Sorry All! This is a bit long but I hope you will find it interesting.

Great Scientists Who Were Also Creationists
by Timothy R. Stout

Abstract: Many major fields of science were founded by Bible-believing Christians. A number of these are listed and discussed. Newton, Faraday, Kelvin, and Maxwell, who are among the greatest physicists in history, were all Bible-believing Christians.

Many of the major fields of science were founded by Christians. This information was taken from the book Men of Science, Men of God by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.

1. Johann Kepler (1571-1630) was the founder of physical astronomy. Kepler wrote "Since we astronomers are priests of the highest God in regard to the book of nature, it befits us to be thoughtful, not of the glory of our minds, but rather, above all else, of the glory of God.

2. Robert Boyle (1627-1691) is credited with being the father of modern chemistry. He also was active in financially supporting the spread of Christianity through missions and Bible translations.

3. Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) was one of the greatest early mathematicians, laid the foundations for hydrostatics, hydrodynamics, differential calculus, and the theory of probability. To him is attributed the famous Wager of Pascal, paraphrased as follows: "How can anyone lose who chooses to be a Christian? If, when he dies, there turns out to be no God and his faith was in vain, he has lost nothing--in fact, has been happier in life than his nonbelieving friends. If, however, there is a God and a heaven and hell, then he has gained heaven and his skeptical friends will have lost everything in hell!"

4. John Ray (1627-1705) was the father of English natural history, considered the greatest zoologist and botanist of his day. He also wrote a book, "The wisdom of God Manifested In The Works of Creation."

5. Nicolaus Steno (1631-1686) was the father of Stratigraphy. He believed that fossils were laid down in the strata as a result of the flood of Noah. He also wrote many theological works and late in his life took up religious orders.

6. William Petty (1623-1687) helped found the science of statistics and the modern study of economics. He was an active defender of the Christian faith and wrote many papers sharing evidence of God's design in nature.

7. Isaac Newton (1642-1727) invented calculus, discovered the law of gravity and the three laws of motion, anticipated the law of energy conservation, developed the particle theory of light propagation, and invented the reflecting telescope. He firmly believed in Jesus Christ as his Savior and the Bible as God's word, and wrote many books on these topics.

8. Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778) was the father of biological taxonomy. His system of classification is still in use today. One of his main goals in systematizing the varieties of living creatures was an attempt to delineate the original Genesis "kinds." He firmly believed in the Genesis account as literal history.

9. Michael Faraday (1791-1867) was one of the greatest physicists of all time, developed foundational concepts in electricity and magnetism, invented the electrical generator, and made many contributions to the field of chemistry. He was active in the various ministries of his church, both private and public, and had an abiding faith in the Bible and in prayer.

10. Georges Cuvier (1769-1832) was the founder of the science of comparative anatomy and one of the chief architects of paleontology as a separate scientific discipline. He was a firm creationist, participating in some of the important creation/evolution debates of his time.

11. Charles Babbage (1792-1871) was the founder of computer science. He developed information storage and retrieval systems, and used punched cards for instruction sets and data sets in automated industrial controls. He was also a Christian with strong convictions and wrote an important book defending the Bible and miracles.

12. John Dalton (1766-1844) was the father of atomic theory, which revolutionized chemistry. He was an orthodox, Bible-believing Christian.

13. Matthew Maury (1806-1873) was the founder of oceanography. He believed that when Psalm 8:8 in the Bible talked about "paths in the seas," that there must therefore be paths in the seas. He dedicated his life to charting the winds and currents of the Atlantic and was able to confirm that the sea did indeed have paths, just as spoken of in the Bible.

14. James Simpson (1811-1879) discovered chloroform and laid the foundation for anesthesiology. He said his motivation to perform the research leading to this discovery was a fascination in the book of Genesis with Adam's deep sleep during the time in which Eve was fashioned from his side. He said his biggest discovery was finding Jesus Christ as Savior.

15. James Joule (1818-1889) discovered the mechanical equivalent of heat, laying the foundation for the field of thermodynamics. Joule also had a strong Christian faith.

16. Louis Agassiz (1807-1873) was the father of glacial geology and a great paleontologist. He believed in God and in His special creation of every kind of organism. When Darwin's Origin began to gain favor, Agassiz spoke out strongly against it.

17. Gregory Mendel (1822-1884) was the father of genetics. He had strong religious convictions and chose the life of a monk. He was a creationist and rejected Darwins's ideas, even though he was familiar with them.

18. Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) was the father of bacteriology. He established the germ theory of disease. His persistent objections to the theory of spontaneous generation and to Darwinism made him unpopular with the scientific establishment of his day. He was a Christian with extremely strong religious convictions.

19. William Thompson, Lord Kelvin (1824-1907) is considered one of the all-time great physicists. He established thermodynamics on a formal scientific basis, providing a precise statement of the first and second laws of thermodynamics. Lord Kelvin was a strong Christian, opposing both Lyellian uniformitarianism and Darwinian evolution. In 1903, shortly before his death, he made the unequivocal statement that, "With regard to the origin of life, science...positively affirms creative power."

20. Joseph Lister (1827-1912) founded antiseptic surgical methods. Lister's contributions have probably led to more lives being saved through modern medicine than the contributions of any one else except Pasteur. Like Pasteur, Lister was also a Christian and wrote, "I am a believer in the fundamental doctrines of Christianity."

21. Joseph Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) developed a comprehensive theoretical and mathematical framework for electromagnetic field theory. Einstein called Maxwell's contributions "the most profound and most fruitful that physics has experienced since the time of Newton." Maxwell rejected the theory of evolution and wrote that God's command to man to subdue the earth, found in the first chapter of the book of Genesis in the Bible, provided the personal motivation to him for pursuing his scientific work. He acknowledged a personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

22. Bernhard Riemann (1826-1866) developed the concept of non-Euclidian geometry, which was used by Einstein in his development of the theory of relativity. Riemann was also a Christian and had hoped to go into the ministry until he got sidetracked by his interest in mathematics. He apparently made several efforts to prove the validity of the book of Genesis using mathematical principles.

23. Joseph Henry Gilbert (1817-1901) was a chemist who developed the use of nitrogen and superphosphate fertilizers for farm crops and co-developed the world's first agricultural experimental station. He thus laid the foundations for the advances in agricultural science which have provided the means for farmers to feed the large populations in the world today. Gilbert is yet another scientist with a strong faith and demonstrated this by signing the Scientist's Declaration, in which he affirmed his faith in the Bible as the Word of God and expressed his disbelief in and opposition to Darwin's theories.

24. Thomas Anderson (1819-1874) was one of the initial workers in the field of organic chemistry, discovering pyridine and other organic bases. Like Gilbert, he also signed the Scientist's Declaration, in which he affirmed his faith in the scientific accuracy of the Bible and the validity of the Christian faith.

25. William Mitchell Ramsay (1851-1939) was among the greatest of all archeologists. He acquired "liberal" theological beliefs during his days as a university student. However, as he began to make various archaeological discoveries in Asia Minor, he began to see that archaeology confirmed the accuracy of the Bible and as a result he became converted to Christianity.

26. John Ambrose Fleming (1849-1945) was the inventor of the Fleming valve which provided the foundation for subsequent advances in electronics. He studied under Maxwell, was a consultant to Thomas Edison, and also for Marconi. He also had very strong Christian beliefs and acted on those beliefs by helping found an organization called the "Evolution Protest Movement." He wrote a major book against the theory of evolution.

27. Werner Von Braun (1912-1977) was the father of space science. He wrote, ."..the vast mysteries of the universe should only confirm our belief in the certainty of its Creator. I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science."

28. Albert Einstein (1879-1955), formulator of the theory of relativity, which is one of the single greatest intellectual accomplishments in the history of man. Einstein was Jewish and thus did not follow in the Christian tradition of Newton or Faraday. He did not believe in a personal God, such as is revealed even in the Jewish Bible. Yet, he was overwhelmed by the order and organization of the universe and believed this demonstrated that there was a Creator.

So, many if not most of the major branches of science were founded by Bible-believing Christians. As a physicist I also find it intriguing that the five greatest physicists in history--Newton, Faraday, Thompson, Maxwell, and Einstein--were each outspoken in their belief that the universe was placed here by a Creator. Furthermore, four of the five were staunch Christians with firm convictions that the Bible is the authoritative Word of God.

Your title is misleading. Few of the men you mention were Creationists. A Creationist is somebody who believes in the literal truth of the Genesis story. I would be interested in any evidence you have that any of the "big five" you mention were creationists.

On the other hand, these men were certainly Christians (except for Einstein, who once opined that the religion most compatible with his own views was probably Buddhism). This is not unexpected. They were men of their time, and at the time most western European people identified themselves as Christian.

There is a valuable lesson here, too - that very smart people are not always right. Some of the people you mention opposed Darwinian evolution, and they were not alone in that. In fact, it took until around 1940 for the majority of biologists to accept the theory of evolution as fact, simply because insufficient evidence for it had been collected before that.

Why should anyone find this "interesting"? Parenthetically, #25 is a bit of a joke.

Oh come on. How could you fail to tack on "Darwin" at the end of the list? Have you no good sense of humor? Don't miss it next time, kiddo. :mad:

--Long Live the Female Messiah.
http://www.angelfire.com/fang/goategg01/Defiance.gif (http://www.pinkeye.se)

Most of them were alive when creationism wasn't questioned. "Science" would start with the bible.
So really they weren't scientists at all.
And einstein does not belong on that list.

