|
Post by rational on Mar 16, 2016 20:20:34 GMT -5
A Christian walk -- something like following closely and not questioning God's will. ??? The distinctive problem of those who don't believe in God. Thinking for yourself is never a problem. Blind unquestioning obedience - what's the point?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 16, 2016 20:33:40 GMT -5
I ask you for Einstein qoutes
“Behind all the discernible concatenations, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force is my religion. To that extent, I am in point of fact, religious.”[8] “Every scientist becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men.”[9] “Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe – a spirit vastly superior to that of man.”[10] “The divine reveals itself in the physical world.”[11] “My God created laws… His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking but by immutable laws.”[12] “I want to know how God created this world. I want to know his thoughts.”[13] “What I am really interested in knowing is whether God could have created the world in a different way.”[14] “This firm belief in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God.”[15] “My religiosity consists of a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit, …That superior reasoning power forms my idea of God.”[16] Do you have the sources for the reference numbers?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2016 20:40:55 GMT -5
“Behind all the discernible concatenations, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force is my religion. To that extent, I am in point of fact, religious.”[8] “Every scientist becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men.”[9] “Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe – a spirit vastly superior to that of man.”[10] “The divine reveals itself in the physical world.”[11] “My God created laws… His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking but by immutable laws.”[12] “I want to know how God created this world. I want to know his thoughts.”[13] “What I am really interested in knowing is whether God could have created the world in a different way.”[14] “This firm belief in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God.”[15] “My religiosity consists of a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit, …That superior reasoning power forms my idea of God.”[16] Do you have the sources for the reference numbers? www.bethinking.org/god/did-einstein-believe-in-god
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Jammer
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 17, 2016 0:59:32 GMT -5
Einstein apparently talked a lot.
There are so many of his quotes that they are often listed by category.
So people can have a field day cherry picking the ones that they like! One thing I know, Einstein did not want to be portrayed in any way what-so-ever as a "theist."
In attempting to trace down your two links it appears someone is trying to disparage Richard Dawkins more than they are attempting to indicate any religiosity of Albert Einstein.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2016 4:12:06 GMT -5
So if science cannot prove that God is there and it cannot prove that He is not there because of lack of evidence, then there is "a stale mate" situation; so christians are justified in clinging/ holding on to the side of faith and beliefs IMO. We have nothing to lose and plenty to gain. What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses his soul. Science is science. Religion is philosophy. People who think there is some connection between the two are philosophers on a tangent. Ok, that's a new one for me, I'll think about that, "philosophers on tangent." I'll have to go back to my Geometry books to see where the tangent line is. Off hand, it looks to me like they are on different planes alright, and they are headed to different destinations.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Mar 17, 2016 4:30:36 GMT -5
The reason religious people think they know so much more than scientists is because they don't really know what scientists are looking for. They hear a scientist saying the word "god", and they're expecting some grand revelation, which normally hasn't anything to do with what the scientist is really talking about.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2016 4:56:38 GMT -5
The reason religious people think they know so much more than scientists is because they don't really know what scientists are looking for. They hear a scientist saying the word "god", and they're expecting some grand revelation, which normally hasn't anything to do with what the scientist is really talking about. That is understandable, not speaking the same language will always cause misunderstanding and confusion unless there is some one available to enterpret/explain.
|
|
|
Post by ellie on Mar 17, 2016 8:39:41 GMT -5
Science is science. Religion is philosophy. People who think there is some connection between the two are philosophers on a tangent. Ok, that's a new one for me, I'll think about that, "philosophers on tangent." I'll have to go back to my Geometry books to see where the tangent line is. Off hand, it looks to me like they are on different planes alright, and they are headed to different destinations. Well I would have thought scientists and mathematicians would be more interested in the tangent line but you never know a philosopher might be able to derive something up.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 17, 2016 8:47:48 GMT -5
Science is science. Religion is philosophy. People who think there is some connection between the two are philosophers on a tangent. Ok, that's a new one for me, I'll think about that, "philosophers on tangent." I'll have to go back to my Geometry books to see where the tangent line is. Off hand, it looks to me like they are on different planes alright, and they are headed to different destinations. A tangent is a line or plane which touches a given curve or solid at a single point. Can be in the same or different planes but I think the meaning is from the 2-D rendition of a tangent line that touches a point on a curve then is off in two different directions away from the common point. Of course, I think I remember that Leibniz (sp?) defined that contact as the infinitely small space between two adjacent points on the curve so it would seem that tangent line and the curve didn't actually share a common point! (But I think this might actually be an example of a discussion going off on a tangent!)
