Dealing with Abraham:
Genesis 25:8-9 “And Abraham expired and died at a good old age, mature and content, and he was gathered to his people. His sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the cave of Machpelah, in the field of Ephron the son of Zohar the Hittite facing Mamre.”
Dealing with Isaac:
Genesis 35:29. “And Isaac expired and died and he was gathered to his people, old and fulfilled of days; his sons Esau and Jacob, buried him.”
Dr. Schroeder then turned to an article that had been published in the magazine Lancet, the British equivalent to the Journal of the American Medical Assn. This article had been published in 2001, and the reason he used it was that it was “peer reviewed.” This means that scientists had reviewed the article before publishing it and agreed that it was not nonsense, and therefore worthy of publication in a serious scientific journal. Peer review is the scientific and academic equivalent of “kosher.”
The article was a compilation of “life after death” experiences, where a person had expired on the operating table and had been brought back to life.
Of the 300-odd events where this had occurred in the study, about 60 or so of the people remembered the event in one form or another, the familiar “white light,” the deep contentment and the experience of relatives sort of pushing them back, saying to them "it’s not your time yet."
The immediate implication that came to my mind was that if it had ‘been their time’ the relatives who were pushing the individuals back would have welcomed the soul or mind or whatever it was of the dying person into their midst – that the dying person would have been "gathered to his people."
There are strong arguments put forth to explain that the phenomenon of the "white light" that people that are brought back from death experience is nothing more than the chemical reactions of a brain in crisis. The arguments point to the fact that while a person is dying, the brain is extremely busy attempting to deal with the business of closing down. Part of this involves shooting various chemicals that induce or that can induce hallucinations of contentment.
What evidently got noticed in the article in Lancet was that if these arguments were true, since all brains have similar chemistry, the "white light" experience would have been far more common than it was in the study. There was a quote in that magazine, as far as a magazine of that nature could go, essentially suggesting that the relation of the mind to the body should be re-examined.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Josh
Great post. I especially liked the fish analogy.
2 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Thanks for the kind words, Josh.
Professor Schroeder spoke last Thrusday at the Israel Center as well about "Intelligent Design."
He basically picked it apart as being insufficient to explain a universe governed by metaphysical principles. He argued that the intent of "Intelligent Design" was alright, but that it didn't belong in a science class. One could cause students to infer a Creator by teaching the wonder of the universe in terms of how the universe was primed for life by the nature of the various numbers that govern its existence.
Truth of the matter is that much of what he said is found in his books "The Science of G-d," or "The Hidden Face of G-d."
It's not always easy to summarize a two hour lecture in Torah, Kabbalah and physics...
3 - Victor Lana
Having just lost someone very close to me, I am very intrigued by your post, Ruvy. I hope you follow-up with more on this subject. Thanks!
4 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
May you not hear any more bad news, Victor.
Thank you for your kind words. This is the kind of thing you can pursue on the internet, or if you are so minded, pursue through buying one of Dr.Schroeder's books. They're not that expensive, roughly $10 plus tax. He is a good writer and can make things clear to the non-scientist. And he is intelligent enough to warn where the reading may get rough.
5 - teutates
just hook me up!
6 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Teutates, Go to my URL. Look up my e-mail from there and we'll talk.
7 - Christopher Rose
Ruvy, this article of yours only proves how dangerous a little knowledge can be in some people's minds. What a load of drivel, frankly I'm appalled that you could so blatantly try to sell us, and yourself on such mindless meaningless nonsense.
BAH!
8 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Odd that you should think I'm trying to sell a concept, Chris. I wrote about Dr. Schroeder's lecture because it was interesting and because he had delivered one last Thursday night.
It strikes me that this article is outside your usual box of perceptions, Chris - therefore it is drivel.
This is a common perception among humankind - and it prevents the race from progressing.
9 - Christopher Rose
Ruvy, the only thing that's out of the box is you if you're prepared to take this pseudo babble seriously!