I'll bet we could make a longer list of scientists who don't believe in creationism.

But in the end it is just a list. Scientific theories are not weighed on merit by comparing lists of opposing and supporting scientists.

The mere fact that these scientists believed in God does not prove that Christianity is true or even that God exists. Neither does the fact that other scientists are atheists prove that Christianity is not true or that God does not exist. Some people I know actually think that. The same logic must be applied to both equally. Basically, my conclusion from this is that there are very intelligent people on both sides of the fence. Some people are not able to even admit that much.

"Some people are not able to even admit that much."
Me for one.
From what I have seen one side of the fence is undeniably far more heavily populated with intelligent people than the other.
Today atleast.
once upon a time just about everybody was religious because common knowledge did not have an adequate understanding of the world.

Of course, intelligence is not linked to 'having the truth'.

What was your aim of this thread if I may enquire this much?

Dr Lou Natic,

Most of them were alive when creationism wasn't questioned.

And your proof of evidence is......?

So really they weren't scientists at all.

You forgot to add.."in my opinion.

And einstein does not belong on that list.

So please explain these quotes;

My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.

As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene....No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life.

Love
Jan Ardena

Jan
And your proof of evidence is......?
You're kidding right?

Like it was said these were men of their time, it's not a heck of a lot different in some places of the world at the moment. Those tools in bible belt america banning schools from teaching evolution. If you grow up in a staunch society your beliefs will not greatly deviate. If people weren't brought up to believe in religion they'd never know about it. I use myself as proof of that. I was brought up in a totally neutral household and have felt that in terms of knowledge and, even though collectively the human race knows little about anything (relatively), the desire or forgone conclusion of god or religion is irrelevant now. Maybe a hundred or a thousand years ago it was needed, but it's little more than an ingrained social construct that provides some generally valuable morals and what i like to call "blanky" protection.

No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life.

You're cherry-picking. As you no doubt know, the quote is from a radio interview and in response to the question: "You accept the historical existence of Jesus?". On a different occasion he also noted the following: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.

atheroy

You're kidding right? Like it was said these were men of their time,
it's not a heck of a lot different in some places of the world at the moment.

So you know for sure that no-one questioned creationism, everybody just conformed to the governments/churches wishes? Because this is the standard of evidence you would need to give credence to your point, otherwise i can only accept it as your opinion which i do not currently agree with.

If you grow up in a staunch society your beliefs will not greatly deviate.

Man isn't just about "belief, it is perfectly natural for us to question nature, ourselves, our origins. We generally accept society's teachings up to a certain age, then we start to question. There is a natural need & tendency to question, in the same way there is a natural need for a child to play. I agree some people question more than others (as some children are more playful) and as such some will be happy to accept what they are told without too much question, or any. But you will always find such diversity in human society, and i doubt that time can have an effect on that.

If people weren't brought up to believe in religion they'd never know about it.

And ignorance is bliss, yeah?

I use myself as proof of that. I was brought up in a totally neutral household and have felt that in terms of knowledge and, even though collectively the human race knows little about anything (relatively), the desire or forgone conclusion of god or religion is irrelevant now.

To say you accept that the human race has little knowledge of everything, you conclusive statement is rather absolute and final. Needless to say i don't share that opinion, but in the same breath there is a type of religion and understanding of God, i find almost irrelivant, which is one where they believe they are the only true religion of God. These i refer to as 'institutionalised religions'.

Maybe a hundred or a thousand years ago it was needed, but it's little more than an ingrained social construct that provides some generally valuable morals and what i like to call "blanky" protection.

But that is not religion, that is something to make you feel good. It is always in the interest of ruling powers to give some kind of hope to the masses, a kind of carrot waving. This helps the masses in general, keep some kind of order. Eventually these ruling power will leave their formula of religion behind and jump to the next ship, simply because the old formula will not be accepted by the masses. But this i do not regard as religion, but a mental construct. W

Aside from what James R has mentioned, could it be that the religious views of those scientists might be what they tell the public but may not necessarily be their personal views.

ConsequentAtheist,

You're cherry-picking.

This issue is not about me, it is about a quote made by Einstein. please stick to the issue. Thanks.

On a different occasion he also noted the following:[indent]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.

I'm sorry, but your reply does nothing to change the meaning. Here it is again.

"No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life."

Can someone please explain how Albert Einstein, one of the greatest minds of the twentieth century, does not believe in the existence of God especially when he makes statement like the above.

Jan Ardena.

Can someone please explain how Albert Einstein, one of the greatest minds of the twentieth century, does not believe in the existence of God especially when he makes statement like the above.Nowhere did Einstein ever state that he believed Jesus was God or the son of God. In fact, he repeatedly stated that he did not believe in a personal God which would make him a Deist at most and he specifically stated that a Jesuit would consider him an atheist. All your quote seems to indicate is that he believed Jesus was a real person. Like many people he may have considered Jesus to have been a wise teacher and moralist but an otherwise entirely normal and non-divine person.

~Raithere

ConsequentAtheist,

You're cherry-picking.

This issue is not about me, it is about a quote made by Einstein. please stick to the issue. Thanks.



I'm sorry, but your reply does nothing to change the meaning. Here it is again.

"No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life."

Can someone please explain how Albert Einstein, one of the greatest minds of the twentieth century, does not believe in the existence of God especially when he makes statement like the above.

Jan Ardena.


i dont care if einstein or anyother great scientist believed in any type of god. it is totally a moot point. einstein didnt believe in quantum mechanics either, does that mean QM cannot be real even though we hae insurmountable evidence it is? those scientists lived in a different period than we do, religious belief is very much a result of cultural exposure

Jan, just a list for your perusal.

Albert Einstein:


"I do not believe in the immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern without any superhuman authority behind it."

"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."

"The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. The religion which based on experience, which refuses dogmatic. If there's any religion that would cope the scientific needs it will be Buddhism..."

"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 hope of reward after death."

"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." (1954, from "Albert Einstein: The Human Side", edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffmann, Princeton University Press.)

"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."

"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."

"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?"

"It has not done so up to now." (Einstein's reply to a reporter's question if religion will promote peace)

"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."

"The minority, the ruling class at present, has the schools and press, usually the Church as well, under its thumb. This enables it to organize and sway the emotions of the masses, and make its tool of them."

"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." (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. Article by Michael R. Gilmore in Skeptic magazine, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1997)

"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."

"The idea of a Being who interferes with the sequence of events in the world is absolutely impossible."



Albert Einstein regularly made reference to God and "religiosity," but he was referring to a vague sense of wonder that he felt when he pondered the universe. He made it abundantly clear that he did not accept conventional, mainstream religion as, in any way, authoritative. As for his quote about Jesus -- it should be noted that admiring a person or a story does not connote belief in the all the religious baggage attached to him/it.

Josh

It's just a ride. - Bill Hicks

Original source of information: http://www.innercite.com/~tstout/cs/pog_a.shtml

25. William Mitchell Ramsay (1851-1939) was among the greatest of all archeologists.

Bleh. Ramsey was less than reliable (Mitchell & Waelkens, 1998) in his archaeological and historical observations.

Now Lewis Binford, Walt Taylor, Michael Schiffer, Marvin Harris... these are among the greatest archaeologists.

Mitchell, Stephen & Waelkens, Marc (1998), Pisidian Antioch: The Site and its Monuments. (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0715628607/qid=1081031620/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-9723206-1808068?v=glance&s=books) The Classical Press of Wales; 1 Ed edition

ConsequentAtheist,
You're cherry-picking.

This issue is not about me, it is about a quote made by Einstein. please stick to the issue. Thanks.
I take issue with the disingenuous selectivity of your quotes.

ConsequentAtheist,
[B]I'm sorry, but your reply does nothing to change the meaning. Here it is again.
You are very sorry, and the quote offered has everything to do with Einstein and creationism.

ConsequentAtheist,
[B]"No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life."

Can someone please explain how Albert Einstein, one of the greatest minds of the twentieth century, does not believe in the existence of God especially when he makes statement like the above.
The statement has nothing to do with God.

In my opinion, it is a great oversimplification to say that the faith of these men was merely the product of the “time” or “culture” they lived in. It does not do them justice. And it does not do You justice. These men were as real and as complex as you and me. Is that really all there is to You? Are You only a mindless product of the culture around You? Aren’t You able to choose a path that is counter to your “time” and “culture”? I thought Darwin did exactly that. If You, like these men, are only a product of your “time” then perhaps Your beliefs about God, whatever they are, are only the result of this current "time". We all are and should be influenced by the predominate views of our time. But, we need not be totally controlled by them. Darwin should teach you that!

1Dude:

In my opinion, it is a great oversimplification to say that the faith of these men was merely the product of the “time” or “culture” they lived in.

Yes, that would be an oversimplification. I merely made the point that religious faith is often influenced by one's culture and upbringing - a fairly uncontroversial point, I think.

Is that really all there is to You? Are You only a mindless product of the culture around You? Aren’t You able to choose a path that is counter to your “time” and “culture”?

Yes, but only after careful study of the issue. If you're not aware of alternatives, or haven't looked into them deeply, then he default position is usually to accept what you've been taught from an early age.

I thought Darwin did exactly that.

Correct, but only after years of experience, careful observation and study.

If You, like these men, are only a product of your “time” then perhaps Your beliefs about God, whatever they are, are only the result of this current "time".

Remove the word "only" and you won't get much argument from me. Nobody can really live outside their own time. The current trend towards secularism in western societies is a product of the current time and society as much as anything else.

We all are and should be influenced by the predominate views of our time. But, we need not be totally controlled by them. Darwin should teach you that!

Hear hear.

Jan

So you know for sure that no-one questioned creationism, everybody just conformed to the governments/churches wishes? Because this is the standard of evidence you would need to give credence to your point, otherwise i can only accept it as your opinion which i do not currently agree with.
Hmm, you seem to think I think that everyone believed blindly in their respective religion. To an extent I do. Obviously people questioned their faith (I was always wanting to know how things worked, questioned why things were the way they were, more so than anyone else in my small primary school), but only points of it- where do you think all these different sects in christianity alone stem from. People were able to come to different interpretations over what they thought they knew, but the conclusion that a god existed was probably believed by the majority. People commonly accepted the fact the earth was flat. You cannot disagree with this. Why would it be any different over something like religion?

But you will always find such diversity in human society, and i doubt that time can have an effect on that.
Time maybe not. An accumulation of knowledge over an extended amount of time remove misunderstandings held by common perception to be the truth. Flat earth my example again.

And ignorance is bliss, yeah?
Ignorance of what? I was stating the the inate belief of god doesn't exist in us. Objectively religion is a hyped up fairy tale following the lines of mythological stories that have dominated social beliefs all throughout humanities time.

Ignorance of something to me means you're missing out on something important or you're willfully ignoring it. I don't seem to be missing out on anything when it comes to religion, why would I want to instill prejudice and ignorance into my mind by coming to believe something that multiplies human weaknesses?

But that is not religion, that is something to make you feel good. It is always in the interest of ruling powers to give some kind of hope to the masses, a kind of carrot waving. This helps the masses in general, keep some kind of order. Eventually these ruling power will leave their formula of religion behind and jump to the next ship, simply because the old formula will not be accepted by the masses. But this i do not regard as religion, but a mental construct. W
First you disagree then you agree. Religion was hegemony. It was the means of social control. However, at the same time it was the silver lining to all those many people who had hard lives. The thought of something better is seductive. I do not wonder at why religion has perpetuated in so many forms, becoming more complex over time to keep up with mans evolving knowledge of what's going on around him. I think it is obvious why it has. It is just the fact the we are now becoming comfortable with the amount of knowledge we have and the fact that we don't have to explain things we don't understand doesn't leave us vulnerable. I think it is a great crime to remove the teaching of evolution from schools. It is a step backwards.

I'm gonna stop because this is becoming useless. I am too tired to form my thoughts into anything coherently effective.

Raithere,

Nowhere did Einstein ever state that he believed Jesus was God or the son of God.

Nowhere have i said that he did.

In fact, he repeatedly stated that he did not believe in a personal God which would make him a Deist at most and he specifically stated that a Jesuit would consider him an atheist.

You're missing the point.

All your quote seems to indicate is that he believed Jesus was a real person. Like many people he may have considered Jesus to have been a wise teacher and moralist but an otherwise entirely normal and non-divine person.

The quote;

"No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life."

The personality of Jesus, as depicted in the "Gospels" was his devotion to God. Within all his teachings, God is at the centre. Don't you think that if Einstein was a deist he would have been more specific as to the aspect of Jesus' personality which fills him with so much awe and respect.
What is "the myth?"
Is it that the idea of a god, is nothing more than a comfort blanky (as put by atheroy), that God is just a figment of primitive man's imagination, that God is just a mental construct and no more real than the toothfairy???
So doesn't Einstein give credit to the gospel and Jesus by stating that "no myth is filled with such life?

shrubby pegasus,

i dont care if einstein or anyother great scientist believed in any type of god. it is totally a moot point. einstein didnt believe in quantum mechanics either, does that mean QM cannot be real even though we hae insurmountable evidence it is? those scientists lived in a different period than we do, religious belief is very much a result of cultural exposure

I apreciate your honesty.

JustARide,

As for his quote about Jesus -- it should be noted that admiring a person or a story does not connote belief in the all the religious baggage attached to him/it.

But that has nothing to do with the content of his quote. To prove that Einstein did not believe in God, you have to dismantle that quote, because that quote shows that he had maximum respect for Jesus and the gospels, and that he believes that neither is a myth.
And yet he is a brilliant scientist with a brilliant mind.

ConsequentAtheist,

I take issue with the disingenuous selectivity of your quotes.

I'm sorry that you think my choice of quotes as disingenuous, but your personal opinions of me must take a back seat, because that is the quote i have chosen. The quote is genuine, and is obvious to any sober person that he has a belief in God, despite the insistense of some atheists that he was atheist. It is also abundantly clear, especially in light of that quote, that he believes that God created the universe, and that his mission is to find out how.

You are very sorry, and the quote offered has everything to do with Einstein and creationism.

It is because you have a poor fund of knowledge with regard to the religion which is one and the only gateway to spirituality, that you don't understand what Einstein is "actually" saying. Everything you say regarding religion and/or spirituality is covered with the same mis-judgment and illusory perception as your understanding of Einsteins quote. It is little wonder you take issue with this quote, because it reveals a side to that you would rather be kept concealed.

Jan Ardena.

But that has nothing to do with the content of his quote. To prove that Einstein did not believe in God, you have to dismantle that quote, because that quote shows that he had maximum respect for Jesus and the gospels, and that he believes that neither is a myth.
And yet he is a brilliant scientist with a brilliant mind.The quote shows nothing of the kind.

this is a good thread as it saying just becasue you are religious it diesn;t mean you reject science which is very true. however the list you gave, most weren;t actually practiscing Christians they just were Christian by name.

also, Christians in the past (and dont say that this was becasue it was ancient times, becasue at these times people were MOST RELIGIOUS) they used to burn alive people who said anything remotely scientific. an example is people who thought there were other planets out there or that the stars were actually tangible.

[QUOTE=atheroy]Jan

To an extent I do.

To what extent?

where do you think all these different sects in christianity alone stem from.

Different peoples understanding of the same thing. In all communities you will find diversions.

People were able to come to different interpretations over what they thought they knew, but the conclusion that a god existed was probably believed by the majority.

And probably not. There is no way of telling is there?

People commonly accepted the fact the earth was flat. You cannot disagree with this. Why would it be any different over something like religion?

It s easy to see why people would think the world was flat, but we now know it isn't. What's your point?

Time maybe not. An accumulation of knowledge over an extended amount of time remove misunderstandings held by common perception to be the truth. Flat earth my example again.

By that logic, in 6000 years time, we'll be seen as backward, but that doesn't alter our individual selves now. We can understand that there is more to the universe, but we know those discoveries may take place long after we're gone.

Objectively religion is a hyped up fairy tale following the lines of mythological stories that have dominated social beliefs all throughout humanities time.

Religion is a guide in how to become self-realised, how to use your human potential the best way you can. What you refer to, are historical accounts and stories, some true, some not, the actual religion is the instruction, and there is no fairy tales in them. In fact some of those laws are still part of the foundation of some societies, and form part of the moral basis of most people throughout the world, regardless of whether they are religious or not.

Ignorance of something to me means you're missing out on something important or you're willfully ignoring it. I don't seem to be missing out on anything when it comes to religion, why would I want to instill prejudice and ignorance into my mind by coming to believe something that multiplies human weaknesses?

The logical fallacies are deafning. But i take your point.

First you disagree then you agree.

My interest is religion, not institutionalised religion. If that is what you term as religion, then you can count me an atheist.

Religion was hegemony.

Not religion itself, but how it was used.

It was the means of social control. However,

That's more like it.

at the same time it was the silver lining to all those many people who had hard lives.

It still is. The difference is in the interpretation. The powers that be who used religion as such a tool, explained the scriptures in the way that they saw them, we can understand that they weren't correct.

The thought of something better is seductive.

The first book in genisis teaches that.

I do not wonder at why religion has perpetuated in so many forms,

That's just it, it hasn't. Religion is one thing.

I think it is a great crime to remove the teaching of evolution from schools. It is a step backwards.

Evolution is prominent in society and as such should be taught in schools. But as i stated before, it should be made clear that it is not a fact, but a theory. And the students should be given the opportunity to make an informed choice as to what they believe.

Jan Ardena.

Jan, have you read Robert Bellah's work? "Religious Evolution" is a often cited work that describes 5 stages of religious development that offers a good perspective on the structure and characteristics of various forms of religion.

If you'd like it, PM me.

Bellah, Robert (1964). "Religious Evolution," American Sociological Review. Vol 29, pp. 358-374.

JustARide,

As for his quote about Jesus -- it should be noted that admiring a person or a story does not connote belief in the all the religious baggage attached to him/it.

But that has nothing to do with the content of his quote. To prove that Einstein did not believe in God, you have to dismantle that quote, because that quote shows that he had maximum respect for Jesus and the gospels, and that he believes that neither is a myth.
And yet he is a brilliant scientist with a brilliant mind.

Well, I responded to your one quote with ample followup quotes that show the true nature of Einstein's belief. I even quoted Einstein's refutation of lies that were often told about him (i.e., that he had renounced atheism and converted to theism). I've read several biographies of Einstein as well as many of his own writings and the quote you chose is an anomaly - not the defining quote of his life (as he never repeated it later in life, to my knowledge).