|
|
|
Post by ellie on Mar 17, 2016 9:01:32 GMT -5
Ok, that's a new one for me, I'll think about that, "philosophers on tangent." I'll have to go back to my Geometry books to see where the tangent line is. Off hand, it looks to me like they are on different planes alright, and they are headed to different destinations. A tangent is a line or plane which touches a given curve or solid at a single point. Can be in the same or different planes but I think the meaning is from the 2-D rendition of a tangent line that touches a point on a curve then is off in two different directions away from the common point. Of course, I think I remember that Leibniz (sp?) defined that contact as the infinitely small space between two adjacent points on the curve so it would seem that tangent line and the curve didn't actually share a common point! (But I think this might actually be an example of a discussion going off on a tangent!) But a fun tangent. I thought his definition was adjacent on the secant, but same same I guess. *Adding: as the points used for the secant approach.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2016 11:34:40 GMT -5
Stop it you lot, maths was one of my favourite subjects at school where I have gain passes with distinction, I also did it as a minor at university in the UK. Brings back memories to my old brains about phisms, phisms and morphisms. Oh to be young again with sharp brains and competing with classmates.
|
|
|
Post by commonman on Mar 17, 2016 11:38:40 GMT -5
Science is science. Religion is philosophy. People who think there is some connection between the two are philosophers on a tangent. Ok, that's a new one for me, I'll think about that, "philosophers on tangent." I'll have to go back to my Geometry books to see where the tangent line is. Off hand, it looks to me like they are on different planes alright, and they are headed to different destinations. Now here is another tangential philosophy quote: We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It doesn't know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books, but does not understand what it is. That, it seems to me , is the attitude of the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand those laws. (written in tribute to the beauty of the child's simple perception of the most profound truth of all ) Einstein loved to relate human endeavors as childish efforts, of no real significance , and of course he loved children . His reference to children was not to belittle their intelligence but to cherish there profound innocence about the universe , imo.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 17, 2016 12:40:12 GMT -5
*Adding: as the points used for the secant approach. Of course we knew that. I thought you had left it as an exercise for the reader!
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 17, 2016 12:59:27 GMT -5
We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It doesn't know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books, but does not understand what it is. This is not unlike one of the creationists favorite allegories first presented by Fred Hoyle - if a tornado blows through a junkyard one would hardly expect to see a complete 747 standing in its wake. While it supposed use is to point out the improbability of such an event happening the only thing it does is point out the ignorance of the speaker regarding the theory of evolution/abiogenesis. But it is a great example of the logical fallacy of argument by false analogy. Of course the books were arranged - the people who arranged them needed to be able to locate them. And, from time to time, they are rearranged.
|
|
|
Post by commonman on Mar 17, 2016 13:07:07 GMT -5
We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It doesn't know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books, but does not understand what it is. This is not unlike one of the creationists favorite allegories first presented by Fred Hoyle - if a tornado blows through a junkyard one would hardly expect to see a complete 747 standing in its wake. While it supposed use is to point out the improbability of such an event happening the only thing it does is point out the ignorance of the speaker regarding the theory of evolution/abiogenesis. But it is a great example of the logical fallacy of argument by false analogy. Of course the books were arranged - the people who arranged them needed to be able to locate them. And, from time to time, they are rearranged. This is an A Einstein allegory, i did think it rather well considered .
|
|
|
Post by commonman on Mar 17, 2016 13:16:00 GMT -5
Now here is another tangential philosophy [be]quote: We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It doesn't know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books, but does not understand what it is. That, it seems to me , is the attitude of the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand those laws.[br The above allegory is from Einstein , I like it. ](written in tribute to the beauty of the child's simple perception of the most profound truth of all ) Einstein loved to relate human endeavors as childish efforts, of no real significance , and of course he loved children . His reference to children was not to belittle their intelligence but to cherish there profound innocence about the universe , imo.[/quote]
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 17, 2016 15:02:49 GMT -5
quote: We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It doesn't know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books, but does not understand what it is. That, it seems to me , is the attitude of the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand those laws. What theists don't realize and really don't want to know, is that quotes like this from Einstein mean that those "books" were fascinating and he wanted to decipher them all.