It's such total nonsense I hardly know where to start but a few key points:-
1. As you have already told me, according to the Torah, creation was about 5766 years ago, on either March 29th or September 25th, now you say it's 15 billion years - nice spread, the truth's probably in there somewhere, right?
2. The "formula" is meaningless.
3. After some totally irrelevant quoting of empty words from the Torah/Old Testament you move on to this clot's quoting of an article from The Lancet without establishing any relationship between either nor managing any plausible explanation for this reputed "white light" phenomenon.
4. Ruvy, an awful lot has happened in brain research lately; for a start, it's possible to induce religious experience at will by sticking an electrode into the right part of the brain.
Now it's recently emerged that the latest MRI research has now proven that it is possible to know what you are going to do or say a good second or two before you know it yourself, literally to read your mind, before you know what you're thinking yourself. You ought to be worrying about what people are going to do with this technology far more than this meandering rot.
5. I'm still laughing about the fish story! Why on earth would an intelligent fish not be able to detect water? That's like saying we humans couldn't detect air!
For Space' sake man, what is going on in that overactive but undisciplined mind of yours? I have no idea but find myself choking on the horrible combination of mystical psychobabble of your post and the smug arrogance of your presumption that I don't "get" it you display in your comment.
10 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Chris,
Do yourself a favor and buy one of the books recommended and read it - or borrow it from a library - and then argue with me if you want. I would suggest The Science of G-d since you talked about the ages of the universe.
11 - Christopher Rose
Ruvy, do yourself a favour and wake up! I'm not in the slightest bit interested in reading any more about this mad dogma. If it has any worth, it can come out into the light of reason and make its case in public, not seek to suck vulnerable people into its maw.
12 - Dave Nalle
Interesting new definition of 'evidence' in play here. John Locke would be dismayed at how far his empirical method has declined.
Dave
13 - Christopher Rose
I hope that's an endorsement of my position here, Mr Nalle..?
14 - Dave Nalle
Yes, I agree that the Torah and/or Bible is not terribly valid as 'scientific evidence', though it's a useful historical document if you avoid the clearly loony stuff about magical spirits from the sky who turn people to salt and cover their nakedness with their six wings while waving their flaming two-handed engines of doom and standing in their firey chariots, etc. Not to mention talkign bushes.
Dave
15 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Why so angry, Chris? Why so closed minded, my virtual friend?
The book Genesis and the Big Bang was on the NYT best sellers list for a time. So was The Science of G-d. That would tell me that Dr. Schroeder's concepts have indeed come out into the light of reason and made their case in public. In a free market, not all the public is required to buy in.
Truth is, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. It strikes me that you're trying to convince me to abandon a reasonable concept that explains the convergence of science and religion.
Let's take your points one by one.
1. The giving of Adam a neshamá, a soul, took place 5766 years ago. This is not when the universe was created. Looking forward from the moment of creation of the universe, there were six 24 hour periods. Looking back from when Adam received his neshamá to the moment of creation, there were 15 billion years. This is a function of blueshifting of stars and galaxies, basic cosmology. It is also basic relativity. You'll find this in the book The Science of G-d
2. The formula was shorthand for the direction of the lecture and was a summary of it.
3. The quotations from the Torah illustrate a process. Death, gathering of the soul to the other souls that have passed away, and then burial. When my father passed away, I saw moments afterward, out of the corner of my eye, a kind of cloud near the ceiling in the hospital room. I didn't imagine this. I saw this. After a time, the cloud disappeared. This was my father's soul ascending from his body, being gathered to his people, my late uncle, my grandfather, grandmother, etc. The next day, my father was buried.
4. All that you mention in terms of brain research only confirms what Dr. Schroeder was taking about. You write, "the latest MRI research has now proven that it is possible to know what you are going to do or say a good second or two before you know it yourself". Did the research explin why this could be done, or why it was so?
