It seems that Steinberg pays only lip-service to the transcendental position in Judaism that became an essential part of Jewish theology since the Middle Ages to these days. I am puzzled by the obsession to locate a transcendental deity in the middle of the debate over how the universe came into being, whether the universe is eternal or created at a certain time, and how, when, Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical and what is its history. It seems that he is not aware, or rather chose to ignore, the considerable theological challenge this view produces. By accepting an unconditional transcendental God, one must dismiss any notion of ontological reality, namely,

the assertion of Godly cosmic intelligence which is reflected in the world and its functions. All knowledge, no matter where, how, and by whom it is produced, ought to be discussed click here unrelated to an ontological reality (of which we know nothing and cannot know anything). It should be emphasized that the transcendental position in Judaism did not start with the Jewish philosophers of Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical the Middle Ages; evidence Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical for this position can be found among Chazal

in the Talmud; for example, Babylonian Talmud.24 Interestingly, some of our contemporary Orthodox scientists and rabbis have revived the medieval scholastic argument (which is Christian in its origin) that there is no necessary conflict between science and religious belief since God wrote two books, the Bible and the “Book of Nature”, by which his existence and intentions could be known. Therefore, the study of nature had religious

value, and the notion that humans should use their God-given faculties of observation and reason to read the “Book of Nature” accurately could be regarded Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical as a religious duty.6,25 I Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical strongly disagree with this view, and I am acutely aware of its consequences. We must not deceive ourselves into believing that the Torah provides any more useful information regarding nature than the natural sciences provide about the Torah. Invoking this old idea is not only problematic from the perspective of Halakhic Judaism, but it also reflects a deep misinterpretation of current natural sciences, Oxymatrine as amply exemplified by Steinberg’s article. There is a decisive difference between what was called “science” in ancient and medieval times and what is called “science” today, and Steinberg seems not to pay attention to it. The major change that took place in the scientific outlook (starting roughly in the seventeenth century) was the introduction of the concept of the functional relations among the phenomena investigated by science. Modern science succeeds by looking solely for functional relations across factual data. Experimental biology, as physics beforehand, refrains from dealing with problems of life itself and focuses upon its active mechanisms. These mechanisms are described by the functional relations among phenomena.