He did that deciphering using the principle and methods of science. When he came to a place that he could not explain at that period in time, he left it blank until he or someone else could decipher it. He didn't just "throw a god into the gap" as theists do.
|
|
|
Post by commonman on Mar 17, 2016 16:08:36 GMT -5
Einstein:
When the answer is simple , God is speaking.
______________________________________ My religiosity consists of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and ....transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality.
Morality is of the highest importance -- for us (human beings), not for God.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 17, 2016 20:33:37 GMT -5
Sorry, kind of looks like I am doing a Nathan here!
I thought why keep on cherry picking every thing Einstein said ad infinitum, or so it seems, -why not get them all together in the bunch and everyone can chew them over as they please?
However, -please don't take just a part of what he said leaving it sound like that was all of his thought on the subject. That is so often done.
CTRL Critical Thought & Religious Liberty CTRL
[Albert Einstein (1879-1955)] This page contains many of Einstein's personal thoughts on God, religion, mysticism, and spirituality. Hopefully it will allow the reader to get a deeper understanding of what Einstein believed and why he believed them. All too often Einstein's words have been misunderstood or misconstrued to represent a view that was not his own. Though through honest inquiry we see his views were very enigmatic and touching closest to the philosophy of pantheism.
“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”
Albert Einstein, in a letter March 24, 1954; from Albert Einstein the Human Side, Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, eds., Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981, p. 43.
“When I was a fairly precocious young man I became thoroughly impressed with the futility of the hopes and strivings that chase most men restlessly through life. Moreover, I soon discovered the cruelty of that chase, which in those years was much more carefully covered up by hypocrisy and glittering words than is the case today. By the mere existence of his stomach everyone was condemned to participate in that chase. The stomach might well be satisfied by such participation, but not man insofar as he is a thinking and feeling being.
“As the first way out there was religion, which is implanted into every child by way of the traditional education-machine. Thus I came — though the child of entirely irreligious (Jewish) parents — to a deep religiousness, which, however, reached an abrupt end at the age of twelve. Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true. The consequence was a positively fanatic orgy of freethinking coupled with the impression that youth is intentionally being deceived by the state through lies; it was a crushing impression. Mistrust of every kind of authority grew out of this experience, a skeptical attitude toward the convictions that were alive in any specific social environment — an attitude that has never again left me, even though, later on, it has been tempered by a better insight into the causal connections. It is quite clear to me that the religious paradise of youth, which was thus lost, was a first attempt to free myself from the chains of the ‘merely personal,’ from an existence dominated by wishes, hopes, and primitive feelings. Out yonder there was this huge world, which exists independently of us human beings and which stands before us like a great, eternal riddle, at least partially accessible to our inspection and thinking. The contemplation of this world beckoned as a liberation, and I soon noticed that many a man whom I had learned to esteem and to admire had found inner freedom and security in its pursuit. The mental grasp of this extra-personal world within the frame of our capabilities presented itself to my mind, half consciously, half unconsciously, as a supreme goal. Similarly motivated men of the present and of the past, as well as the insights they had achieved, were the friends who could not be lost. The road to this paradise was not as comfortable and alluring as the road to the religious paradise; but it has shown itself reliable, and I have never regretted having chosen it.”
Albert Einstein, Autobiographical Notes, Chicago, Illinois: Open Court Publishing Company, 1979, pp 3-5.
“My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment.”
Albert Einstein in a letter to M. Berkowitz, October 25, 1950; Einstein Archive 59-215; from Alice Calaprice, ed., The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2000, p. 216.
“The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. He who knows it not and can no longer wonder, no longer feel amazement, is as good as dead, a snuffed-out candle. It was the experience of mystery — even if mixed with fear — that engendered religion. A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which are only accessible to our reason in their most elementary forms-it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls. Enough for me the mystery of the eternity of life, and the inkling of the marvellous structure of reality, together with the single-hearted endeavour to comprehend a portion, be it never so tiny, of the reason that manifests itself in nature.”