5. Finally, people didn't really understand in their gut that they were living at the bottom of a sea of air until satellites brought back views of the planet from space. A lot of people still don't understand this fact.
I am not a phycisist or a biologist. It matters little to me if the Mind of G-d appears in a physics lab or not. But apparently that is what Dr. Schroeder described: scientist after scientist disturbed that the universe seemed to have more the aspect of mind than matter. They may or may not admit to a divinity's existence. This matters little to me. But what does matter is that they are admitting, not willingly, that their materialist view of the universe is false, based on the data in front of their eyes. That they should do so leads me to think that given that they are scientists, they have an idea of what they are talking about.
"I'm not in the slightest bit interested in reading any more about this mad dogma."
Naturally, you need not read any of the data I present. As a free man, you are not forced or compelled to agree with any of this or even examine it. But it makes sense to me. And that is good enough for this former atheist.
16 - Christopher Rose
Ruvy, you really need to get over yourself. Not buying into a specious argument like this is no more a sign of a closed mind than declining to interpret the world by astrology or hurling sticks, it's simply the sane thing to do.
Yeah, I do get angry sometimes, angry and frustrated that there's so much diversionary nonsense in the world, distracting everybody from the simple fact that there is ZERO evidence of gods ever having existed, just silly stories that people actually fight and kill over! Imagine how completely messed up that is.
Then I get to live in a world where these deluded faithists pompously assume the moral high ground and start telling us all how to live. Frankly it turns my stomach nauseous with the reeking hypocrisy of it all.
Given that, why on earth should I waste yet more time on poorly constructed unsubstantiated theories? Or anybody else for that matter?
The real truth of the human condition is that there's about 8 billion of us clinging on to this little rock hurtling through space. We face enough mind boggling mysteries and problems trying to accept and deal with that little fact to keep us all very busy for quite a few millennia yet. These religious cults simply cruelly deceive and rob us all of the most precious things of all, our common humanity, shared destiny, our hopes and dreams, all that love and emotion wasted on empty words.
17 - Dave Nalle
The book Genesis and the Big Bang was on the NYT best sellers list for a time. So was The Science of G-d. That would tell me that Dr. Schroeder's concepts have indeed come out into the light of reason and made their case in public. In a free market, not all the public is required to buy in.
The James Frey book which was mostly lies was also on the bestseller list along with just about every fad diet ever and every puffed up political biography you can think of and even books by Kitty Kelley which are pretty much fiction. For that matter fiction is on the bestseller list. Does that make the content of any of these books scientifically accurate, true or of any particular value? No. People buy crappy books that are full of gossip and made up garbage. That doesn't legitimize the books, it just makes the people stupid.
If you get enough stupid and crazy people to agree with you it still doesn't make you right.
Dave
18 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Dave,
At least I now understand why you entitle you own blog, "Tasty Products from the Elitist Pig".
In the open market of ideas, many rise to the top - many escellent ideas are consigned to remainder tables... The NYT best seller's list is one index of what the public is interested in - for whatever reasons. So it is as I have said above "... Dr. Schroeder's concepts have indeed come out into the light of reason and made their case in public. In a free market, not all the public is required to buy in."
Apparently, in your eyes, when you don't like the product, the market is stupid. How in character. At least you are not ranting away like some religion abolishing dictator exlaining to the unwashed what is good for them.
I make no claim that Dr. Schroeder is right, though I believe him to be. This essay was written because I found his topic to be extremely interesting; it tied together the phenomena of NDE's to Torah truth using the methods of science. It explained in plain English to me what I saw above my father's bed the day he died nigh thirty years ago.
In my youth, I was an atheist. By the time my father had passed away, I was an agnostic. Now, I am a believer.
In college, I had to write an essay comparing the moral growth of a character named Gimpel the Fool, against some fellow in a Russian short story. The Russian started out as a selfish and self-centered bastard who, grew under the lash of pain and knowledge of impending death, into a decent individual - even though this was only known to himself - and G-d. Gimpel, a saintly man from his youth, never abandoned his saintliness.
