lethargic_man: "Happy the person that finds wisdom, and the person that gets understanding."—Prov. 3:13. Icon by Tamara Rigg (limmud)
[personal profile] lethargic_man

Notes from Limmud 2005

On Life After Death

Gerald Schroeder

[Gerald Schroeder is the author of Genesis and the Big Bang, which I read after hearing him talk about it in Cambridge circa 1994. As the title suggests, in it he tries to reconcile the cosmogony of the book of Genesis and modern cosmological theory. This book had a big impact on me at the time, though later, reading Maimonides' attempt to do the same thing in The Guide for the Perplexed, with Aristotelian physics (the world consisting of four elements, which try to find their own levels, encircled by the heavenly bodies embedded in crystal spheres), I realised how such syntheses cannot represent the truth, and do not last longer than the scientific theories on which they are based.

I thought I'd go along to this talk to see what Schroeder was talking about nowadays; and, unfortunately, was rather disappointed.]

If death is merely a continuation of life then we are living the afterlife now. Is there any evidence in favour of a metaphysical aspect to existence? The תנ״ך [Bible] says there is: according to Schroeder, physics says there is too.

Before the beginning of the universe there was nothing physical. This was a transition from the metaphysical to the physical. Now, our perception of the universe does not reflect reality. Compare atomic physics with what we can see. Consider virtual photons mediating the electromagnetic force between the nucleus of an atom and the electron shells surrounding it. The electron shells are a long way out from the nucleus, so interaction with it constitutes a form of action at a distance. This is mediated by virtual photons; such photons don't exist in the simplest sense.

[There was a theory at one stage that the universe was eternal and cyclical: Big Bang followed by expansion followed by collapse followed by Big Crunch, followed by the next Big Bang.] Scroeder holds this theory as having been disproven by the 1990s. The required evidence, in the form of the amount of mass in the universe, was not substantiated by the facts. But the idea hung on because it avoided the problem of the beginning of all things. [IIRC the mass-to-energy ratio would increase (or was it decrease?) each time around the cycle; and as this ratio is finite, this argues against an eternal universe.]

Schroeder thinks the idea in the Torah of being gathered to one's people (i.e. the afterlife) comes from near-death experiences. After talking about biochemical mechanisms for these, he cited an article in the Lancet talking about consciousness being located in the brain. "The theory and the background of transcendence should be taken into account." [What was this doing in the Lancet!?] He cites also other articles too. The Lancet also cites, anecdotally, a case of somebody having an out-of-body experience whilst in deep coma and not breathing or having his heart going of its own accord, and was aware of what was actually going on around him.

The point he was trying to make is the consciousness may not be located in the brain. [But I don't agree with his reasons—that there are smart people and stupid people but everyone has the same brain.] Schroeder sees the brain as great for calculation, but emotion and full awareness may not be in the brain.

Schroeder talks about how there is no sound in the brain; what you hear is all not real in the brain (though it is in the ears). He argues that perhaps the outside world is not real either.

He talks about the mind as an emergent phenomenon, not using up the parent body, in the same way the virtual photons don't take anything away from the nucleus or electrons they mediate between. He talks about the brain being the antenna for the mind (cf. radio and radio waves). At death this would allow the mind to break free.

He quotes Heisenberg saying the basic elements/building blocks of the world are not material but ideas, and quotes other people too. "The world is more idea and thought than a machine."—Sir James Jeans. Everything is made out of pure energy—the pure energy (light beams) that came, alone, out of the Big Bang.

Consider the opening of the Torah. "In the beginning G-d created the Heaven and the Earth" is wrong due to being three translations down the line from the original. "In the beginning of G-d's creation" is also problematic because it actually says "in the beginning of G-d's created", which also doesn't make sense. The ?Jewish [or possibly "Jerusalem"] translation from 2200 years ago renders "With wisdom G-d created the Heaven and the Earth." This is because in Proverbs it says אני חכמה "I am Wisdom": The first thing created—the first emanation from G-d—is wisdom; and it is this which causes the translation from the metaphysical to the physical.

If it is bizarre that light beams could become alive, and then intelligent, it is only slightly more bizarre that wisdom could have created the light beams. This ties in with modern ideas that the principle components of matter are in fact information. This (here he provides a quotation) is mindstuff—that in life the universe began to know itself—the mind did not evolve from matter but that the universe was alive from the word go.