Albert Einstein, The World as I See It, Secaucus, New Jersy: The Citadel Press, 1999, p. 5.
“The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naïve.”
Albert Einstein in a letter to Beatrice Frohlich, December 17, 1952; Einstein Archive 59-797; from Alice Calaprice, ed., The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2000, p. 217.
“It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem—the most important of all human problems.”
Albert Einstein, 1947; from Banesh Hoffmann, Albert Einstein Creator and Rebel, New York: New American Library, 1972, p. 95.
“I am a deeply religious nonbeliever.… This is a somewhat new kind of religion.”
Albert Einstein, in a letter to Hans Muehsam, March 30, 1954; Einstein Archive 38-434; from Alice Calaprice, ed., The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000, p. 218.
“I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.”
Albert Einstein, upon being asked if he believed in God by Rabbi Herbert Goldstein of the Institutional Synagogue, New York, April 24, 1921, published in the New York Times, April 25, 1929; from Einstein: The Life and Times, Ronald W. Clark, New York: World Publishing Co., 1971, p. 413; also cited as a telegram to a Jewish newspaper, 1929, Einstein Archive 33-272, from Alice Calaprice, ed., The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000, p. 204.
“I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it.”
Albert Einstein, letter to a Baptist pastor in 1953; from Albert Einstein the Human Side, Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, eds., Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981, p. 39.
“Why do you write to me ‘God should punish the English’? I have no close connection to either one or the other. I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children for their numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held responsible; in my opinion, only His nonexistence could excuse Him.”
Albert Einstein, letter to Edgar Meyer, a Swiss colleague, January 2, 1915; from Alice Calaprice, ed., The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000, p. 201.
“It is quite possible that we can do greater things than Jesus, for what is written in the Bible about him is poetically embellished.”
Albert Einstein; quoted in W. I. Hermanns, "A Talk with Einstein," October 1943, Einstein Archive 55-285; from Alice Calaprice, ed., The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000, p. 215.
“I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own — a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms.”
Albert Einstein, quoted in The New York Times obituary, April 19, 1955; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Thoughts, New York: Ballantine Books, 1996, p. 134. )
“The most important human endeavor is the striving for morality in our actions. Our inner balance and even our very existence depend on it. Only morality in our actions can give beauty and dignity to life. To make this a living force and bring it to clear consciousness is perhaps the foremost task of education. The foundation of morality should not be made dependent on myth nor tied to any authority lest doubt about the myth or about the legitimacy of the authority imperil the foundation of sound judgment and action.”
Albert Einstein, letter to a minister November 20, 1950; from Albert Einstein the Human Side, Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, eds., Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981, p. 95.
“A God who rewards and punishes is inconceivable to him for the simple reason that a man's actions are determined by necessity, external and internal, so that in God's eyes he cannot be responsible, any more than an inanimate object is responsible for the motions it undergoes. Science has therefore been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death. It is therefore easy to see why the churches have always fought science and persecuted its devotees.”
Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science," New York Times Magazine (9 Nov.1930): 3-4; from Alice Calaprice, ed., The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2000, pp. 205-206.
“The religious feeling engendered by experiencing the logical comprehensibility of profound interrelations is of a somewhat different sort from the feeling that one usually calls religious. It is more a feeling of awe at the scheme that is manifested in the material universe. It does not lead us to take the step of fashioning a god-like being in our own image-a personage who makes demands of us and who takes an interest in us as individuals. There is in this neither a will nor a goal, nor a must, but only sheer being. For this reason, people of our type see in morality a purely human matter, albeit the most important in the human sphere.”
Albert Einstein, letter to a Rabbi in Chicago; from Albert Einstein the Human Side, Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, eds., Princeton University Press, 1981, pp. 69-70.
“I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism.”
Albert Einstein, replying to a letter in 1954 or 1955; from Albert Einstein the Human Side, Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, eds., Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981, p. 39.
“I do not believe that a man should be restrained in his daily actions by being afraid of punishment after death or that he should do things only because in this way he will be rewarded after he dies. This does not make sense. The proper guidance during the life of a man should be the weight that he puts upon ethics and the amount of consideration that he has for others.”