I chosae the Russian bastard - at least he grew and changed. That has been the dugmá - the example - for my own life as well.
Neither you nor Chris need be convinced by what I write. I did not write a sales, piece - I wrote a summary. There is no form to fill in to join up, no product for you to buy. Only the opportunity to probe deeper into these ideas if they are of interest to you.
The beginning of wisdom is the fear of G-d. (Kohelet/Ecclesiastes)
19 - Dave Nalle
It's not 'products' Ruvy, it's 'thoughts'. Not selling anything on my blog but good sense.
I have no problem at all with what you wrote, except with your presentation of it as 'scientific evidence'. If you offered it as an interesting theory or rationale for a particular belief set, that would be fine, but trying to pass it off as something empirical is deceptive.
Dave
20 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Sorry for the misnomer of your web-blog, Dave. I didn'have my glasses when I was looking at it. I had an achin' for bacon and I knew there was a pig somewhere in the title.
What Dr. Schroeder, a scientist himself, described in his lecture, was the disparagement of scientists looking at empirical data and forced to admit that the universe had more the character of mind than matter. What he described was the article Lancet questioning a prevalent theory that NDE's were hallucinatory experiences of those dying whose brains were shutting down.
This was scientific evidence. The quotes from the Torah were not, of course. They were descriptions of men dying. Period.
There were no jennyasses given speech, no burning bush, no planets held fast in slow rotation to prevent the sun appearing to set, no khamsin blowing all night to split waters.
The point of the lecture was to tie the sceintific evidence to the Torah quotes based on what scintists had themselves seen. You do not need a nuclear physicist to explain Torah - any good rabbi will do. The last paragraph of the essay is not what Dr. Schroeder said that night at the Israel Center. The last paragraph was how I understood what he was saying.
Dr. Schroeder read my essay and corrected the errors I had made (there were several) and commented in his e-mail to me that I had indeed understood his lecture.
There is nothing deceptive in what I wrote. But when you study Torah, you learn real fast that you must read closely, following all the fine print very carefully. Otherwise, you often miss the point.
21 - Christopher Rose
Isn't it funny how many people start to buy into religion more as they get older, especially after the first time the shocking realisation that you are only mortal sinks in? Ruvy, you aren't a believer, you're just hedging your bets...
If you were more clearminded Ruvy, you'd realise that "following all the fine print" is just another way of being drawn into the empty dogmas of the Jewish-Christian-Islamic creation myth. Talk about missing the point. That and wishful thinking...
22 - Dave Nalle
The point at which you try to tie your science to religious doctrine is the point at which your science ceases to be credible, because there is no scientific reason to make that connection or to even consider that the Torah or the Bible should be part of your scientific analysis. In the empirical method you start with the evidence and draw conclusions from it. If part of that evidence is flawed the outcome will be flawed. If part of that evidence is faith rather than fact, then the outcome of the process will not be truly empirical.
And if you need a Rabbi to explain your holy book, then you're probably better off without the Rabbi or the book.
Dave
23 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Dave, that's why I stuck in a link to Dr. Schroeder's site and to the Lancet article he quoted. I read and came to my conclusions. Now, you can read and come to your own conclusions.
Chris, fear of death is a motivating factor for many people to believe in G-d - there are no atheists in a foxhole, goes the saying. But I was aware of all that long before becoming a believer. Good guess, but you're barking up the wrong tree.
There must be a militant atheistic jihad-type organization somewhere you can join. Your comments sound like they would make good material for their propaganda.
24 - gonzo marx
ok...my turn...
hello Ruvy, interesting Article you have here...some fine thoughts on metaphysics, thanks for sharing
my Problem here is the use of "scientific evidence" in the title, and some of the fast and loose playing with Logic and Facts that happen to fit the Hypothesis..
i'm just going to touch on one thing here to try and make my Point...
utilizing Torah, the date for the Creation of Adam, the first Man, is given and under 6000 years ago...correct?
