Hmm... I don't think my take home is quite the same as yours, but I'll be interested to see your response to my post. Frankly, I think both relativistic physics and Kabbalah are naturally full of obfuscating jargon, and I think they are both extremely mystifying topics, so I don't find it objectionable to treat them as such when talking to a popular audience. My bigger problem is that Schroeder presents to a mass audience as if you could learn what the hell the Ramban was talking about in his commentary on Bereishis 1 in a one hour lecture if you're willing to take his word for some of the details. But the devil is in the details!
It was a very important book to me when I was fifteen and looking for Jewish approaches to the questions the big popular science books were tackling, but that was always how I saw it- as presenting approaches to consider, not presenting proofs of the Torah's truth. Now that I'm looking for more sophisticated approaches to the same questions, I'm finding that going to the primary sources is a much more difficult process that is much more rewarding, because Schroeder minimizes so much of the actual complexity of his program.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2016-07-13 12:38 pm (UTC)It was a very important book to me when I was fifteen and looking for Jewish approaches to the questions the big popular science books were tackling, but that was always how I saw it- as presenting approaches to consider, not presenting proofs of the Torah's truth. Now that I'm looking for more sophisticated approaches to the same questions, I'm finding that going to the primary sources is a much more difficult process that is much more rewarding, because Schroeder minimizes so much of the actual complexity of his program.