The Torah was split at Sinai into two parts; one was given to Moses but the other part was hidden in Nature and is there for us to find. The black fire and the white fire [a midrash talks about the Ten Commandments being written in black fire on white fire]—one is still there for us to find.

בצלם אלהים—in the image of G-d ?drap in a physical body.

Date: 2006-08-30 08:50 pm (UTC)
liv: cartoon of me with long plait, teapot and purple outfit (ewe)
From: [personal profile] liv
Schroeder is dishonest. He works for Aish, and he goes around trying to mystify people with technobabble. He quotes both scientific studies and Scripture completely out of context and with cherry-picked translations. As you point out in your opening para, the thing he's trying to prove is a stupid thing to be aiming for anyway. But the means he's using to prove what is essentially creationism with a vaguely Jewish flavour are thoroughly dishonest. He's the sort of person who gives both science and Judaism a bad name. This summary is typical of the man; a reader might think that it's incoherent because you're working from rough notes, but no, it's incoherent because Schroeder is incoherent.

There are undoubtedly people out there who are more evil, but in some ways I worry more about Schroeder because he's superficially respectable and gets invited to Limmud and lots of people read his books. No time for him whatsoever.

Date: 2006-08-30 08:57 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] lethargic-man.livejournal.com
I was debating whether to post these notes or not. In the end I decided to largely because I'm an obsessive-compulsive completist. :o)

Schroeder?

Date: 2006-08-30 09:54 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] curious-reader.livejournal.com
I first thought you meant the chancelor in Germany but as you describe this person he cannot be the same one. Is he a German born in the UK?

Re: Schroeder?

Date: 2006-08-31 06:45 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] lethargic-man.livejournal.com
This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Schroeder) Gerald Schroeder. He's not German at all.

Date: 2006-08-31 09:25 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] lethargic-man.livejournal.com
Hmm. At the time I first heard him talk, religion and Big Bang theory were kept in strictly separate boxes in my mind. My Hebrew teachers in school and cheder, who were all Gateshead charedim seem, as far as I can tell, all to have been literal creationists (though perhaps that was just the impression they gave to me as a child and a teenager).

I never tried to tackle any of them on the issue since (a) the time as a seven year old I asked Mrs Kohn whether Noah took the dinosaurs on board the Ark, and (b) my father had a screaming row with said Mrs Kohn over levels of observance when I was nine (she had told me to bench over every meal, I told my parents the same, they said we don't do that, and I repeated this back to Mrs Kohn) which resulted in my being withdrawn from tuition with Mrs Kohn. Thereafter I learned not to tackle the issue.

From my perspective, then, I had to accommodate the two creationist and scientific views by doublethink. I didn't have a problem with this, because I didn't personally buy into the creationist view, having been brought up by my father with a scientific attitude from an early age. (The whole idea of taking Genesis symbolically I only encountered in the pages of our old friend Hertz.) However, I thought at that stage that all frummers must be literal creationists.

Consequently, when I got to university and discovered there was an Orthodox frummer out there who was trying to resolve this conundrum in my mindset, I was very much drawn to the idea. It was only much later that I came to see the flaws in his arguments.

And if I felt he was acting as a vital bridge between the two worldviews, קל וחמר how much more so must he have been for people frummer than me, who bought into what their teachers said wholesale, yet were rational enough to know that Big Bang theory was indeed supported by the evidence. This is where the Schroeder niche comes from—and tbh I can't easily see how you could do otherwise. You can't go up to ffb people and say "it's all just symbolic anyway"; they'll dismiss out as Reform out of hand and close their ears to you.

Shroeder

Date: 2006-09-10 06:26 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] curious-reader.livejournal.com
Now it makes sense. The majority of Americans have European roots. As he is Jewish maybe his parents or grand parents fled from Germany. I am just guessing. It is so often the case.
Orthodox teachers in Cheders and maybe in schools, too, seem not to provide explanations and references when they teach their pupils. It sounds like the general teaching in Germany. Lean it, don't think! Germany had the worst Piza result of Europe. I guess when you do the same with Orthodox cheders or schools they might have a bad result as well. Pupils don't understand what they learnt.

nice to be here

Date: 2012-01-20 04:00 pm (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
i think not all of you agree with that .. but i have to say

an arab ... learn the languge :d
thanks

Profile

lethargic_man: (Default)
Lethargic Man (anag.)

July 2017

S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031     

Most Popular Tags

Page Summary

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Friday, July 21st, 2017 04:38 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios