1. Most Acharonim to weigh in on the subject believed that heliocentrism was kefirah, in many cases precisely because of the passuk that Rav Sternbuch cites.2. Scientists are not at a loss to explain the sun's distance from the earth.3. Rambam's belief that the stars and planets are intelligent beings has surely been disproved.4. Rambam did not incorporate kabbalistic beliefs into his writings.
re 3: how exactly?
Well, we now know that they are made out of the regular elements, not a quasi-spiritual quintessence as was believed in medieval times. And Rambam's reason for considering them intelligent - that there is no other way to account for their motion - is rendered obsolete by Newton's laws. So while we cannot categorically disprove some undetectable intelligence, we no longer have any reason to believe that one exists.
Re:2 The writer probably meant to say that scientists are at a loss to explain how it turned out that the sun would be at exactly the distance it needed to be so as to sustain life on earth.
So...it hasn't been disproved?Also, where does the Rambam give that reason? It's not in Yesodei Hatorah where the Rambam says it...
Also, according to your reasoning, there is no reason to beleive that people have souls, either.
The writer probably meant to say that scientists are at a loss to explain how it turned out that the sun would be at exactly the distance it needed to be so as to sustain life on earth.They are not at a loss to explain that, either.
So...it hasn't been disproved?Has the existence of leprechauns and werewolves been disproved?
Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky writes in Emes l'Yaakov of his shock when the astronauts landed on the moon that realized that the Rambam was wrong about the moon being intelligent.
NS:"They are not at a loss to explain [how it turned out that the sun wass exactly the optimal distance from the earth so as to sustain life], either."Please share.Do you mean that we need not answer that question any more than we need answer how it happened to be that a ball falling from an airplane happened to land exactly on one particular blade of grass?The distinction is obvious, in that it was inevitable that the ball would land on SOME blade of grass, but it was not inevitable that the sun would be at exactly the optimum distance from the earth, unless you're going with multiverse.Or are you just saying that it's teh goldilocks theory and that one can't ask a aquestion after the fact?What answer did you have in mind?
An atheist scientist would simply say that had the earth not been at the optimum distance, we wouldn't be here.(There IS an argument to be made from design in the universe - but Rav Sternbuch is not presenting it.)
ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED!please use either your real name or a pseudonym.