I urge you to read Einstein's writing or any decent biography. If you want me to give you the context of your Jesus quote, allow me:


The quote in question comes from a 1929 interview with George Sylvester Viereck. Einstein was schooled in both Catholic and Jewish traditions and developed a deep respect for both of them. His religious fervor changed, however, when he discovered science. Einstein himself sums up the change in this quote:

The following is an excerpt Albert Einstein's Autobiographical Notes, Open Court Publishing Company, LaSalle and Chicago, Illinois, 1979. These paragraphs appear on pp 3 & 5.

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.

Your selected quote comes from a very idealistic period in Einstein's life when, indeed, he entertained several religious traditions and found inspiration in a number of denominations. That is not, however, the whole picture.

As is the case with many people, Einstein's religious opinions underwent an evolution throughout his life. The Jesus quote came prior to the last 25 years of his life, when much of this change took place. If you want an accurate view of Einstein's changing ideas about religion, just track his quotes from the 1920s through his death in 1955. Here is a very telling one from "A Talk with Einstein":

It is quite possible that we can do greater things than Jesus, for what is written in the Bible about him is poetically embellished.

Here, in a 1950 letter (five years before his death), Einstein explained his position as agnostic:

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.

In fact, Einstein's last wish was that he NOT be buried according to any religious tradition. So, it is not correct to assume Einstein's belief in Jesus or the gospels or even in a personal God based on one relatively early quote. Later in life, Einstein described his early beliefs as the product of "childish" thinking and made it abundantly clear that he no longer identified with the stories of the Bible, but instead described God in terms of a cosmic, universal wonder.

You can go ahead and cast the Christian shadow over Einstein's entire life based on selective early quotes, but then you might as well go ahead and quote Siddartha Gautama when he was living in luxury before he left and became the Buddha.

Josh

It's just a ride. - Bill Hicks

Nowhere have i said that he did.Then please show me where that quote indicates a belief in God.

You're missing the point.Then please tell me what your point is.

The personality of Jesus, as depicted in the "Gospels" was his devotion to God. Within all his teachings, God is at the centre. Don't you think that if Einstein was a deist he would have been more specific as to the aspect of Jesus' personality which fills him with so much awe and respect.Not when you put the quotation back into context. The question to which he was replying was whether he believed in a historical Jesus. Einstein's reply is that yes, he does.

Personally, I feel much the same way. I do believe that there was a real person that fit much of the character described in the NT. I also believe that these accounts have been altered to fit the myths that have grown around the persona. This is common, if not ubiquitous, of powerful historical personages. For instance, Marie Antoinette never said "Let them eat cake" and George Washington never cut down his father's cherry tree.

Einstein stated this precisely in another interview, "It is quite possible that we can do greater things than Jesus, for what is written in the Bible about him is poetically embellished."

When questioned about God specifically, Einstein was somewhat aloof but he did specify several things:

"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. 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."

"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."

"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."

These, as opposed to your previous quote, are rather specific. To Einstein, God is simply the aspect of being that science reveals, the complexity of the Universe. God does not make demands, take interest, or interfere in human events; he does not sit in judgment or proscribe morality. Einstein's God does not even have a will. An active, personal God to Einstein is impossible, his behavior inexcusable. Finally we can see that he simply found no use for most conceptions of God, "To assume the existence of an unperceivable being ... does not facilitate understanding the orderliness we find in the perceivable world."

~Raithere

"No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life."

The personality of Jesus, as depicted in the "Gospels" was his devotion to God. Within all his teachings, God is at the centre. Don't you think that if Einstein was a deist he would have been more specific as to the aspect of Jesus' personality which fills him with so much awe and respect.
What is "the myth?"
Is it that the idea of a god, is nothing more than a comfort blanky (as put by atheroy), that God is just a figment of primitive man's imagination, that God is just a mental construct and no more real than the toothfairy???
So doesn't Einstein give credit to the gospel and Jesus by stating that "no myth is filled with such life?

Yes, Einstein said that the story of Jesus was not a myth.
That does not mean he was a Christian.

Einstein stated on numerous occassions that he was not a believer in a personal God.
Ergo, Einstein was not a Christian.

Ignoring the inaccuracies of the original post the saddest commentary about this is that as of this morning on national news, (9) states currently are considering state laws that can cause a teacher to be fired if she/he refuses to teach "Intelligent Design" as an alternative to "Evolution".

They are getting away with it by not claiming the intelligent designer was God, hence it no longer violates the seperation of church and state.

There needs to be a out cry by logical and scientific minds against this trend.

No...

There needs to be a resurgence in Nordic worship.

Let the blood of the Abrahamic slave-race be spilt on the Altars of Woden!

Jan

To what extent?
To the extent where the Anglican church had to change the 25th of December to Jesus' birth date because they couldn't stop people from celebrating the pagan festival which was the original holiday. I have studied history (different centuries and periods) and I find it ridiculous that you would so freely question the fact that the overwhelming majority of people all throughout time believed in some form of religion (christianity dominating the 'western european' countries for the last 1500 years or so). The small amount of atheists we see now are grouped under this term because we share one similar point of view- but we are hardly unified and are only noticeable now because we can speak freely and not be persecuted for our views (though I dispute that statement).

Different peoples understanding of the same thing. In all communities you will find diversions.
This leads on from what I was saying above. My point about the different sects of christianity; people interpreted what they believed was ultimately the truth- people interpreted the bible differently (hello different sects) but they never questioned the bible itself, or the truth it laid out. The bible was it. Whether the bible was the real mccoy wasn't something people sat down and discussed, it was the beginning and end word.

People were able to come to different interpretations over what they thought they knew, but the conclusion that a god existed was probably believed by the majority.

And probably not. There is no way of telling is there?
Where do you think all the sects of Christianity came from? That is my logic right there. People interpreted but didn't question. They believed so the idea perpetuated, just in a slightly different form.

It s easy to see why people would think the world was flat, but we now know it isn't. What's your point?
I disagree with you; the gentle curve is quite obvious to the naked eye at sea level and even more obvious at a height. My point was everyone believed this point blindly until one fellow investigated it and found the belief to be completely false. He was then thrown in gaol by the church and condemned at large until time and further discoveries proved him right. This leads on why I think you're statement here is so loose...
So you know for sure that no-one questioned creationism, everybody just conformed to the governments/churches wishes? Because this is the standard of evidence you would need to give credence to your point, otherwise i can only accept it as your opinion which i do not currently agree with.
People just believed in the idea of a flat earth. Likewise people just believed in creationism; it has only been questioned recently because we have developed a set of theories that are based in this world and universe- they aren't close to a made up story that bears no resemblance to the truth of what is around us (bible).

By that logic, in 6000 years time, we'll be seen as backward
If society and human knowledge keeps developing of course we will. In ten, fifty or a hundred years the same statement will apply. I'm trying to show you why religion is stupid, or perhaps more appropriately, why a belief in religion is stupid. It is out moded. It is completely farcical. Something much better is taking its place and it is commonly called science.

Religion is a guide in how to become self-realised, how to use your human potential the best way you can.
I can see how the crusades were reaching our human potential. I can see how polygamy is reaching is self-realising. I can see how blowing oneself up is reaching potential. I can see how allowing the main patriarchal voice perpetuate is furthering women's causes. Yep, I see it all, and I've stopped because people don't like it when someone goes on and on.

In fact some of those laws are still part of the foundation of some societies, and form part of the moral basis of most people throughout the world, regardless of whether they are religious or not.
Yeah, it's played an important roll, but it is time again we grow with our understanding of what's around us. In fact, it is the best time to move on because we can change our thinking and therefore our future for the better (born again's are going to be the end of us).

The logical fallacies are deafning. But i take your point.
Please explain to me the logical fallacies because I don't see them nor are they deafening to me either.

First you disagree then you agree.

This helps the masses in general, keep some kind of order
I was meaning the fact that you refer to the masses where before you said the masses were quite open to question explicitly what they believed. I wouldn't bother answering this as I got my lines of thought crossed.

Religion was hegemony.

Not religion itself, but how it was used.
May I ask what the difference is? And if we conclude that god is divine and omniscient and he has laid it all out in the bible he is hegemonic by definition.

The thought of something better is seductive.

The first book in genisis teaches that
I was describing why everyone believed in christianity or in the middle ages (western europe where it dominated of course). Heaven was quite literally thought of as a warm place where everyone always had food. It also existed just beyond the silver lining of the clouds. My how time/knowledge has changed our perspective. Once again why I see religion as such a fallacy.

Evolution is prominent in society and as such should be taught in schools. But as i stated before, it should be made clear that it is not a fact, but a theory.
No, I'm sorry. Evolution/natural selection is not theory it is fact. It is fully open to explore and is evident on this world. It helps explain the way we are, why we react to things the way we do. I feel sorry for the fool that disbelieves in evolution/natural selection.

And finally, going back to something you said,
My interest is religion, not institutionalised religion. If that is what you term as religion, then you can count me an atheist.
Whatever your belief of religion is, all forms of religion stem from institutionalised religion. You could say all your beliefs are interpreted from the bible, but the bible is an institution in itself. Whatever you believe, if it is derived from the bible or qu'ran (I'm sorry, I should know how to spell qu'ran but I don't) or some other holy book or text then I say to bad. None of them align with what is around us, to me that would make them almost irrelevant and it does. Maybe when I'm old and frail I might pray to some god but it won't be one associated with any of the texts that exist on this earth which frequently make it look more retarded than your average George W Bush (I don't actually think he's really dumb, but I'm playing on a stereotype for all those who would defend him till the cows come home). That is if gene therapy hasn't come to a point where we might perpetuate indefinitely, that would be sweet.

