I guess today is religion versus faith day in Ottawa because the Ottawa Citizen online has a rabbi AND a priest talking about it.
We have come to think science handles facts whereas religion deals with beliefs that are personal opinions. Science, however, is silent on some of the most important questions we have: Why are we here? What is the meaning of life? Some people think that because these questions cannot be satisfactorily answered by science, they have no answer.
That’s because they have no answer. The universe does not exist for our pleasure. The meaning of your life is whatever meaning you attach to it. He is very confused about the difference between beliefs and facts:
We fail to acknowledge that science and religion share one important thing in common: the need for all forms of knowledge to take some things "on faith" when we look for the truth. Very few people today, for example, know much about particle physics: when read an article about quarks, we take "on faith" that the scientist who wrote it has told us the truth. People sometimes consider, however, the first-hand accounts in the Gospels of the witnesses of Christ's life, death and resurrection to be mere opinions (a.k.a. beliefs).
This is a profoundly ignorant statement. Maybe I don’t know much about quarks, but the scientists who have discovered them have written peer-reviewed papers based upon experimentation performed in particle accelerators. I don’t need faith to accept that.
As for this business about first-hand accounts in the Gospels, there is no such thing. Not a single one of the Gospel writers ever met Jesus. Mark is the earliest one and its author, who was not a person named Mark, wrote it decades after Jesus’ death. The others all came later. The books are riddled with contradictory versions of the story. No scholar of the New Testament denies this. No one who has read the books could miss this.
Also weighing in this morning is homo-obsessed Orthodox rabbi Reuven Bulka, author of One Man, One Woman, One Lifetime, member of the National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, and converter to Judaism of Dr. Laura Schlessinger. He actually sounds somewhat more reasonable than his Catholic colleague:
...[T]he most crucial point of conflict between and science and religion is the mistaken presumption that religion and science are in conflict. Scientists err when they presume that religion contradicts science, and religionists err when they assume that science precludes religion.
He goes on to point out that evolution and science don’t conflict. Maybe not for him, but for millions of people they do. That’s why over half of Americans are young earth creationists.
Then he says something else that I can definitely agree with:
The bottom line is that science cannot prove the non-existence of God any more than any religion can prove the existence of God.
How am I able to say that religion cannot prove the existence of God? Simply because if the proof were truly irrefutable, everyone would be a believer. Or, to put it more accurately, no one would be a believer, because everyone would "know" that God exists by virtue of the proof, and true belief would disappear.
Belief is, after all, different from unassailable fact.
Very nice sounding indeed. Unfortunately, his lifelong assault on gays can’t derive from any kind of scientific approach since the scientific community has no problem with homosexuality. It can only be a result of his religious beliefs.
For Bulka the problem isn’t his approach to science. It’s his hypocrisy.
"homo-obsessed?" where's the evidence for that? Being a member of a group that offers therapy to those who want it doesn't make him "homo-obsessed" and you haven't offered any other evidence for your statement.
ReplyDelete"Lifelong assault on gays?" You haven't shown he's assaulted even one gay. If you mean it figuratively, then you're not being honest.
"The scientific community has no problem with homosexuality." But those who seek therapy for it have a problem with it. And the Orthodox community doesn't prohibit homosexual desires-Jewish law prohibits certain types of sexual relations. Ask someone in the scientific community about the risk of STD's from those types of sexual activities.
What's the signficance of his converting Dr. Laura Schlessinger? Was there something wrong with that?
And where is the hypocrisy you accuse him of? I suggest that you look up "hypocrisy" in the dictionary. It does not mean what you think it means. All you've tried to show is some inconsistency. But if he were asked to explain it maybe he could. So I'm not sure he's being inconsistent, and even if he is I'm not sure why it needs to be pointed out any more than when you are inconsistent.
And if you're criticizing someone, shouldn't the criticism be made directly to him, instead of behind his back?
Bulka has written publicly and so can I. I don't have to address it to him personally. It's not personal.
ReplyDeleteAs for his homo-obsession, I suggest you review his writings. He has devoted a very large amount of his time to "curing" gays. This is in his books and his essays. Homosexuals don't need curing. They're fine just the way they are.
His participation in NARTH absolutely constitutes an assault on gays. I suggest you do some research into the damage that groups like NARTH and JONAH have done to gay people.
As for Schlessinger, her homophobia is well documented and her association with Bulka speaks for itself. In the end, though, she did make a fool of him.
Finally, someone who claims to accept the findings of science and then rejects them because his story book and ancient rabbis tell him he must is a hypocrite. Better he should believe in young earth creationism. He wants to sound smart and scientific when he is as primitive as any Haredi Jew.
"Bulka has written publicly and so can I. I don't have to address it to him personally. It's not personal."
ReplyDeleteYou accused him of being a hypocrite. You did not address the substance of any of his public statements on homosexuality, so that's why the criticism should be addressed to him.
"Homosexuals don't need curing."
Well some might and some might not. The ones who seek therapy for it evidently feel they do.
" suggest you do some research into the damage that groups like NARTH and JONAH have done to gay people."
I might, but you are the proponent of the statement, so you have the burden of proof.
"As for Schlessinger, her homophobia is well documented . . . "
What does that have to do with her conversion? An Orthodox bais din doesn't ask about her views on those matters.
"and her association with Bulka speaks for itself."
The topic of your post is Bulka, not Schlessinger. Her association with him for conversion purposes says nothing about any obsessions Bulka might have or any inconsistencies on his part
"Finally, someone who claims to accept the findings of science and then rejects them because his story book and ancient rabbis tell him he must is a hypocrite."
What findings is he rejecting? And even if there are some, that doesn't make him a hypocrite.
(BTW, here I am suggesting that you just go to a dictionary and you evidently don't do it, and yet you tell me to go do some detailed research into the harm caused by an organization that isn't a household name. But do I call you a hypocrite?)