Albert Einstein; from Peter A. Bucky, The Private Albert Einstein, Kansas City: Andrews & McMeel, 1992, p. 86.
“Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the action of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a supernatural Being.”
Albert Einstein in responce to a child who had written him in 1936 and asked if scientists pray; from Albert Einstein the Human Side, Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, eds., Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981, p. 32.
“I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science. [He was speaking of Quantum Mechanics and the breaking down of determinism.] My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance — but for us, not for God.”
Albert Einstein; from Albert Einstein the Human Side, Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, eds., Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981, p. 66.
“The finest emotion of which we are capable is the mystic emotion. Herein lies the germ of all art and all true science. Anyone to whom this feeling is alien, who is no longer capable of wonderment and lives in a state of fear is a dead man. To know that what is impenatrable for us really exists and manifests itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, whose gross forms alone are intelligible to our poor faculties – this knowledge, this feeling … that is the core of the true religious sentiment. In this sense, and in this sense alone, I rank myself amoung profoundly religious men.”
“The idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I am unable to take seriously.”
Albert Einstein, letter to Hoffman and Dukas, 1946; from Albert Einstein the Human Side, Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, eds., Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981.
“The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge.”
Albert Einstein, Science, Philosophy, and Religion, A 1934 Symposium published by the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941; from Einstein's Out of My Later Years, Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1970, pp. 29-30.
“I cannot believe that God plays dice with the cosmos.”
Albert Einstein on quantum mechanics, published in the London Observer, April 5, 1964; also quoted as "God does not play dice with the world." in Einstein: The Life and Times, Ronald W. Clark, New York: World Publishing Co., 1971, p. 19.
“I cannot accept any concept of God based on the fear of life or the fear of death or blind faith. I cannot prove to you that there is no personal God, but if I were to speak of him I would be a liar.”
Albert Einstein; from Ronald W. Clark, Einstein: The Life and Times, New York: World Publishing Company, 1971, p. 622.
“During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution human fantasy created gods in man's own image, who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate to influence, the phenomenal world. Man sought to alter the disposition of these gods in his own favor by means of magic and prayer. The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old concept of the gods. Its anthropomorphic character is shown, for instance, by the fact that men appeal to the Divine Being in prayers and plead for the fulfillment of their wishes.
“Nobody, certainly, will deny that the idea of the existence of an omnipotent, just, and omnibeneficent personal God is able to accord man solace, help, and guidance; also, by virtue of its simplicity it is accessible to the most undeveloped mind. But, on the other hand, there are decisive weaknesses attached to this idea in itself, which have been painfully felt since the beginning of history. That is, if this being is omnipotent, then every occurrence, including every human action, every human thought, and every human feeling and aspiration is also His work; how is it possible to think of holding men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an almighty Being? In giving out punishment and rewards He would to a certain extent be passing judgment on Himself. How can this be combined with the goodness and righteousness ascribed to Him?
“The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and of science lies in this concept of a personal God. It is the aim of science to establish general rules which determine the reciprocal connection of objects and events in time and space. For these rules, or laws of nature, absolutely general validity is required—not proven. It is mainly a program, and faith in the possibility of its accomplishment in principle is only founded on partial successes. But hardly anyone could be found who would deny these partial successes and ascribe them to human self-deception. The fact that on the basis of such laws we are able to predict the temporal behavior of phenomena in certain domains with great precision and certainty is deeply embedded in the consciousness of the modern man, even though he may have grasped very little of the contents of those laws. He need only consider that planetary courses within the solar system may be calculated in advance with great exactitude on the basis of a limited number of simple laws. In a similar way, though not with the same precision, it is possible to calculate in advance the mode of operation of an electric motor, a transmission system, or of a wireless apparatus, even when dealing with a novel development.
“To be sure, when the number of factors coming into play in a phenomenological complex is too large, scientific method in most cases fails us. One need only think of the weather, in which case prediction even for a few days ahead is impossible. Nevertheless no one doubts that we are confronted with a causal connection whose causal components are in the main known to us. Occurrences in this domain are beyond the reach of exact prediction because of the variety of factors in operation, not because of any lack of order in nature.
