I was reading Digg.com and found this (http://www.einsteinandreligion.com/scienceandreligion.html) link. I thought it might be a good read for a lot of you here, especially after the, 'Did Einstein believe in God', debates. Maybe some of you have read about Einstein's beliefs before but I haven't so this is for those that may be interested. His beliefs sort of run parallel with my own though I think some of his beliefs he didn't quite think about enough before concluding the statement.

Well, I do not think that it is necessarily the case that science and religion are natural opposites. In fact, I think that there is a very close connection between the two. Further, I think that science without religion is lame and, conversely, that religion without science is blind. Both are important and should work hand-in-hand. - Einstein (A Conversation with Gustav Bucky)

Einstein was not a theist.

He was an atheist with regards to all organised religions and personal Gods.
He appeared to be agnostic when responding to direct questions about the existence of an actual God.
He was a materialist as he did not believe in a literal 'spirit', 'soul', prayer or afterlife.
He often used words like 'religion', 'soul', 'spirit' or 'God', but these are all in descriptive and figurative texts which he uses to convey an idea or thought and this is not the same as a theist would use in terms of faith.


I would paste a lot of quotes to support my view of this but I have already done so a thousand times in a debate a few weeks ago.

Yes, he didn't believe in personal Gods, it doesn't mean he was an atheist, he just didn't believe in it. I'm an atheist in regards to the FSM or magic, but I could just say I don't believe. You're intertwining the definition just to put 'atheist' in there.

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 ... Einstein from the previously posted link.

* He often used words like 'religion', 'soul', 'spirit' or 'God', but these are all in descriptive and figurative texts which he uses to convey an idea or thought and this is not the same as a theist would use in terms of faith.

Yes, that is also how I view God. I don't use God in the same context as most theists, yet I do believe in God.

"That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible Universe, forms my idea of God." - Einstein

A superior reasoning power, pretty much sums up my God. All the logic summed up in the world makes up the entire equation, God. Anyhow, I didn't really post it to argue about it, just thought I would share it. Yes, I'm not naive. This is sciforums after all, I have no doubt this may start some quote wars.

Einstein is also quoted from a letter he wrote - to a Jesuit priest I am an atheist. The essence conveyed was that from the perspective of the so-called revealed religions like Christainity, Judaism, and Islam he was definitely an atheist.

His views as you read more of his quotations is that of the pantheist - that the universe itself as manifested through the laws of phsyics is a spiritual experience. The Christian concepts of a personal god and of heaven and hell for example he found entirely ludicrous.

He also found himself in very tenuous situations where to openly admit to being an atheist in the early to mid sections of the 20th century was not anywhere near as acceptable as it is today, and that isn't saying much about today either. Had he lived today I believe he would be far more open about his atheism.

But he also saw wonders in the order of the universe that perhaps go beyond what we debate here.

Speaking of the complex mind of Einstein is like speaking of the complexities of God. However, Einstein seems contradictory, so does that mean he doesn't exist?

It's just ironic we're speaking of the seeming contradictory beliefs Einstein had in this thread and in another, the contradictory beliefs people have in God. I don't really see Einstein's views in God contradictory but any time the details of a belief are told and the whole is not considered, there will be some who cry contradiction.

Suppose my belief=100. It's very complex and requires much listening. I tell part of my belief, 10 + 30, and some say it just doesn't add up. It's only when you hear the other parts can you count the whole equation and reach 100 or close to it but you'll never totally get there unless you know everything in my mind.

Forgive me for spouting but it's the same with religion. You got to make an average since humans are average, we don't speak specific enough to totally convey what's in our brains. You can't take every word as a specific number or else it won't totally add up. Same with Einstein or other people. People just quote different parts here and there, same as journalists do, to make someone look totally different to the readers.

I was hoping reading Einstein's words could challenge me enough to become an atheist but it didn't work. I like to challenge my beliefs, that's one reason I come to sciforums. But the reading only reinforced my view in God in finding out he believes in roughly the same way as I do.

I was hoping reading Einstein's words could challenge me enough to become an atheist but it didn't work. I like to challenge my beliefs, that's one reason I come to sciforums. But the reading only reinforced my view in God in finding out he believes in roughly the same way as I do.

It's a bit like a theist who prays for God to prevent something terrible to happen, and when something terrible happens, it stupidly reinforces their faith. So I am not surprised anything can make you an atheist.

The difference between Einstein and yourself is that you are a theist. From what I have read of some of your idiotic posts here, you ARE a theist. Einstein was not. Put yourself in the same pigeon hole as him if it boosts your ego - Jan Ardena tried to do the same thing.

I was hoping reading Einstein's words could challenge me enough to become an atheist

What has Einstein got to do with anything?

What has Einstein got to do with anything?
I don't know SnakeLord, I thought this thread was well dead! All arguments have at least two sides, but some have no ends..... (yawn!)

In fact Einstein said many seemingly contradictory things, many of which have been quoted in this or related threads. He denied a belief in a personal God AND denied being an atheist. He talked a lot about the 'spirit manifest in the laws of the Universe', yet also declared that a Jesuit priest would label him an atheist. Perhaps we can all feel satisfied to claim Einstein for our side, and give the bloke a rest! In his own words:

"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever.... This is a somewhat new kind of religion."
(Letter to Hans Muehsam March 30, 1954; Einstein Archive 38-434)

Make your own mind up: http://www.einsteinandreligion.com/

The "Einstein appeal phenomenon" is a logical fallacy used by both sides of the atheist/theist debate. The fallacy is called: "Appeal to Misleading Authority"

Example: Authority A believes that P is true.
Therefore, P is true.

So there you have it, that's the "Einstein appeal phenomenon"

Godless

I was reading Digg.com and found this (http://www.einsteinandreligion.com/scienceandreligion.html) link. I thought it might be a good read for a lot of you here, especially after the, 'Did Einstein believe in God', debates. Maybe some of you have read about Einstein's beliefs before but I haven't so this is for those that may be interested. His beliefs sort of run parallel with my own though I think some of his beliefs he didn't quite think about enough before concluding the statement.
Einstein was not an atheist.
Einstein's theism, such as it was, was his faith that God does not play dice with the universe -- that there are elegant, eventually discoverable laws, not randomness, at work. Saying "I'm not an atheist," he explained:

"We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not 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 doesn't know what it is."

He concluded before the end of His life that the universe was much too complex and perfectly balanced to have occurred by chance, it must have been created by intelligent design.
What science discovers that some use to claim evolution is mearly the mechanics the intelligent designer used to create it with.
In the end there is no contradiction, except that perpetual confusion that exists in the minds of those who neither belong to true science or true religion, but are the proponents of chaos.

I have always said true religion and true science exist in harmony.
The forces that have hijacked both are one and the same, the left and right horns on the same beast.
Look at my thread on "The destruction of the antediluvian world" in the world events forum.

Einstein and "God does not play dice"
"Albert Einstein believed in God. Do you think you're cleverer than him?"

Einstein did once comment that "God does not play dice [with the universe]". This quotation is commonly mentioned to show that Einstein believed in the Christian God. Used this way, it is out of context; it refers to Einstein's refusal to accept some aspects of the most popular interpretations of quantum theory. Furthermore, Einstein's religious background was Jewish rather than Christian.

A better quotation showing what Einstein thought about God is the following:

"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."

Einstein recognized Quantum Theory as the best scientific model for the physical data available. He did not accept claims that the theory was complete, or that probability and randomness were an essential part of nature. He believed that a better, more complete theory would be found, which would have no need for statistical interpretations or randomness.

So far no such better theory has been found, and much evidence suggests that it never will be.

A longer quote from Einstein appears in "Science, Philosophy, and Religion, A Symposium", published by the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941. In it he says:

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 [italics his], 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 convinced that such behavior on the part of representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is 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...

Einstein has also said:

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.

The above quote is from a letter Einstein wrote in English, dated 24 March 1954. It is included in " Albert Einstein: The Human Side", edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, and published by Princeton University Press. Also from the same book:

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.

More of Einstein's comments on religion are available on the web at <URL:http://www.stcloud.msus.edu/~lesikar/ESR.html>. Of course, the fact that Einstein chose not to believe in Christianity does not in itself imply that Christianity is false.

click (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/arguments.html#einstein)

I will repeat..

"What has Einstein got to do with anything?"

The dude could have, or could not have believed in magic flying invisible leprechauns. Who gives a shit?

I will repeat..

"What has Einstein got to do with anything?"

