Albert Einstein, "Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium", 1941
What do we make from this quote?
What do we make from this quote?
What was the surrounding context and how did Einstein view religion? We know he was pantheistic and despised the concept of personal gods.
He saw the universe and the laws of physics as spiritual in essence, and that doesn't imply supernatural in any sense. He felt that those who simply used science without feeling were missing so much.
lightgigantic said:Albert Einstein, "Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium", 1941
What do we make from this quote?
I think atheistic philosophies could well take the place of it, or just a sense of the wonder and majesty of existence.For someone who didn't believe in a personal God, he was unusual in recognising the purpose and value of religion in our collective and personal lives. Lesser men - the atheist inquisitors of the modern age: Dawkins, Dennett, Stenger et. al. would do well to pay heed!
I think that's your full quote. He didn't believe in the typical definition of God, Christian/Muslim/Jewish, he simply used God as a sort of metaphor for the universe or nature. If you weren't trying to get him to be on your side you'd probably just consider him an atheist.
For the latter God is a being from whose care one hopes to benefit and whose punishment one fears; a sublimation of a feeling similar to that of a child for its father, a being to whom one stands to some extent in a personal relation, however deeply it may be tinged with awe.
But the scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation. The future, to him, is every whit as necessary and determined as the past. There is nothing divine about morality, it is a purely human affair.
His 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."
KennyJC said:Clearly not meant to be taken literally. I fail to see how science is lame if there aren't people around who believe in God or that Jesus is the son of God etc.
I agree. For me, what inspires awe is the seeming intelligence behind it's design. Even a common house-fly seems a marvel of engineering. How much more ingenious is the design of a system to create it (and us) from simple molecules like ammonia and methane! I get the same feeling when I see the Fibonacci sequence of numbers in the petals of a flower. That ‘intelligence’ is evident all around in nature!KennyJC said:Is anyone really amazed by an atom and an atom alone? But rather it's the bigger picture that is the fascinating thing in science. To be in awe of one thing in nature is in awe of the whole process... gravity, evolution, matter, space, time... The whole machine working as a whole.
spidergoat said:What is religion anyway?
I think atheistic philosophies could well take the place of it, or just a sense of the wonder and majesty of existence.
Diogenes' Dog said:There are two basic philosophical questions:
1) What is the nature of existence?
2) How should we live?
Science answers the first, but not the second. It doesn't purport to be a guide as to how to live (unless you believe in Eugenics and Social Darwinism!!). In this way, on it's own, and without some sort of "life philosophy" such as religion to inspire us, science is lame.
Atheism does not satisfy the basic human desire for something better.
Life is ultimately unjust and in a world of limited resources - power, money, aggression, manipulation and corruption all enable the rich to remain rich and keep the poor in their place. Might makes right in the struggle for existence.
Religion promises an alternative - 'a kingdom not of this world' (and therefore not attained by the exercise of power, money, aggression etc.). Destroy that hope and only earth based utopias, attained through political revolution can hold out any hope for the disaffected, dienfranchised and angry.
Put in terms of memes (for Dawkins fans), we are better to selectively culture the more benign resident memes that have evolved with us naturally, than destroy our 'natural flora' and open ourselves to new - potentially virulent pathogenic strains arising.
Religion can't want any of those things. Ideas don't have desires. People, on the other hand...KennyJC said:I am seeing a bit of a contradiction between those two paragraphs. Religion has no urge for power, money, aggression, manipulation and corruption? I think you are ignoring history and current events.