<div dir="ltr"><p style="padding:0px;margin:0px 0px 25px;list-style:none;border:0px;outline:none;box-sizing:border-box;line-height:1.7;color:rgb(44,47,52);font-family:-apple-system,BlinkMacSystemFont,"Segoe UI",Roboto,Oxygen,Oxygen-Sans,Ubuntu,Cantarell,"Helvetica Neue","Open Sans",Arial,sans-serif;font-size:15px"><span style="padding:0px;margin:0px;list-style:none;border:0px;outline:none;box-sizing:border-box">Conversation between Me and R J Ziring on one of his shiurim:</span></p><p style="padding:0px;margin:0px 0px 25px;list-style:none;border:0px;outline:none;box-sizing:border-box;line-height:1.7;color:rgb(44,47,52);font-family:-apple-system,BlinkMacSystemFont,"Segoe UI",Roboto,Oxygen,Oxygen-Sans,Ubuntu,Cantarell,"Helvetica Neue","Open Sans",Arial,sans-serif;font-size:15px"><span style="padding:0px;margin:0px;list-style:none;border:0px;outline:none;box-sizing:border-box">Me: Wasn’t sure from what you were saying whether you believe post-Kant one can “prove” religion in a traditional sense. (VS. R’YBS)</span></p><p style="padding:0px;margin:0px 0px 25px;list-style:none;border:0px;outline:none;box-sizing:border-box;line-height:1.7;color:rgb(44,47,52);font-family:-apple-system,BlinkMacSystemFont,"Segoe UI",Roboto,Oxygen,Oxygen-Sans,Ubuntu,Cantarell,"Helvetica Neue","Open Sans",Arial,sans-serif;font-size:15px"><span style="padding:0px;margin:0px;list-style:none;border:0px;outline:none;box-sizing:border-box">R’JZ:” I do not agree with the Rav following Kant in general on this issue, but partially because I do not agree with his sense of “proof.” I agree with Stephen Meyers in The Return of the God Hypothesis, that we should think of proof the way we do in science- bringing evidence that strengthens a hypothesis, using abductive reasoning.” (Definition – “abductive reasoning represents an inference to the best explanation.”) </span></p><p style="padding:0px;margin:0px 0px 25px;list-style:none;border:0px;outline:none;box-sizing:border-box;line-height:1.7;color:rgb(44,47,52);font-family:-apple-system,BlinkMacSystemFont,"Segoe UI",Roboto,Oxygen,Oxygen-Sans,Ubuntu,Cantarell,"Helvetica Neue","Open Sans",Arial,sans-serif;font-size:15px"><span style="padding:0px;margin:0px;list-style:none;border:0px;outline:none;box-sizing:border-box">Me: What I suspected – the challenge is that to many laymen if you can’t “prove” it (like the Pythagorean theorem, although that also relies on axioms) then they are not bound.</span></p><p style="padding:0px;margin:0px 0px 25px;list-style:none;border:0px;outline:none;box-sizing:border-box;line-height:1.7;color:rgb(44,47,52);font-family:-apple-system,BlinkMacSystemFont,"Segoe UI",Roboto,Oxygen,Oxygen-Sans,Ubuntu,Cantarell,"Helvetica Neue","Open Sans",Arial,sans-serif;font-size:15px"><span style="padding:0px;margin:0px;list-style:none;border:0px;outline:none;box-sizing:border-box">Your thoughts?</span></p><p style="padding:0px;margin:0px 0px 25px;list-style:none;border:0px;outline:none;box-sizing:border-box;line-height:1.7;color:rgb(44,47,52);font-family:-apple-system,BlinkMacSystemFont,"Segoe UI",Roboto,Oxygen,Oxygen-Sans,Ubuntu,Cantarell,"Helvetica Neue","Open Sans",Arial,sans-serif;font-size:15px"><span style="padding:0px;margin:0px;list-style:none;border:0px;outline:none;box-sizing:border-box"><br></span></p><p style="padding:0px;margin:0px 0px 25px;list-style:none;border:0px;outline:none;box-sizing:border-box;line-height:1.7;color:rgb(44,47,52);font-family:-apple-system,BlinkMacSystemFont,"Segoe UI",Roboto,Oxygen,Oxygen-Sans,Ubuntu,Cantarell,"Helvetica Neue","Open Sans",Arial,sans-serif;font-size:15px"><span style="padding:0px;margin:0px;list-style:none;border:0px;outline:none;box-sizing:border-box">KT<br>Joel Rich</span></p></div>