Apologies if another post appears as well as this in reply to your post. But i tried posting one 2 or 3 times, and it hasn't manifested. So they may all come at once.

Raithere,

Then please show me where that quote indicates a belief in God.

I cannot believe you are asking this question. All of the quote indicates a belief in God.

Then please tell me what your point is.

Jesus never taliked of a personal (to him) God, every living being (including satan) could asociate with God, if they came up to scratch. A personal god is more like the concept of God, Proud Muslim or Jenyar has, where God only operates within a type of community (Christian/Muslim) and every thing else goes to hell, unless they comply.
A personal god is something one either makes up, or try to design God to fit into their likeness.

Not when you put the quotation back into context. The question to which he was replying was whether he believed in a historical Jesus. Einstein's reply is that yes, he does.

That is such a weak answer. There is only one character of Jesus, and that is his devotion to God.

Personally, I feel much the same way. I do believe that there was a real person that fit much of the character described in the NT. I also believe that these accounts have been altered to fit the myths that have grown around the persona.

So when you read the gospels, you feel the personality of Jesus coming through every page? What aspect of Jesus' personality, depicted in the gospels, move you in that way? And what is the myth that was dispelled by Einstein in his quote? Do you dispell it also?

This is common, if not ubiquitous, of powerful historical personages. For instance, Marie Antoinette never said "Let them eat cake" and George Washington never cut down his father's cherry tree.

Well, it is interesting. What kind of a person do you think Jesus was then?

Einstein stated this precisely in another interview, "It is quite possible that we can do greater things than Jesus, for what is written in the Bible about him is poetically embellished."

What else is poetry and embellishment for, if not to describe the highest high. It is the only fitting way to describe such magnificent personalities.

When questioned about God specifically, Einstein was somewhat aloof but he did specify several things:

That quote is pretty explicit though, and does strongly indicate a belief in God. Not a belief in Christianity, but definately in God. And if you are really honest with yourself, you'd stop pussy-footing around and acknowledge that fact. ;)

Albert Einstein had a profound belief in a being, that he could not detect, in any capacity, through his work. And yet he was a brilliant scientist, sometimes referred to as the father of modern-science. A contradiction.....i think NOT!!!!

These, as opposed to your previous quote, are rather specific. To Einstein, God is simply the aspect of being that science reveals, the complexity of the Universe.

Either you are brainwashed, or you are a liar. And i don't mean that as an insult, but an observation.

God does not make demands, take interest, or interfere in human events; he does not sit in judgment or proscribe morality.

God is a spiritual being, humans are material. God's interest in life is the life principle, the soul or spirit. Our day to day events are controlled by nature in accordance with our individual intelligence. If we are bad, then by the laws of nature, we are forced to correct the inbalance. Nature is answerable to God, and operates under His will. Nature has laws, and when these laws are transgressed to the point of Natures unrest, God will intervene and put things right again. He may come Himself, or He may empower one of His asociates, no matter what, law is restored for some time again.

Einstein's God does not even have a will.

No? Then what makes it an “infinitely, superior spirit”, how is it able to reveal itself to our finite, understanding.
Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

An active, personal God to Einstein is impossible, his behavior inexcusable.

You don’t listen do you?
You have something in your head and whoosh..... off you go.

Finally we can see that he simply found no use for most conceptions of God, "To assume the existence of an unperceivable being ... does not facilitate understanding the orderliness we find in the perceivable world."

Thank God for Albert Einstein.

Jan Ardena.

atheroy

I have studied history (different centuries and periods) and I find it ridiculous that you would so freely question the fact that the overwhelming majority of people all throughout time believed in some form of religion (christianity dominating the 'western european' countries for the last 1500 years or so).

Because religion is a natural part of life and to deny it, is folly.

The small amount of atheists we see now are grouped under this term because we share one similar point of view- but we are hardly unified and are only noticeable now because we can speak freely and not be persecuted for our views (though I dispute that statement).

You term atheist the modern definition, which says if you believe in God but act like you don't believe in God, you are a theist. There is something profoundly wrong with that concept. Somehow or other you can believe something, act totally contrary, and still be seen as believing.

This leads on from what I was saying above. My point about the different sects of christianity; people interpreted what they believed was ultimately the truth- people interpreted the bible differently (hello different sects) but they never questioned the bible itself, or the truth it laid out. The bible was it. Whether the bible was the real mccoy wasn't something people sat down and discussed, it was the beginning and end word.

I've read books from people 50/80 years ago, where they have described the bible, Jesus and God, and they are so intelligent and thoughtful. Their ideas and understandings are extremely clever, insightful, broadminded and profound. I think they outshine some of todays authors, who have everything at their fingertips.

That is my logic right there. People interpreted but didn't question. They believed so the idea perpetuated, just in a slightly different form.

That is terribly arrogant of you, and the disease has spread like wild-fire on these forums.

It s easy to see why people would think the world was flat, but we now know it isn't. What's your point?

My point was everyone believed this point blindly until one fellow investigated it and found the belief to be completely false.

Thank God for this fellow.

He was then thrown in gaol by the church and condemned at large until time and further discoveries proved him right. This leads on why I think you're statement here is so loose...

The church is not religion, it is not even based on religion, but on ritual.

People just believed in the idea of a flat earth.

So what? Most people now don't.

Likewise people just believed in creationism;

Creation is far more logincal than "it came out of nothing", in fact that sounds obsurd.

it has only been questioned recently because we have developed a set of theories that are based in this world and universe- they aren't close to a made up story that bears no resemblance to the truth of what is around us (bible).

You don't know that the stories are made up, it is only your opinion. And how do you know that the theory of evolution wasn't made up to act as a challenge to creationism, with an intention to divert simple people from the truth?

If society and human knowledge keeps developing of course we will. In ten, fifty or a hundred years the same statement will apply. I'm trying to show you why religion is stupid, or perhaps more appropriately, why a belief in religion is stupid. It is out moded. It is completely farcical. Something much better is taking its place and it is commonly called science.

That is your opinion.

Yeah, it's played an important roll, but it is time again we grow with our understanding of what's around us.

Are you saying we don't understand what's around us? Could you give an example of wht we don't understand.

In fact, it is the best time to move on because we can change our thinking and therefore our future for the better (born again's are going to be the end of us).

How so?

Jan Ardena.

Jan, this is why I love you. We're discussing the same subject matter in the same language yet the conceptions we are attempting to describe are so different it's like we're speaking different languages. Thank you for keeping this fact fresh in my mind.

I cannot believe you are asking this question. All of the quote indicates a belief in God. Believing that Jesus existed as a real person is not the same thing as believing everything he said was correct or that all the stories told about him are true.

A personal god is something one either makes up, or try to design God to fit into their likeness."Personal God" is typically taken to mean a God that involves himself with persons. That is for some reason concerned with what people do. Not exclusivity.

That is such a weak answer. There is only one character of Jesus, and that is his devotion to God.My opinion differs. In fact, of the things he talked about God is the least important IMO. Jesus didn't really say anything new about God. The important things were about Man.

So when you read the gospels, you feel the personality of Jesus coming through every page?I wouldn't say every page, I find some distinct differences between the various gospels and I believe you can simply throw out the Pauline testimony. But yes, I do perceive an underlying identity and philosophy. Sort of like when I read the Declaration if Independence or the Constitution.

What kind of a person do you think Jesus was then?A moral revolutionary. He was angered with people abiding by the letter of the law while simultaneously ignoring the spirit that he believed they were given in.

What else is poetry and embellishment for, if not to describe the highest high. It is the only fitting way to describe such magnificent personalities.Regardless, poetic embellishment is not the literal truth, it's an emotional truth. While I'm happy to work within such a paradigm it doesn't say much about the actual existence of what is described.

That quote is pretty explicit though, and does strongly indicate a belief in God. Not a belief in Christianity, but definately in God. And if you are really honest with yourself, you'd stop pussy-footing around and acknowledge that fact.Again, I will point out that believing that Jesus existed does not mean one must believe that everything he said was true.

Albert Einstein had a profound belief in a being, that he could not detect, in any capacity, through his work.No, what he said was that there was an order or harmony that exists which reveals itself in the world but is beyond comprehension. That's not the same thing as being undetectable.

And yet he was a brilliant scientist, sometimes referred to as the father of modern-science. A contradiction.....i think NOT!!!!Where did I say it was a contradiction?

These, as opposed to your previous quote, are rather specific. To Einstein, God is simply the aspect of being that science reveals, the complexity of the Universe.
Either you are brainwashed, or you are a liar. And i don't mean that as an insult, but an observation.Read more carefully this time:

"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." - Einstein

Nature is answerable to God, and operates under His will. Nature has laws, and when these laws are transgressed to the point of Natures unrest, God will intervene and put things right again. He may come Himself, or He may empower one of His asociates, no matter what, law is restored for some time again.This is what you believe, it is not what Einstein said.

