More proof that religion is dangerous
- Thread starter PsychoticEpisode
- Start date
Funny way for an atheist to talk, about his religion involving admiration for an illimitable superior spirit.
The most beautiful and most profound religious emotion that we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. And this mysticality is the power of all true science. If there is any such concept as a God, it is a subtle spirit, not an image of a man that so many have fixed in their minds. In essence, my religion consists of a humble admiration for this illimitable superior spirit that reveals itself in the slight details that we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. [Einstein interview with Peter Bucky]
His [the scientist's] religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection. [Einstein - The World As I See It]
God is subtle, but he is not malicious.
Inscribed in Fine Hall, Princeton University.
Before God we are all equally wise - equally foolish.
Quoted in Des MacHale, Wisdom (London, 2002).
The most beautiful and most profound religious emotion that we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. And this mysticality is the power of all true science. If there is any such concept as a God, it is a subtle spirit, not an image of a man that so many have fixed in their minds. In essence, my religion consists of a humble admiration for this illimitable superior spirit that reveals itself in the slight details that we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. [Einstein interview with Peter Bucky]
His [the scientist's] religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection. [Einstein - The World As I See It]
God is subtle, but he is not malicious.
Inscribed in Fine Hall, Princeton University.
Before God we are all equally wise - equally foolish.
Quoted in Des MacHale, Wisdom (London, 2002).
The following, except for the comments in blue by me, are from Einstein, The Life and Times, by Ronald W. Clark:
Page 516:
And Prince Hubertus of Lowenstein reports him as saying, in the United States, before the Second World War: "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for support of such views." [The author adds a "maybe" after this sentance and then describes a controversial newspaper article by A.E. that attacked mainstream religion. Fine. Einstein's views on traditional monotheism and a personal God are quite clear and in keeping with the atheist view. So what? He was a pantheist, and pantheism is another form of theism. It is certainly not atheism.]
His friend Max Born observed that "he had no belief in the Church, but did not think that religious faith was a sign of stupidity, nor unbelief a sign of intelligence."
[Good thing Einstein isn't around to post on this forum. That last sentiment would have gotten him mauled by more than one person here.]
Page 516:
And Prince Hubertus of Lowenstein reports him as saying, in the United States, before the Second World War: "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for support of such views." [The author adds a "maybe" after this sentance and then describes a controversial newspaper article by A.E. that attacked mainstream religion. Fine. Einstein's views on traditional monotheism and a personal God are quite clear and in keeping with the atheist view. So what? He was a pantheist, and pantheism is another form of theism. It is certainly not atheism.]
His friend Max Born observed that "he had no belief in the Church, but did not think that religious faith was a sign of stupidity, nor unbelief a sign of intelligence."
[Good thing Einstein isn't around to post on this forum. That last sentiment would have gotten him mauled by more than one person here.]
Last edited:
Without supernatural beings.(Q) said:
(sorry for the cross-conversation)
(Q) said:
If you have some additional information, please share it instead of the laconic replies that don't support anything. In spite of all I have read to the contrary, I'm still giving your position the benefit of the doubt. The pantheistic quotes are abundant. The only "atheistic" statements I have seen (such as what geeser posted above) are the ones in which he makes it clear that he does not subscribe to the notion of a personal God - he is an atheist from the viewpoint of a Jesuit preist. Of course, that is the case for any pantheist.
Where Buddhism was introduced in areas with a pre-existing pantheon of supernatural beings, these were incorporated into the mythology. What makes Buddhism rational is that the mythology is not central to the belief system, but only decoration. Therefore, no Buddhist would defend the idea of gods and demons with violence.
(Q) said:
Just because he didn't widely make such announcements (although he made it pretty clear he didn't buy into a personal God) doesn't mean he was an atheist.
What do we have to support the notion that he was indeed a "closet" atheist and that the pantehism was just a big put-on? Testimony from friends, relatives? Can you point me towards something? Certainly it is conceivable that what you say is correct, it is sort of plausible, (although I'd expect A.E. to be more honest) but assuming you did not know the man yourself, what can you offer beyond the fact that is plausible? His pantheism is also quite plausible, and it has the advantage that it is supported by what he said and by what others said about him.
Again, I look at the quotes provided by people he knew, when he wasn't speaking publicly, as in the quotes from the Clark biography.
Or from the Calaprice book The Expanded Quotable Einstein:
Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source . . . They are creatures who can't hear the music of the spheres.
I think they are natural concepts. There are rational reasons for believing in both, they don't require faith.
(Q) said:
Well, I'm honest enough to admit that it is a possibility but I need a little more evidence than the hearsay on a message board, I'm afraid. I anxiously await something more tangible that I can follow up on.
Moreover, much of my impressions about A.E. I developed from my profs (at the physics departments at the Univ. of Utah and Colorado State University), not from "the" church.
Well, I'm honest enough to admit that it is a possibility but I need a little more evidence than the hearsay on a message board, I'm afraid.
Would you rather receive hearsay from a search engine? You did.
Moreover, much of my impressions about A.E. I developed from my profs (at the physics departments at the Univ. of Utah and Colorado State University), not from "the" church.
And your profs knew Albert personally?
Would you rather receive hearsay from a search engine? You did.
Moreover, much of my impressions about A.E. I developed from my profs (at the physics departments at the Univ. of Utah and Colorado State University), not from "the" church.
And your profs knew Albert personally?
OK,Lerxst said:
We are made up of hardware and software, the hardware being our bodies and brains, and the software is what we are taught (or culture), which is our actual self, which is finally, an illusion. While the hardware keeps getting renewed as babies are born, the software of culture has a continuity and of the most concern in Buddhist philosophy, since it creates the illusion of self. Buddhism describes a way to break the continuity of culture through certain mental techniques so that instead of being a reincarnation of past disfunctional patterns, you become a truly unique being that does not get reborn.
When you teach your children or peers deliberately or unintentionally to share your mental state, it's the same as getting reborn over and over. The thing you think of as "you" has less to do with what your skin contains than your experience, ideas and culture.
Secondarily, and of lesser importance, is the obvious fact that our bodies are manifestations of a continuous process of recycling organic material through the biosphere.
Last edited:
(Q) said:
A bit from Google, sure, sitting here in my cube. But also from books on my shelf at home. I have little doubt about the veracity of those quotes, thanks. On the other hand, I have no reason as yet to think your opinion is anything than just that. But again, I'm not going to dismiss it out of hand, because there is some chance it might be correct. I'd love to see some support for it. Really. I would.
(Q) said:
Nope. The closest thing is that my senior year undergrad QM prof at Utah got to hear him at a colloquim when he (my prof) was in grad school, and met him briefly. That is all. (But I sure was excited when he told the class about this to think that I was only one degree of separation from A.E.
) Did you know him personally?