "acronymic" (organizational) views and group think is an anti-science view. Sinced the subject relates to an important scientifoc issue it is noted that science without focus on the individual thinker, dreamer and imaginer is no longer science and would be hopelessly sterilized and deprived of the creative soul it so required.
- Summary: it is critical to balance the article and find and cite views of inspired, imaginative, clear thinking, apolitical Jewish thinkers - as opposed to only organization men. Emesz 14:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Emesz. There are a few organizations in the United States that do a lot of public opinion research and polling, like the Pew Charitable Trusts. I'm sure you can appreciate how difficult it is to even phrase the question when you do a poll. And polling requires individuals to self report that they are Jewish. The only way really to get Jewish opinion on particular issues is to look at organizations. --Metzenberg 20:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Metzenberg. If someone is so interested in the subject he is obliged to do a fair amnount of reading and research on THOUGHTS of creative and insightful Jewish INDIVIDUAL thinkers rather than report on pollsters ... The article falsely implies that there are no Jewish thinkers only the acronymic and often highly political groups. Also note that just as Israeli "learship" is increasingly corrupt, continualy investigated by the police and irrelevant to Israel's needs, major Jewish organizations have similar problems. What you are implicitly saying is that this is the Jewish milieu and "its" opinions are the "Jewish views". If so, then the view expressed in an un-Jewish view. Until the article includes inspired, imaginatuve, scientifically based (vs. political) views of Jewish thinkers and scientists ("Jewish" doesn't mean "assimilated Jew") it is not relevant to the issue.
- Furthermore, please note that this only one flaw in the article. The problems stars with the title which is deliberately ambiguous, as noted. A partial list of other major problems is listed in an earlier section. One more observation follows. The article starts listing so called "Jewish views" by citing "secular Jewish organanizations". You realize that a synonym for "secular Jews" is "assimilated Jews" who are only a generation or two from disappearing from anything Jewish, and are often adamantly opposed to values of core Judaism. To take this point to the extreme, in a way this is like citing in Christian views about a subject Stalin, who at least started life as a theology student and had roots in Christianity.Emesz 20:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- I partially agree with Emesz here. The article has tended to focus on statements by organizations rather than research or reflective writing by scholars. It would be a bit like writing an article on Global warming, Medicare, or Abortion based on statements by political action committee spokespeople rather than scientists, doctors, religious thinkers, ethical philosophers, etc. A difficulty with collecting the latter's thoughts, particularly on a subject like this, is that there is a substantial danger of original research. Scholars tend to talk about the meaning and implications of, say, the Genesis narrative; political action committees talk about proposals by school boards. I am wondering if this article is too specific to be useful; it might be more encyclopedic to have a more general article on Jewish views and thoughts on the issues of Creation vs. Evolution which could include the various denominational approaches and thoughts of major thinkers. Focusing on "reactions" to one particular theory in this area may perhaps not be the best approach. The title word "reactions" suggests a lack of reflective thought, but I believe it's appropriate for an encyclopedia, on an intellectual topic, to put more emphasis on reflective thought and thinkers than on reactions and reactive thought. I understand that Emesz' is also arguing that the views of more Orthodox/Haredi (as distinct from secular) Jews are underrepresented; this is a separate issue. Best, --Shirahadasha 21:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- You are right that some of the so called "liberal" views are reactionary and that the article should include primarily insightful, creative and bold views by scientists rather than Jewish politicians. The article also ought to clearly note the conflict between separation of church and state and freedom of speech and thought. Also worth noting the analogy to the Monkey Trial, in whose possible current version many "liberal" Jews apparently try to control how science is carried out and taught. The article also projects Jews as group "thinkers" (groups usually don't "think"; more frequently they have mob reactions including the "madness of crowds") - whereas "Judaism" basically requires individualism. The article also portrays Jews as wanting to control how the majority is taught science and how the business of science is carried out. This view is hopefully not reflective of Jewish views. My "Jewish view" is that Jewish and other politicians should stay out of science, leave science to scientists and recognize that there are limits on what they ought to try to control. Science needs total freedom of thought and speech and a marketplace of ideas, even for ideas which at first seems imponderable. The scientific milieu is the only one entrusted with verifying or disqualifying theories and paradigms. Jewish politicians are advised to spend their time fighting corruption and irrelevance in their organizations and run away corruption in Israeli politics, to try to stem the enormous forces of assimilation by making Judaism and Jewish life more meanigful especially to youth and to focus on "Jewish" issues - including soul searching about why the mushrooming ostasntateous Holocaust centers/museums still falsify part of Holocaust history and don't tell the truth about important matters such as rescue and obstruction by Jews during the Holocaust. Controlling science is simply not in the Jewish acronyms' and their so called leaders' job description.Emesz 11:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- I partially agree with Emesz here. The article has tended to focus on statements by organizations rather than research or reflective writing by scholars. It would be a bit like writing an article on Global warming, Medicare, or Abortion based on statements by political action committee spokespeople rather than scientists, doctors, religious thinkers, ethical philosophers, etc. A difficulty with collecting the latter's thoughts, particularly on a subject like this, is that there is a substantial danger of original research. Scholars tend to talk about the meaning and implications of, say, the Genesis narrative; political action committees talk about proposals by school boards. I am wondering if this article is too specific to be useful; it might be more encyclopedic to have a more general article on Jewish views and thoughts on the issues of Creation vs. Evolution which could include the various denominational approaches and thoughts of major thinkers. Focusing on "reactions" to one particular theory in this area may perhaps not be the best approach. The title word "reactions" suggests a lack of reflective thought, but I believe it's appropriate for an encyclopedia, on an intellectual topic, to put more emphasis on reflective thought and thinkers than on reactions and reactive thought. I understand that Emesz' is also arguing that the views of more Orthodox/Haredi (as distinct from secular) Jews are underrepresented; this is a separate issue. Best, --Shirahadasha 21:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