“We have penetrated far less deeply into the regularities obtaining within the realm of living things, but deeply enough nevertheless to sense at least the rule of fixed necessity. One need only think of the systematic order in heredity, and in the effect of poisons, as for instance alcohol, on the behavior of organic beings. What is still lacking here is a grasp of connections of profound generality, but not a knowledge of order in itself.
“The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exists as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot.
“But I am persuaded that such behavior on the part of the representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is able to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress. In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests. In their labors they will have to avail themselves of those forces which are capable of cultivating the Good, the True, and the Beautiful in humanity itself. This is, to be sure, a more difficult but an incomparably more worthy task.”
Albert Einstein, Science, Philosophy, and Religion, A 1934 Symposium published by the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941; from Einstein's Out of My Later Years, Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1970, pp. 26-29.
“I cannot then believe in this concept of an anthropomorphic God who has the powers of interfering with these natural laws. As I said before, the most beautiful and most profound religious emotion that we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. And this mysticality is the power of all true science.”
Albert Einstein; from Peter A. Bucky, The Private Albert Einstein, Kansas City: Andrews & McMeel, 1992, p. 86.
“The mystical trend of our time, which shows itself particularly in the rampant growth of the so-called Theosophy and Spiritualism, is for me no more than a symptom of weakness and confusion. Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions, and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seem to me to be empty and devoid of meaning.”
Albert Einstein, in a letter February 5, 1921; from Albert Einstein the Human Side, Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, eds., Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981, p. 40.
“Mere unbelief in a personal God is no philosophy at all.”
Albert Einstein, letter to V. T Aaltonen, May 7, 1952, Einstein Archive 59-059; from Alice Calaprice, ed., The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2000, p. 216.
“I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.”
Albert Einstein, to Guy H. Raner Jr., September 28, 1949; from Michael R. Gilmore, "Einstein's God: Just What Did Einstein Believe About God?," Skeptic, 1997, 5(2):64.
“For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts.”
Albert Einstein, Out of My Later Years, Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1970, p. 25.
“In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.”
Albert Einstein, according to the testimony of Prince Hubertus of Lowenstein; as quoted by Ronald W. Clark, Einstein: The Life and Times, New York: World Publishing Company, 1971, p. 425.
“I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist. Your counter-arguments seem to me very correct and could hardly be better formulated. It is always misleading to use anthropomorphical concepts in dealing with things outside the human sphere—childish analogies. We have to admire in humility the beautiful harmony of the structure of this world as far—as we can grasp it. And that is all.”
Albert Einstein, to Guy H. Raner Jr., July 2, 1945, responding to a rumor that a Jesuit priest had caused Einstein to convert from atheism; from Michael R. Gilmore, "Einstein's God: Just What Did Einstein Believe About God?," Skeptic, 1997, 5(2):62.
“I am convinced that some political and social activities and practices of the Catholic organizations are detrimental and even dangerous for the community as a whole, here and everywhere. I mention here only the fight against birth control at a time when overpopulation in various countries has become a serious threat to the health of people and a grave obstacle to any attempt to organize peace on this planet.”
Albert Einstein in a letter, 1954; from Paul Blanshard, American Freedom and Catholic Power, Greenwood Pub., 1984, p. 10.
“It is quite clear to me that the religious paradise of youth, which lost, was a first attempt to free myself from the chains of the ‘merely personal,’ from an existence which is dominated by wishes, hopes, and primitive feelings.”
Albert Einstein; from Gerald Holton, Einstein: History, and Other Passions, Woodbury, NY: Perseus Press, 1996, p. 172.
“His [Einstein] was not a life of prayer and worship. Yet he lived by a deep faith — a faith not capabIe of rational foundation — that there are laws of Nature to be discovered. His lifelong pursuit was to discover them. His realism and his optimism are illuminated by his remark: ‘Subtle is the Lord, but malicious He is not’ (‘Raffiniert ist der Herrgott aber boshaft ist er nicht.’). When asked by a colleague what he meant by that, he replied: ‘Nature hides her secret because of her essential loftiness, but not by means of ruse’ (‘Die Natur verbirgt ihr Geheimnis durch die Erhabenheit ihres Wesens, aber nicht durch List.’)”