2 problems here, a written chinese history as old as the Torah which disagrees, and the "Iceman" found in the italian alps a few years ago...
1)dated around 7500 years old (give or take a few decades)
2)worked copper tools
3) forged and worked bronze
4) a bow, and arrows in the making , along with fletching supplies
5)acupuncture marks and a covering tattoo corresponding to treatment for ulcers...forensic exam found this western european had this condition...had herbals medicines in his pouch for treatment, and bore the signs of acupuncture treatment for EXACTLY that condition
there's more...but you get the Idea...this was a Man, and he pre-dates the Torah calculations by quite a bit
it's inconsistencies like this, which abound in many ancient texts, that lead many to utilize them for guidelines in the Realms Metaphysical...but not for Science or Reason
as for Dr. Schroeder, he presents anecdotal evidence, not empirical data (except to quantify and qualify the anecdotes as a reasonably consistent sub-set of the sampled data)
a much more Interesting, and fruitful approach can be followed by utilizing E=MCsquared and the postulate that neither matter nor energy can be destroyed...merely altered in state
add to this , the scientific data the Russians gathered about 20 years ago with a simple set of accurate scales and people about to die...after all factors were taken into account, there were still a few ounces which were lost at the moment of death which coudl not be accounted for
that data IS empirical...and food for Thought
Excelsior!
25 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Gonzo,
Just a quick answer for now. The very issues you raise about man being far older than 6,000 years old are dealt with in detail by Schroeder in his book "The Science of G-d."
Like any intelligent scientist, he does not argue with the carbon dating. Neither do I. Note what I wrote Chris in comment #15 The giving of Adam a neshamá, a soul, took place 5766 years ago.
This does not mean that there were no men before then. The geologic record is clear. There were. And they did all the things you said they did in your comment. The geologic record does not lie.
But the argument is that they did not have a "neshamá" a spirit that communicated with G-d. Eight hundred years ago, the m'kubal Nahmanides argued that there were human creatures before Adam. He didn't have knowledge of the Neander Valley a few hundred miles away nor of the bones that were to be found there.
The catch is you need to understand Hebrew to understand what is going on. You need to comprehend the acual phrasing of the Tana"kh to comprehend the thoughts expressed. Nahmanides deduced what he did from an extra letter in the word "create" found in the Tana"kh when it refers to the "neshamá" that G-d creates for Adam.
Schroeder in his book "The Science of G-d" argues that the sign of the existence of the neshamá, the spirit that communicates with G-d, is the presence of writing which dates back 5,500 years.
you write,
as for Dr. Schroeder, he presents anecdotal evidence, not empirical data (except to quantify and qualify the anecdotes as a reasonably consistent sub-set of the sampled data)
This is true. But this data he uses to compare to an analysis of what happens at death as described in the Torah. The Russian data you provide below are empirical data that would back up the collected sub-set of anecdotal data.
The issue of NDE's cannot really be dealt with in any other way than anecdotal. And the issue of Lancet quoted to point out the weakness of the claim that the brain was shooting hallucinatory chemicals to calm down the dying person brought forth by many neurologists.
I'll have to e-mail him about this study if you can provide a link. He may have already refered to it elsewhere.
...the scientific data the Russians gathered about 20 years ago with a simple set of accurate scales and people about to die...after all factors were taken into account, there were still a few ounces which were lost at the moment of death which coudl not be accounted for
that data IS empirical...and food for Thought
you also wrote,
a much more Interesting, and fruitful approach can be followed by utilizing E=MC² and the postulate that neither matter nor energy can be destroyed...merely altered in state
The problem with this is that the Big Bang provides evidence of a beginning. Which means that something emerged from nothing. Matter was created.