No? Then what makes it an “infinitely, superior spirit”, how is it able to reveal itself to our finite, understanding.
Do you have any idea what you are talking about?Yes, I believe I understand what Einstein was getting at. I suggest you re-read the quotes of his that I posted earlier.

You don’t listen do you?
You have something in your head and whoosh..... off you go.No, I'm fine but you seem to need to read more thoroughly. I'll post the quote again:

"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." - Einstein

Thank God for Albert Einstein.Amen.

~Raithere

1Dude:

You keep refereeing to these scientists as having a 'Christian faith,' but simply being a Christian does not make one a creationist. Generally 'creationist' is a label implying that one doesn't believe in evolution. There are many Christians who are not creationists. Whether or not the universe was created by a supernatural deity is a question the science can't answer, as any serious scientist would tell you.

Jan,

What, no answer to my post? ;) I feel slighted.

I suppose it is more convenient to ignore little things like biographies and blaze right through, defining people by isolated, out-of-context quotes. It certainly saves a lot of time and reading.

By the way, here's a quote from Adolf Hitler:

"I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so."
[to Gen. Gerhard Engel, 1941]

I guess from that one quote, I can extrapolate that Hitler was a Bible-believing, born again, pro-life creationist, huh? Wow, you're right. Context really is a drag. Hey, I hear Fox News is looking for a new correspondent. You would do well, I think.

Josh

It's just a ride. - Bill Hicks

Jan

Because religion is a natural part of life and to deny it, is folly.
I disagree with you. How can you say religion is a natural part of life? I grew up without it and can say I don't or didn't feel unnatural at all growing up without out it. Nothing was missing in my life, I was and am happy. I was consistently top in my class and year throughout college, I never was lacking in friends. For me to have missed out on something oh so natural why have I done so well in life to date?
And denying it because it is based off pumped up stories and myths that have no relevance to the world around us seems a fairly sensible thing to do, especially when it is causing societies around the world to disregard what we're doing to others and the world itself.
Why don't you try answering what I've written?

You term atheist the modern definition, which says if you believe in God but act like you don't believe in God, you are a theist. There is something profoundly wrong with that concept. Somehow or other you can believe something, act totally contrary, and still be seen as believing.
See, this is why you're wrong. You think I make arrogant assumptions, this is you're definition of what all atheists think. You are clearly not an atheist so how can you make that statement of what I or another atheist thinks? It goes back to my trying to make it clear to you that grouping atheists under one term because of one similarly held belief is like ignoring all the sects of christianity and simply unifying them as christian, all of them sharing exactly the same beliefs. It's a flawed analogy but close enough.

I've read books from people 50/80 years ago, where they have described the bible, Jesus and God, and they are so intelligent and thoughtful. Their ideas and understandings are extremely clever, insightful, broadminded and profound. I think they outshine some of todays authors, who have everything at their fingertips.
You do realise that 50 to 80 years ago is very recent, and why would their insights be any less perceptive to those of today?
I'm taking about the middle ages where the nobility and some of the middle class were literate. That is a profoundly small percentage of any population throughout europe (and this was the norm up until very recently). They would have been the only ones to be in a position to question what the bible and their faith was about because they were the only ones who knew explicitly what it was about. The lower class (which by far was the majority) were the people who believed blindly. Hell they went to sermons spoken in latin, they didn't understand, they didn't question, they just believed. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

That is terribly arrogant of you, and the disease has spread like wild-fire on these forums.
If I am guilty of anything it is trying to put forward a legitimate argument on subject matter of which I actually know something about. I was stating that that is how different sects came to existence by my understanding. The bible became widely available (relatively) in the 17th century; people interpreted what they believed and found that their interpretations of what they read in the bible did not align with that of either the roman catholic church or the anglican church. An explosion of sects then followed. Creationism wasn't questioned; creationism was explicitly laid out by the bible. The bible was the source of everyone's and every sects' belief. Do I need to spell it out any further?
And if you find anything terribly arrogant in what I've said maybe you should look at yourself in the mirror some time. This is history I have studied, I'm doing the next logical human step and am interpreting it. I find your assumptions arrogant because I don't see where you are basing any of your theories from fact. Don't you bloody well call me arrogant, I'm riled by that comment to the extreme.

Thank God for this fellow.
So what? Most people now don't.
I was trying to show you why my assumption (and it's not merely an assumption) that everyone believed in creationism and religion wasn't questioned. People believed that the earth was flat for god's sake. I am showing you a parallel to people's belief of creationism. It's based off nothing observed. Like the idea the earth was flat. I can't break this down for you any further.

Creation is far more logincal than "it came out of nothing", in fact that sounds obsurd.
Yes, according to all biological laws of this universe, creationism is in fact more logical :eek: That' my whole point. Such stories aren't based in our universe, nor are they based off anything that has ever remotely occurred in this universe. That is my problem with the bible. That is my problem with people's belief in the bible which in turn makes them believe evolution/natural selection doesn't happen when it obviously does. Speciation is visible within any continent of the world and the ocean. That is evolution/natural selection. You just can't deny it when it is so bloody plain to see to anyone who isn't blinded by their belief in the supernatural (ie religion).

And how do you know that the theory of evolution wasn't made up to act as a challenge to creationism, with an intention to divert simple people from the truth?
Because evolution/natural selection was basically created unknowingly by Mendel, a monk from the list in this thread if I'm not mistaken. It's there to for all to see with open minds.

That is your opinion.
So you don't think our dress sense in the 80's and early 90's was backwards? You don't think our knowledge has vastly improved over the last hundred years to show sufficiently that what we perceived a hundred years ago was backwards? You don't think that what we know now makes knowledge from the very first century AD seem simple in comparison?

Are you saying we don't understand what's around us? Could you give an example of wht we don't understand.
Gee, I don't know? How about you think of everything you don't understand? About the universe. About the earth. About the organisms around us. About the old saying; the more we learn the more we realise the less we know (that's from memory and not perfect). What we don't understand? More like where to start?

How so?
I reckon religion instils a here and now selfishness into people, as well as a righteousness in ones actions that is undeserved; George W Bush anyone? That was my born again comment. Some religious folk obviously not, but christianity is basically an end of the world religion. It focuses people on the wrong thing. We should all be looking to preserve this planet for generations to come; hundreds of millions of dollars should be being spent on finding a different source of power other than crude oil and its derivatives. But it's not. People, instead of getting all angsty about other people, should be helping one another. Religion generally doesn't help this IMO.

I'm surprised you didn't respond to this,
Religion is a guide in how to become self-realised, how to use your human potential the best way you can.

I can see how the crusades were reaching our human potential. I can see how polygamy is self-realising. I can see how blowing oneself up is reaching ones potential. I can see how allowing the main patriarchal voice perpetuate is furthering women's causes. Yep, I see it all, and I've stopped because people don't like it when someone goes on and on.
But not that surprised.

a

Jan,

What, no answer to my post? ;) I feel slighted.

I suppose it is more convenient to ignore little things like biographies and blaze right through, defining people by isolated, out-of-context quotes. It certainly saves a lot of time and reading.

By the way, here's a quote from Adolf Hitler:

"I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so."
[to Gen. Gerhard Engel, 1941]

I guess from that one quote, I can extrapolate that Hitler was a Bible-believing, born again, pro-life creationist, huh? Wow, you're right. Context really is a drag. Hey, I hear Fox News is looking for a new correspondent. You would do well, I think.

Josh

It's just a ride. - Bill Hicks

Please accept my apologies. I did not see your previous post. Having read it i find it very interesting. I will try and respond shortly, as i do not have alot of time at present.

Thanks
Jan Ardena.

JustARide,

Well, I responded to your one quote with ample followup quotes that show the true nature of Einstein's belief. I even quoted Einstein's refutation of lies

That one quote is also part of the true nature of his beliefs. Lets not go down the road of changing what he said or felt, let us try and understand what he means.

As the first way out there was religion, which is implanted into every child by way of the traditional education-machine.

What do you think he means by “implanted” and “traditional “education-machine.” I doubt he is talking about religion in the scriptural sense, but religion in the institutional sense. We already have a good idea of his opinions of institutionalised religion, and quite frankly, I’m not too concerned about it myself. This has nothing to do with his thoughts on God or Jesus.

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.

Could not be true from what perspective? Bearing in mind he is a very young man. How did he happen to become deeply religious at such a young age, despite his parents being secular? What was he looking for and most importantly, how was he being taught and by whom? These are mega-important questions.

The consequence was a positively fanatic orgy of freethinking coupled with the impression that youth is intentionally being deceived by the state through lies;

Here we can see the real source of his rebel, the state, the organised system which lied to its young. For what purpose? He must have realised that he too was under its influence and decided to take matters into his own hands.

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.

What was the religious paradise of youth;

“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.”

It is all part of growing, we want things go the way we plan, then we become disillusioned when things don’t go our way. Fortunately for Einstein, and the world, he delved into the world of science to find truthful answers to his questions. Of course this could may have been the catalyst which gave him such a profound appreciation of real religion, hence his appreciation for Jesus.

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. [/INDENT]

What do you think he means by “road to religious paradise?”
To me it sums up his zeal and then anxiety and frustration at the states understanding/teaching of God.

Your selected quote comes from a very idealistic period in Einstein's life when, indeed, he entertained several religious traditions and found inspiration in a number of denominations.

That does not matter. We should focus on what he said. If he believes in God, then you should not twist his words to make it seem as though he doesn’t.