Abraham Pais, Subtle Is the Lord: The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein, New York: Oxford University Press, 1982, p. vi.
“However, Einstein's God was not the God of most other men. When he wrote of religion, as he often did in middle and later life, he tended to adopt the belief of Alice's Red Queen that "words mean what you want them to mean," and to clothe with different names what to more ordinary mortals — and to most Jews — looked like a variant of simple agnosticism. Replying in 1929 to a cabled inquiry from Rabbi Goldstein of New York, he said that he believed "in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exist, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and actions of men." And it is claimed that years later, asked by Ben-Gurion whether he believed in God, "even he, with his great formula about energy and mass, agreed that there must be something behind the energy." No doubt. But much of Einstein's writing gives the impression of belief in a God even more intangible and impersonal than a celestial machine minder, running the universe with indisputable authority and expert touch. Instead, Einstein's God appears as the physical world itself, with its infinitely marvelous structure operating at atomic level with the beauty of a craftsman's wrissweet thingch, and at stellar level with the majesty of a massive cyclotron. This was belief enough. It grew early and rooted deep. Only later was it dignified by the title of cosmic religion, a phrase which gave plausible respectability to the views of a man who did not believe in a life after death and who felt that if virtue paid off in the earthly one, then this was the result of cause and effect rather than celestial reward. Einstein's God thus stood for an orderly system obeying rules which could be discovered by those who at the courage, imagination, and persistence to go on searching for them. It was to this past which he began to turn his mind soon after the age of twelve. The rest of his life everything else was to seem almost trivial by comparison.”
Ronald W. Clark, Einstein: The Life and Times, New York: World Publishing, 1971, pp. 19-20.
Home Page | Further Reading | Site Map | Send Feedback
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 17, 2016 20:45:00 GMT -5
Einstein: When the answer is simple , God is speaking. Do you have direct source for this quote? It is doubtful that it is Einstein. Not sure what drives your fascination with the quotes of Einstein. It seems like you are trying to turn him into a supporter for your beliefs. Somehow I think he would be at odds with your belief. ... The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. A. Einstein
|
|
|
Post by commonman on Mar 17, 2016 20:55:23 GMT -5
Einstein: When the answer is simple , God is speaking. Do you have direct source for this quote? It is doubtful that it is Einstein. Not sure what drives your fascination with the quotes of Einstein. It seems like you are trying to turn him into a supporter for your beliefs. Somehow I think he would be at odds with your belief. ... The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. A. Einstein Just google the quote, it came up for me .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2016 20:57:05 GMT -5
Einstein: When the answer is simple , God is speaking. Do you have direct source for this quote? It is doubtful that it is Einstein. Not sure what drives your fascination with the quotes of Einstein. It seems like you are trying to turn him into a supporter for your beliefs. Somehow I think he would be at odds with your belief. ... The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. A. Einstein I think if you look at ALL of his quotes honestly you will find that he road the fence of agnosticism more than atheism...
since we're on the web all we have to go by is the quote itself and it appears all over the web it maybe its a quote of him speaking and not one in which he wrote it down in a paper or publication...
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Mar 17, 2016 21:01:45 GMT -5
Ok, that's a new one for me, I'll think about that, "philosophers on tangent." I'll have to go back to my Geometry books to see where the tangent line is. Off hand, it looks to me like they are on different planes alright, and they are headed to different destinations. Now here is another tangential philosophy quote: We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It doesn't know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books, but does not understand what it is. That, it seems to me , is the attitude of the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand those laws. (written in tribute to the beauty of the child's simple perception of the most profound truth of all ) Einstein loved to relate human endeavors as childish efforts, of no real significance , and of course he loved children . His reference to children was not to belittle their intelligence but to cherish there profound innocence about the universe , imo. True-- but he never took their understanding for divine truth.
|
|
|
Post by commonman on Mar 17, 2016 21:19:01 GMT -5
i believe Einstein, like many scholars (Jew & non-Jew) , understood the beauty of a paradox.