The dude could have, or could not have believed in magic flying invisible leprechauns. Who gives a shit?
Nothing and No one. And I would expect this thread to die a quick and painless death, except for the phenomenon of "thread drift" as is seen in many instances. Yes?

I will repeat..
"What has Einstein got to do with anything?"
If for no other reason its because the thread is titled "Einstein and religion"
You may not respect his genius but many do, so that makes his opinion a valuable source of reference.

If for no other reason its because the thread is titled "Einstein and religion"
You may not respect his genius but many do, so that makes his opinion a valuable source of reference.
His genius was in physics. There is no sign that he exhibited special abilities in theology.

His genius was in physics. There is no sign that he exhibited special abilities in theology.
Oh, but they are related.
The one reveals the truth of the other, and visa versa.
There is always a counterfeit, so don't point at their intentional errors to discredit the whole.

I don't know if Einstein believed in God, but he did believe in length contraction and time dilation. :p

The one reveals the truth of the other, and visa versa.Well not really. Religion has never helped reveal anything about physics. But science throughout the ages has gradually eroded pretty much everything religions have claimed about the universe. I fully expect that trend will continue unabated.

But we must recognize that he was very bright so much so that he did call Christian ideas childish.

Well not really. Religion has never helped reveal anything about physics. But science throughout the ages has gradually eroded pretty much everything religions have claimed about the universe. I fully expect that trend will continue unabated.

But we must recognize that he was very bright so much so that he did call Christian ideas childish.
Just out of curiousity, when you refer to eroded everything about religion - does that include anything outside of christianity - I guess this is a predominantly western forum -
There are indications that there were branches of knowledge that no longer exist that were superior or at least great mysteries to our technological understandings
like for instance th ebuilding of Egyptian Pyramids
Or the construction of Inca temples

But construction is not the same as discovery of new knowledge.

Actually just wanted to know if you guys consider the defeat of christianity the defeat of everything in the nameof religion

The "Einstein appeal phenomenon" is a logical fallacy used by both sides of the atheist/theist debate. The fallacy is called: "Appeal to Misleading Authority"

Example: Authority A believes that P is true.
Therefore, P is true.

So there you have it, that's the "Einstein appeal phenomenon"

Right on! :)

Religion has never helped reveal anything about physics. But science throughout the ages has gradually eroded pretty much everything religions have claimed about the universe. I fully expect that trend will continue unabated.

Science IS the new religion. We believe in the new God of "Objective Truth". It is mysterious, beyond us, ultimately unknowable (noumenous) and by it we can control our world (we think). The way to this God is revealed to us through the scientific method. Many people believe that this God alone can reveal the Truth, it alone can save us, and that all other gods are false.

This is nothing new, one religion has replaced another one many times before.
We'll find out it's limitations someday, become dissatisfied and latch onto something else to believe in.

DD,

No, that is a poor perception. There is only a single paradigm - knowledge. In the past there was little and people substituted fantasies through ignorance. As time passes we gain more knowledge and the fantasies are gradually replaced and ignorance subsides.

What we label the various phases is unimportant, there is simply a single process throughout where the balance of ignorance vs knowledge shifts from one to the other.

Science IS the new religion. We believe in the new God of "Objective Truth". It is mysterious, beyond us, ultimately unknowable (noumenous) and by it we can control our world (we think). The way to this God is revealed to us through the scientific method. Many people believe that this God alone can reveal the Truth, it alone can save us, and that all other gods are false.

This is nothing new, one religion has replaced another one many times before.
We'll find out it's limitations someday, become dissatisfied and latch onto something else to believe in.
You seemed to be a reasonably rational fellow. Do you really believe this? If you do, I would enjoy seeing a list of points of comparison between religion and science and what you think makes them the same basic thing.

From what I have read of some of your idiotic posts here, you ARE a theist.

What exactly does that mean?

What exactly does that mean?

By that I mean you could trawl through his posts and quote his religious faith and belief in the existence of an actual God. This can not be done with Einstein. Hence, I am confused why he pigeon holes himself with Einstein.

It is certainly possible that Einstein had more than a single view on complex religious matters throughout the entire course of his long life.

It's interesting to see theists put science and scientists down all the time and then spend ridiculous amounts of time and energy trying to show those same scientists were theists all along.

That's because Einstein was a physicist, not a biologist. God hates biologists didn't you know.

It's interesting to see theists put science and scientists down all the time and then spend ridiculous amounts of time and energy trying to show those same scientists were theists all along.