"To what extent are you influenced by Christianity?"
"As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene."
"Have you read Emil Ludwig's book on Jesus?"
"Emil Ludwig's Jesus is shallow. Jesus is too colossal for the pen of phrasemongers, however artful. No man can dispose of Christianity with a bon mot."
"You accept the historical Jesus?"
"Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life." 7
As is the case with many people, Einstein's religious opinions underwent an evolution throughout his life. The Jesus quote came prior to the last 25 years of his life, when much of this change took place. If you want an accurate view of Einstein's changing ideas about religion, just track his quotes from the 1920s through his death in 1955. Here is a very telling one from "A Talk with Einstein":

I don’t really care too much about his change. I can understand from my own and others existence, that change is inevitable. Very rarely do we make a complete change to the point on not being recognised. An intelligent man evolves, and reading Einstein’s quotes, I am convinced he was an intelligent bloke.

"Do you believe in the God of Spinoza?" Einstein replied as follows:

I can't answer with a simple yes or no. I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. 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. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see a universe marvellously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's pantheism, but admire even more his contributions to modern thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and the body as one, not two separate things.

In fact, Einstein's last wish was that he NOT be buried according to any religious tradition. So, it is not correct to assume Einstein's belief in Jesus or the gospels or even in a personal God based on one relatively early quote.

I can only go of what he himself said.

Later in life, Einstein described his early beliefs as the product of "childish" thinking and made it abundantly clear that he no longer identified with the stories of the Bible, but instead described God in terms of a cosmic, universal wonder.

I am not familiar with this, could you possibly show the quote or exert?

You can go ahead and cast the Christian shadow over Einstein's entire life based on selective early quotes, but then you might as well go ahead and quote Siddartha Gautama when he was living in luxury before he left and became the Buddha.

Here you have lost me to some degree, but I will say one thing, I have never casted a Christian shadow over Einsteins entire life. At least try and understand what I am saying.

Jan Ardena.

Raithere,

We're discussing the same subject matter in the same language yet the conceptions we are attempting to describe are so different it's like we're speaking different languages. Thank you for keeping this fact fresh in my mind.

Not so much different language as different dimensions of language and expression.

Believing that Jesus existed as a real person is not the same thing as believing everything he said was correct or that all the stories told about him are true.

I don't think there was any doubt in Einstiens mind that Jesus existed.

"Personal God" is typically taken to mean a God that involves himself with persons. That is for some reason concerned with what people do. Not exclusivity.

"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.

That may be the "typical" meaning, but that meaning cannot relate to the quote, as he mentions a personal God, and then describes one of its activities, which is to involve itself with persons. If what you say is correct then he would have just said "personal God."

My opinion differs. In fact, of the things he talked about God is the least important IMO. Jesus didn't really say anything new about God. The important things were about Man.

Please enlighten me on these impotant things.

But yes, I do perceive an underlying identity and philosophy. Sort of like when I read the Declaration if Independence or the Constitution.

That's fair enough.

A moral revolutionary. He was angered with people abiding by the letter of the law while simultaneously ignoring the spirit that he believed they were given in.

That's extrordinary. Some would say you're in serious denial though.

Regardless, poetic embellishment is not the literal truth, it's an emotional truth. While I'm happy to work within such a paradigm it doesn't say much about the actual existence of what is described.

So if someone took you old beat up car (assuming) and embellished it, wouldn't it be the same car, only embellished?

Again, I will point out that believing that Jesus existed does not mean one must believe that everything he said was true.

So the quote in question was only expressed to prove that Jesus existed?

No, what he said was that there was an order or harmony that exists which reveals itself in the world but is beyond comprehension. That's not the same thing as being undetectable.

Raithere, you surprise me. How can you say this with a straight face? He said;
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.

What could he possibly mean by "infinitely superior spirit?"

Where did I say it was a contradiction?

I didn't mention you. It's not all about you Rait! :D

This is what you believe, it is not what Einstein said.

Maybe not. But i am familiar the source of Einsteins belief;

"When I read the Bhagavad-Gita and reflect about how God created this universe everything else seems so superfluous." ~ Albert Einstein

Yes, I believe I understand what Einstein was getting at. I suggest you re-read the quotes of his that I posted earlier.

No, I'm fine but you seem to need to read more thoroughly. I'll post the quote again:

"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." - Einstein

I bet he was talking about a personal God, as prescribed by institutionalised religion.

Amen.

At last we agree on something. Salud! :cool: :m:

Love
Jan Ardena.

That one quote is also part of the true nature of his beliefs. Lets not go down the road of changing what he said or felt, let us try and understand what he means.

I'm not changing anything, Jan. Einstein himself changed his own beliefs throughout his life - it's a common thing.




Could not be true from what perspective? Bearing in mind he is a very young man. How did he happen to become deeply religious at such a young age, despite his parents being secular? What was he looking for and most importantly, how was he being taught and by whom? These are mega-important questions.

Could not be true from what perspective? HIS fucking perspective. Why the hell do you think he said it?

Einstein was looking for answers, whether scientifically or religiously found. At the start of his life, he discovered religion and appreciated the Jewish and Christian traditions. What you seem not to be able to reconcile is the fact that people change, brilliant people especially. The quote you used is also from a rather young age, but yet you do not want to discount it.


It is all part of growing, we want things go the way we plan, then we become disillusioned when things don’t go our way. Fortunately for Einstein, and the world, he delved into the world of science to find truthful answers to his questions. Of course this could may have been the catalyst which gave him such a profound appreciation of real religion, hence his appreciation for Jesus.

No, actually it wasn't. Because you're quoting him in reverse order -- as if he found science and that somehow led him to an appreciation of religion. It was, in fact, the other way around, with Einstein beginning with religion and slowly moving away from it into a more agnostic area, where he started to define God with more and more vague terminology (often encompassing a broader view each time).

What drove Einstein is obviously his desire for truth, for understanding. This took him down many paths, including religion. Look, I have no stake in whether or not Einstein could be considered a Christian or not, but I am interested in him, his life, his exploits, his changing view of things. I am not trying to promote an atheist version of Einstein (after all, I'm not even an atheist myself), but I do have interest in the truth. And the truth of his life is not as simple as one early quote.

You mention "growth," but you seem to be denying the fact that he largely outgrew traditional religion and that the scope of what he termed "God" changed throughout his life - and NOT in the direction of Christianity, but in the direction of science and some might say a kind of cosmic mysticism.



What do you think he means by “road to religious paradise?”
To me it sums up his zeal and then anxiety and frustration at the states understanding/teaching of God.

Well, that's because, as I said, you seem desperate to interpret Einstein's life through this religious filter that you've created out of a selective quote from early in his life. You're seeing it through the lens of what you WANT him to be, not what he was (by any account he or others have written).



That does not matter. We should focus on what he said. If he believes in God, then you should not twist his words to make it seem as though he doesn’t.

I'm not twisting anything. He said it!

When it comes to proving someone was a believer, Christians like to open the "God" net very wide - conveniently forgetting that a million different things can be meant by the word "God." Then, when it comes to disproving someone is a believer, they restrict the definition and add layers upon layers of specificity, so as to exclude. This allows them to say "Einstein believed in God" and "Hitler didn't believe in God." But they're straining the definition in both ways to suit their purposes.

The key to understanding Einstein's changing spirituality is to look how he redefined "God" throughout his life - starting, like most, with the basic, traditionalist Biblical/Torah view and then broadening his horizons with science and considering God as less of a personal being and more of universal notion. By the end, Einstein said he not only doubted but was slightly disgusted by the idea of a God who judges and rewards people. My point is: his ideas evolved far beyond what even a liberally-minded Christian would call "Christian."


I don’t really care too much about his change. I can understand from my own and others existence, that change is inevitable. Very rarely do we make a complete change to the point on not being recognised. An intelligent man evolves, and reading Einstein’s quotes, I am convinced he was an intelligent bloke.

Yes, he was. But you're trying to fit him into a mold that you've created out of what you wish he had been, ostensibly a Christian.

The reason you aren't interested in his "change" is because it seems to violate some requirement you have set up for him: that he believed in Jesus and God his entire life. You don't want to recognize the change because it points in a direction that is not at all like the Jesus quote you seem to like so much.



I am not familiar with this, could you possibly show the quote or exert?

I quoted it before on the previous page. Why am I not surprised you didn't read/remember it...

Look, it is intellectually dishonest to take a selective set of quotes from a select point in ANYBODY's life, much less Einstein's, and try to paint him into a religious corner. Einstein himself made it clear he would not be pidgeonholed in that manner, though people tried (mostly Christians who wanted to say Einstein was "on their side" so to speak). I think an honest appraisal of Einstein's life reveals that he DID change, did move forward, and did largely leave behind any traditional view of God, including the Bible's interpretation. He denounced the idea of a personal god and the notion that anyone survives beyond death. Surely, these were signs that he was not a rabid believer in the religious teachings of Jesus - because those are two of the central tenets Jesus taught! (That does not mean he might have continued believing that man named Jesus existed once upon a time.) Now, if you want to argue that Einstein believed in some different version of Jesus, one who taught nothing about a personal God or life after death, be my guest, but you'll be hard up to find evidence of that Jesus existing in the Bible.