|
|
|
Post by commonman on Mar 17, 2016 21:28:29 GMT -5
Einstein: When the answer is simple , God is speaking. Do you have direct source for this quote? It is doubtful that it is Einstein. [ r]Not sure what drives your fascination with the quotes of Einstein. It seems like you are trying to turn him into a supporter for your beliefs. Somehow I think he would be at odds with your belief.[ [/i] A. Einstein [/quote] Just watched a documentary of Isaac Newton . Probably another quote able scientist. Einstein was fascinated with the nature of my God, thus I find his quotes to be of interest, and in no way do I agree with all of them , i understand the paradox of many , and the truth of many others.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 17, 2016 21:53:48 GMT -5
Do you have direct source for this quote? It is doubtful that it is Einstein. Not sure what drives your fascination with the quotes of Einstein. It seems like you are trying to turn him into a supporter for your beliefs. Somehow I think he would be at odds with your belief. ... The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. A. Einstein Just google the quote, it came up for me . Lots of quotes may come up for you, but are authentic?
Sometimes you have to look behind something to see who is putting it out into the media, -who their affiliation is with, -do they have a private agenda?
Whenever you go to a site often above it will be a row o places to click on like: about us-our mission etc. Find out all you can about where the information is coming from: ask questions about who they are.
Here is a source that gave me further such information about that (supposed) quote of Einstein.
BARRY POPIK is a contributor to the Oxford English Dictionary, Dictionary of American Regional English, Historical Dictionary of American Slang, Yale Book of Quotations and Dictionary of Modern Proverbs. "If/When the solution is simple, God is answering/speaking” is a quotation that has been credited to Albert Einstein (1879-1955), a physicist who was known for finding simple solutions to complex physics problems.'
There is no evidence that Einstein ever said it. “If the solution is simple, God is answering” has been cited in print since either 1988 in Esquire magazine (the citation has not been verified) or “"When the solution is simple, God is answering” in 1995.
Neither known citation is close to the time span when Einstein lived. The Einstein-credited quotation became very popular in the 2000s and was cited in many science, business and religion texts.
Wikiquote: Talk: Albert Einstein Unsourced and dubious/overly modern sources
"If the solution is simple, God is answering." Didn’t find any published sources earlier than Esquire: Volume 106 (1988). Hypnosifl 00:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
|
|
|
Post by joanna on Mar 17, 2016 22:36:55 GMT -5
To use terms such as "mysterious order" or "intelligent design" in order to support a belief in god actually do the opposite. It could have been Lawrence Krauss or one of his kind, who responded to the claim of the perfection in creation with an analogy along the lines of 'for humans to cite the finely-tuned balance in the universe as clearly being the work of an intelligent designer would be to akin to praising the builder of an Olympic sized pool to store one drop of water'. Given human life is the main focus of a/the creator's production, then this little planet Earth which sustains our species can be analogised to the person who creates an olympic pool to store just One Drop of Water. The word "soul" leapt out from page one of this thread: it is more than embarrassing that people existing in the 21C continue to maintain the human soul is an independent entity, which if donning the robes of religion, will be all dressed up and ready to take off when the natural body dies. Aristotle was born in 384 BCE yet he understood the soul was not a separate being, but part of the sum of the whole person. How is it possible that centuries later too many either refuse, or cannot comprehend what an ancient person who had no access to current scientific knowledge was able to deduce? Aristotle had little to work with yet his deductions were more aligned with recent neuroscientific discoveries than people who currently belief in the transcendental.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Mar 20, 2016 8:36:16 GMT -5
DMM - you are giving us the definition of scientism. In so far as y ou appeal to something greater than us with regard to cause or to function, you are imitating the theist. Nope. .
It is the method which science uses that makes it a reliable method of knowing something. It certainly beats relying on gods or any other supernatural or paranormal ideas! The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.
The above makes it self-correcting.
PS: How do you see science as an "appeal being to something greater than us?" Aren't you the one who "appeals to something greater than you?" (god and other supernatural or paranormal ideas) We see the results of the conclusions which follows that method . Thousands of different gods & different denominations even within the supposedly one true god! And theres lots of scientists whose idea dont pan out. Scientitism treats science as if it were an authority unto itself. This is an act of worship. Atheists and theists should resist this tendency together, if for no other reason, because its duplicitous.
|
|