Title Author Date

The Future David Aug 08, 2005

Bravo for you! Let's keep the Dark Ages from returning for as long as we can.

read replies (2)
write a reply

Title Author Date

Maimonides and Noahides Tvivlaren, Tomas Aug 24, 2005

Dear Mr. Goldstein,

In your article "A Lonely Champion of Tolerance" you wrote:

"Maimonides's famous ruling that the "pious from among the nations" have their share in the World-to-Come refers only to those Gentiles who declare before a Jewish court their commitment to observe the Seven Noahide Commandments, base this commitment on the belief that "God commanded about them in the Torah revealed through Moses," and strictly observe all these
commandments."

Could you elaborate on this, please? I have tried to find more information on the internet but so far failed. Do you by this mean that Maimonides demanded that Gentiles who observed the Seven Noahide Commandments must declare this before a Jewish court in order to have a share in the World-to-Come? Relevant quotes from Maimonides himself on this subject would be appreciated.

I also wonder if Maimonides saw any problems with defining moslems as Noahides?

Sincerely yours

Tomas

read replies (1)
write a reply Related Article(s):
A Lonely Champion of Tolerance

Title Author Date

ID Prediction Strumfels, David Aug 21, 2005

I'm wondering why I haven't seen what seems to me the most obvious refutation of Intelligent Design "Theory". A scientific hypothesis makes
testable predictions which can disprove it: the so-called falsifiability criterion. ID's critics often object that ID makes no testable predictions, and so is not science, but this is not correct! ID makes one very straightforward, easily verified prediction: that neither complexity nor intelligence exist in the universe.

The reason ID makes this prediction is that it requires intelligence to exist before the kind of complexity that characterizes living things can appear. However, intelligence itself requires complexity; for example, as in a human brain, or an artificially intelligent computer (if one is ever built). If there is any doubt about this, ask yourself whether any simple
thing, like a rock, could ever be intelligent. That is absurd, of course.

So intelligence requires complexity as a pre-existing condition. But according to ID, complexity requires intelligence as a pre-existing condition as well! If two things are the result of each other, and only each other, then logically neither can exist. According to ID, I do not exist. Since I do exist however, ID is thereby falsified. QED.

Darwin's theory is satisfying precisely because it shows a way out of this conundrum: under the right conditions complexity, and hence intelligence, can also be the result of simple processes "guided" by the blind (not
random!) laws of physics and chemistry. Of course, Darwinism may someday fail to explain some particular complex biological adaptation (anyone who ever does discover this will probably win a Nobel prize, even if he's a
creationist), but even if it did, ID would not be a viable alternative.

ID proponents should be challenged with this argument, especially as their only possible counter-argument is to openly admit that their Designer is supernatural; i.e., God. This wouldn't put off their supporters of course
-- they know they mean God -- but it would instantly prove in any court room that ID is just Judeo-Christian doctrine masquerading as science, and that it has no more right to be in the public schools than mandatory prayer
and Bible reading. The argument should be made more public because unfortunately there are many naive people being bamboozled; people like
even non-rightwing politicians and newspaper editors who are being flummoxed into thinking the "present both sides" argument has validity.
They need to see just what is going on here, how they are being used.

read replies (1)
write a reply

Title Author Date

evolution Ed Aug 21, 2005

Reasoned?: It would seem that they have already won based on your postings.
The defensiveness and need to critique them elevates their argument to a
level of legitimacy.

What you would need to do is to challenge their religious and moral
underpinnings. Kind of turning the tables on them. Noone who has a true
faith needs to run around desperatley trying to foist a literalist reading
of the bible on others.

By arguing with them you give them power. As a religious person (
hopefully) I know God will work out the details no matter what.

Ed

write a reply

Title Author Date

Darwin's "The Descent of Man" Bratton, Al Aug 21, 2005

A recent Washington Times reprinted article by Steve Sailer (referenced by
Media Matters website http:mediamatters.org/items/200508170001 "Washington
Times promotes "white nationalist" website") charged that Darwin indicated
a racist tone in his "The Descent of Man" publication.

I am interested in finding out the truth about this accusation made by the
right-wing element in America. Can you help me?

Can you refer me to the right Web site to search for this information if
you don't know the answer?

I am a progressive,anti-Intelligent Design, rationalist, and free-lance
writer of sorts.

I subscribe to your newsletter.

Thank you for your attention to my inquiry. Looking forward to your reply.

Al Bratton,

read replies (2)
write a reply

Previous | | Next