What about my Hitler quote? Where he claimed he would always be a Catholic? Did that prove that Hitler was a Christian? What if we read Hitler's entire life through the lens of that ONE quote? It wouldn't be accurate, by any stretch of the imagination. That's the mistake you're making. You're loading a huge significance onto one quote and basically picking apart all others to try to make them fit that one (and, in the process, denying the ability of people to change opinions). I dare say if Einstein had said on his deathbed, "I don't believe in Jesus, the Bible, or God," you'd still have a reason why he didn't really mean that.

Josh

It's just a ride. - Bill Hicks

Not so much different language as different dimensions of language and expression.Or using the same language to express common concepts from entirely difference frames of reference. In any case, I'm glad to have someone remind me so clearly that no two people are ever really discussing the same thing.

I don't think there was any doubt in Einstiens mind that Jesus existed.Nor do I. He doesn't seem to agree with everything Jesus is said to have believed though.

Please enlighten me on these impotant things.You already know them, "Do unto others...", "Let he who is without sin...", "Love your enemies..." etc.

That's extrordinary. Some would say you're in serious denial though.Denial of what? :)

So if someone took you old beat up car (assuming) and embellished it, wouldn't it be the same car, only embellished?Not quite the same thing. The mechanical equivalent would be like removing the 120hp engine and putting in a 500hp engine. In which case, it wouldn't really be the same car.

So the quote in question was only expressed to prove that Jesus existed?It doesn't prove anything about Jesus. It's just Einstein's expression of belief that the man did exist.

Raithere, you surprise me. How can you say this with a straight face? He said;
...
What could he possibly mean by "infinitely superior spirit?"Who said I was keeping a straight face? :D Anyway, Einstein's statements only seem contradictory if you continue to insist on a literal rather than a figurative interpretation of such phrases and words as "infinitely superior spirit". But I believe he answers your question here:

"But whoever has undergone the intense experience of successful advances made in this domain (science), is moved by the profound reverence for the rationality made manifest in existence. By way of the understanding he achieves a far reaching emancipation from the shackles of personal hopes and desires, and thereby attains that humble attitude of mind toward the grandeur of reason, incarnate in existence, and which, in its profoundest depths, is inaccessible to man. This attitude, however, appears to me to be religious in the highest sense of the word. And so it seems to me that science not only purifies the religious impulse of the dross of its anthropomorphism but also contributes to a religious spiritualisation of our understanding of life." - Einstein

Maybe not. But i am familiar the source of Einsteins belief;I can hardly take one, often misquoted sentence as evidence that the BG was the source of Einstein's spiritual beliefs. Do you know of any other direct references?

Yes, I believe I understand what Einstein was getting at. I suggest you re-read the quotes of his that I posted earlier.I think that Einstein's belief could most fairly be considered Cosmotheism.

"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature." - Einstein

I bet he was talking about a personal God, as prescribed by institutionalised religion.I believe he was talking about any God who would allow such "punishment" to continue.

~Raithere

Jan Ardena,

[quote]Posted by JustARide:"I'm not changing anything, Jan. Einstein himself changed his own beliefs throughout his life - it's a common thing."

[b]Another famous Einstien quote: "It is a sign of intelligence to be able to change ones mind on major issues".

Since religion tends to be dogmatic, is it not appropriate therefore to view religion as an "unintelligent" position?

JustARide,

Could not be true from what perspective? HIS fucking perspective. Why the hell do you think he said it?

I did not say from HIS perspective. I said from WHAT fucking perspective. What part of the stories in the bible weren’t true? You’ll notice he didn’t say the bible wasn’t true nor did he say the stories in the bible weren’t true. But “much of the stories weren’t true. He doesn’t say what aspect of the stories were false to him, which is why I posed some mega-questions.
Remember? :rolleyes:

What you seem not to be able to reconcile is the fact that people change, brilliant people especially.

I’m sorry. But are you taking the piss? Read my last post to you.

No, actually it wasn't. Because you're quoting him in reverse order -- as if he found science and that somehow led him to an appreciation of religion. It was, in fact, the other way around, with Einstein beginning with religion and slowly moving away from it into a more agnostic area, where he started to define God with more and more vague terminology (often encompassing a broader view each time).

I’m not interested in your personal opinion, unless it can be backed it up with something.

Look, I have no stake in whether or not Einstein could be considered a Christian or not, but I am interested in him, his life, his exploits, his changing view of things.

This is why dialogue with mind-sets like yourself is often-times pointless. You think Christianity is what "religion" is. Because somebody expresses a profound respect for Jesus, means they are “Christian” and they believe in a “Judeo-Christian god. This is how I know you have absolutely no idea what religion actually is. And this is the problem in this dialogue, you have absolutely no idea what Mr. Einstien is talking about because you translate everything in Judeo-Christian terms.
Wake up mate, there’s more to most things than you think.

I am not trying to promote an atheist version of Einstein (after all, I'm not even an atheist myself),

Yeah right!
What are you if not atheist?

but I do have interest in the truth. And the truth of his life is not as simple as one early quote.

So you think I’m summing up his life in one quote, huh?LOL!
If you are seriously interested in truth, then you must listen carefully to what is being said. Before you write religion off, at least gain some understanding of what it is.

You mention "growth," but you seem to be denying the fact that he largely outgrew traditional religion and that the scope of what he termed "God" changed throughout his life - and NOT in the direction of Christianity, but in the direction of science and some might say a kind of cosmic mysticism.

I’m going to say this one last time, and if you cannot grasp it, then don’t bother me again regarding this subject matter. Christianity, Judaism and Islam, are not RELIGION. They are denominations of RELIGION, under the control of man. RELIGION will always be there, as it is not man-made.
It is RELIGION, that Mr. Einstein is interested in.
Jesus, is not Christian, Islamist nor practising Jew. At no time does he adhere to any form of sectarianism, if anything he wanted it abolished.
If you can absorb this, then we can move on.

Well, that's because, as I said, you seem desperate to interpret Einstein's life through this religious filter that you've created out of a selective quote from early in his life.

You think I’m desperate huh!
LOL!!! Maybe it is you who is desperate. I have nothing to lose if he believes or not, it doesn’t alter my position, he may be a brilliant scientist, but before God, he is soul, just like the rest of us.
But what of you? Would you say he is deluded, ignorant, a believer of invisible beings, irrational and all the other nonsense spurted by some atheists? Would he still be regarded as a most brilliant scientist, "the father of modern-science?
Perhaps you could share with us what it would mean to you, if you knew he believed in God.

You're seeing it through the lens of what you WANT him to be, not what he was (by any account he or others have written).

Nonsense lies.

I'm not twisting anything. He said it!

Fibber! :rolleyes:

When it comes to proving someone was a believer, Christians like to open the "God" net very wide - conveniently forgetting that a million different things can be meant by the word "God."

Oh really! God with an upper-case “G” can mean millions of things. Give me 10 things it could mean.

This allows them to say "Einstein believed in God" and "Hitler didn't believe in God." But they're straining the definition in both ways to suit their purposes.

Einstein believed in God, that is undoubtable. The fact that you don’t want him to be known as someone who believes in God, and are prepared to blatantly lie, for the world (potentially) to see, is your problem, not mine! My job (as I see it) is to expose you for what you are, which at present, is very easy, and somewhat pleasurable.
So what if Hitler believed in God? How would that alter anything? :confused:

Einstein said he not only doubted but was slightly disgusted by the idea of a God who judges and rewards people.

You are so predictable. I’ll tell you what, find out who and what God is, and then you will go some way to understanding what Mr. Einstein means.
My advice is to read the Bhagavad Gita. Einstein himself was a lover of the BG, so it is quite possible that you might gain some insight into his understanding of God.

I quoted it before on the previous page. Why am I not surprised you didn't read/remember it...

Let me spell for you. I am not familiar with this exert or quote, FROM EINSTEIN HIMSELF OR SOMEBODY CLOSE TO HIM.

Look, it is intellectually dishonest to take a selective set of quotes from a select point in ANYBODY's life, much less Einstein's, and try to paint him into a religious corner.

Please please please, do not lecture me on intellectual honesty, in light of your….truthfully challenged assault on everything we are discussing. It’s just plain hypocritical and potentially annoying.

What about my Hitler quote? Where he claimed he would always be a Catholic? Did that prove that Hitler was a Christian?

Do you think it matters to me whether Hitler was Catholic or Christian?
Are you even reading what I’m writing?

Jan Ardena.

Raithere

I'm glad to have someone remind me so clearly that no two people are ever really discussing the same thing.

Whatever! :rolleyes:

Nor do I. He doesn't seem to agree with everything Jesus is said to have believed though.

I don’t know. Is there any thing you can offer to illuminate your claim?

You already know them, "Do unto others...", "Let he who is without sin...", "Love your enemies..." etc.

No I don’t, please point them out and explain in more detail;.

Denial of what?

Of God, who else? You want the whole deal, just not God.
Cris once said that the Bhagavad Gita would be a great book, if it didn’t have all that God stuff in it.
That’s when it dawned on me, that he hasn’t got a clue, and morning has broken again.

Not quite the same thing. The mechanical equivalent would be like removing the 120hp engine and putting in a 500hp engine. In which case, it wouldn't really be the same car.

What if you gave it a polish and vacuum, would it be the same car then?

It doesn't prove anything about Jesus. It's just Einstein's expression of belief that the man did exist.

Lets not forget the little things like his “FEELING” the ACTUAL PRESENCE of Jesus, and his PERSONALITY PULSTA