What really is iteresting, is that at the same time theist try and put science down, they are using a freaking devise. "computer, internet, etc.." that has been developed cause of science in the first place. :confused:

Hipocrites

Godless

It makes no difference to me if Einstein believed in God or not. Let's just say he doesn't believe in God. Or not a personal God. It doesn't matter, it's pointless to keep arguing about it. We are here to discuss religion and science and I found that link so I just thought I would share it for anyone interested.

And yes, I believe in God. Yes, I'm allowed to have ideas/beliefs that just happen to have a few things common with Einstein's as other people do. And not every theist believes in fairy tales or that the basis of their religion doesn't have to be based on scientific knowledge. Any true religion, a foundation of laws/morals, has to run parallel with the laws of science, in my opinion. But science is also the possibility, or actually, the truth that there will always be things we don't understand or know. A true scientist builds upon known science but realizes known science was not always known and at previous times what we see as real science now sometimes used to be thought of as mere fantasy. God is always a possibility to a scientist.

If for no other reason its because the thread is titled "Einstein and religion"

Right on. Let me rephrase it: Why would anyone give a shit whether Einstein believed in a god, gods, leprechauns or nothing? (I already know the answer so don't feel the need to explain, I just stated it in the hopes that people would ask themselves that question).

You may not respect his genius but many do, so that makes his opinion a valuable source of reference.

Where's the relevance? What has respecting a man for his advances in physics, much like I respect a chef for cooking a good meal, got to do with his personal opinions regarding the existence or non-existence of space fairies?

Actually just wanted to know if you guys consider the defeat of christianity the defeat of everything in the nameof religion

*************
M*W: Although the defeat of christianity is, in fact, underway, its worldwide decline will absolutely NOT be the defeat of "everything" in the name of religion. Christianity is not the dominant world religion its members would like to argue. The actual statistics put christianity at 1/3 of the population with Islam and the remaining religions at 2/3 of the world's population. Out of the 1/3 that are christian, there are some 34,000 different sects of christianity, with Roman Catholicism being the largest entity. The members of these 34,000 different sects believe their church is the only true church, so there is obvious division within christianity. So, in reality, not all of the world's christian population are actually christian. By that I mean how many of them call themselves "members" when they never set foot in a church? The statistics are, therefore, skewed.

The defeat of christianity may have some kind of impact on other worldwide religions and, of course, the christian fanatics will need to find some other religion to control their asses. However, I do believe that with the defeat of christianity, the other 2/3 of the world's population may wisen up and realize that all religion is a man-made farce.

Why would the defeat of christianity herald the defeat of religion as a whole? Is it because the countries that have money and military might at the moment are predominantly christian?

Practically we see that a civilisation is lucky if it can avoid having the rug pulled out from underneath it for 100 years - of course the most recent civilisation to fall on its butt was great Britain that won WW2 but lost alot of $$ (or rather pounds - but I guess the absence of its character on the keyboard speaks for itself) - so perhaps it wasn't such a great paradigm shift to go from one approach to christianity to another, but still you can see that if one religion perishes or becomes unpopular the phenomena still continues unheeded

Is the defeat of christianity synonymous with the defeat

Is it because the countries that have money and military might at the moment are predominantly christian?

This is probably what gets the goat of Islamists. They are the most dominant religion on Earth but have to watch Christian (infidel) countries take all the spoils.

(or rather pounds - but I guess the absence of its character on the keyboard speaks for itself)

It's uhh.. on English keyboards..

£££££££

Americans might not have a pound sign, but they still type in our language.

If the british did one good thing it was to get most of the world speaking the same language. English can get you through practically everywhere on the globe.

It got the goat of the christians during the crusades as well - I think that goat gets around during a lot of historical periods up to the present

If the british did one good thing it was to get most of the world speaking the same language. English can get you through practically everywhere on the globe.

It has it's down sides. Just the other day I was sitting on the train and there were a young Japanese {?} couple giggling away with each other. For a moment I actually respected the ability to have a perverted conversation without anyone else understanding what you're saying, (I'm assuming it was a perverted conversation.. I had to judge by body language).

It's why i've always wanted to learn Japanese. Everytime I see Japanese people they're always giggling at each other oblivious to those around them. I'd love to just butt in right in the middle with some well spoken Japanese just to see the look on their faces.