Scientists who believed in God

[Jan Ardena]

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.

 

[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.

 

[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!

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! :m:

Love
Jan Ardena.

 

[JustARide]

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

 

[Raithere]

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? 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

 

[MacM]

Jan Ardena,

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

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?

 

[Jan Ardena]

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?

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!

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?

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.

 

[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!

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 PULSTATING in EVERY WORD.
And…NO MYTH IS FILLED WITH SUCH LIFE. Of course these words pale into insignificance when you INFER; “It's just Einstein's expression of belief that the man did exist.”
I don't know how i missed that one.

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".

Why shouldn’t I take him literally?

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

Please kindly explain to me how an “infinitely superior-spirit” is explained in this quote.

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?

Of course it would be misquoted, or something would be amiss, because it shows that Mr. Einstein believes in God and God’s Creation.
I bet it wouldn’t be misquoted if he said he did not believe in God and was an atheist.
As for any other direct reference. None is needed, i have read, am reading and will read BG, so i actually understand what he means, first hand. As such i do not need any other reference.

Jan Ardena.

 

[JustARide]

J
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?

The point is, he started to doubt the Bible's claims. This is not the sign of a steadily growing faith in the Bible-God.

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

You are only allowing for certain changes, based on what you want Einstein to have believed. If I suggested Einstein changed by coming to a greater respect for Jesus and the Bible, then you would no doubt agree with me. But if I state that he steadily grew away from it (which all sources indicate he did), then you seem uninterested. Hmmm.

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

It's not my opinion. It's the opinion of every Einstein biographer I've ever read - including his close associates. But what the hell do they know, huh? I'm sure you have a much more accurate take on Einstein's spirituality based on this one quote you've unearthed and the mountains of generalizations you've worked up to support your case.

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.

Wow, you concocted exactly the speech I would give you. Interesting.

What exactly do you want this dialogue to produce? Were it to produce the conclusion that Einstein strayed from his belief in Jesus and the Bible-God, would you accept that? Not likely. You have a predetermined agenda here. Einstein needs to believe in certain things for you to be happy. I'm asking you to take a look at Einstein's life. READ A BIOGRAPHY. Stop highlighting one quote and pretending it has to be valid for Einstein's entire life.

Clearly, you're not after the truth about Einstein... because you are denying the complexity of his life, and reversing the order of his quotations to somehow show that science led him to religion, or more specifically belief in Jesus (?)

We can have an open dialogue about Einstein's beliefs and cover a wide array of topics, but that's impossible if you continue to insist upon placing gigantic weight on the quotes you like and dismissing or downplaying the others. I'm not saying Einstein never believed in Jesus, or stopped believing that the man existed. None of us can know for sure. All we have is what he said and did. And I think an objective look at Einstein's life does not show any support for this idea you have about his underlying (apparently latent) belief in Jesus.

Yeah right!
What are you if not atheist?

Wow, above you accuse me of only being concerned with my beliefs. Then when I tell you the truth about myself later, you instantly deny it, as if you somehow know more about me than me (I think I'm getting the drift now). THAT is exactly the problem with debating Christians - everyone else must be a God-hating atheist.

I would classify myself much like Einstein did himself - an agnostic, traditionally speaking, but very open to a cosmic brand of mysticism, some might call my leanings "pantheist" if that word still means anything. I was a Christian for 15 years before opening myself up to wider possibilities. I will never tell anyone I KNOW for sure that one spiritual philosophy has to be wrong, because I realize far more in this world is not known than is known. I make no claims when it comes to the nature of God.

This is why I'm such a fan of Einstein. He articulated that openness beautifully, by invoking God in a much larger context than any provided by mainstream religion.

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.

I know what it is and I haven't written it off. I still consider myself oddly religious, though not in a typical fashion. Einstein did not write religion off either, as I have said many times. He maintained a great respect for many religious traditions. All I'm arguing is that trying to cast Einstein as some great believer in Jesus or Jesus' conception of God is not supported by the evidence. (Again, read a biography.)

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.

Nice diatribe, but that's not what you're doing. Judging by your disbelief at my saying I am not an atheist, I'm willing to guess you consider yourself religious (however you describe that). Early in this thread you were holding very tightly to this notion that one quote proved that Einstein believed in Jesus. If you are willing to admit that this is one quote, from very early in fact, does necessarily represent what Einstein became later in life, then we can move on...

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.

Look, as evidenced by the number of exclamation quotes in your response, I think it's fairly easy to draw the impression that you're somewhat passionate, if not desperate, about your position here.

Like I've said before, I have no stake in whether or not Einstein was a believer in God or not. I myself tend to lean toward believing in a very overarching, broad definition of "God" much like Einstein's -or at least a basic spiritual drive that leads man to seek answers to the bigger questions. The question you seem to be posing is, "Would the non-Christian world respect Einstein as much had he been a Christian or believer in a personal, perhaps mainstream, God?" I can't answer that -- all I can say is that he was who he was. There are many brilliant Christians, as there are many brilliant atheists, agnostics, Hindus, what have you. My interest is in what Einstein actually stood for, and history does not suggest that he stood for anything even resembling a Christian outlook. That's not my choice -- that's documented history. Was Einstein lying and saying he was, in some sense, an "agnostic" simply to appease the scientific community? We can never know, though, judging from biographical descriptions of him, it is doubtful he would have publicly altered his beliefs to suit anyone.

Nonsense lies.

Then back it up. I've provided multiple quotations over the last few pages, as well as paraphrased sections of biographies. Where is your proof? Do you have more than one quote and hunch to go on?

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

1. The Christian God.
2. Allah.
3. A special compartment in our brains.
4. "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings" (That's Einstein's definition, as quoted in Einstein: The Life and Times)
5. Mithra.
6. Zeus.
7. A giant taco-farting weasel I just thought up, but happen to believe is God.
8. The goodness in all of us.
9. The sun.
10. Everything that exists.
11. Nature.
12. An uncreated, eternal being (the Tao).
13. Enlightenment.
14. The number infinity (Cantor's final aleph).
15. For guitar players, perhaps Jimi Hendrix.

Need I continue?

Of course God can mean a million different things. That's why we're still here debating him/her/it today. If God had a simple definition, then I think we all could agree this whole shebang would move a lot smoother. If there are/were not different conceptions of God (or rather, definitions), then why did Einstein feel the need to specify that he believed in Spinoza's God as opposed to, say, Wesley's God or Joseph Smith's God?

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.

Look at his quotes. Einstein didn't just say, "I believe in God" and leave it at that. He always followed up with his definition of God, because he wanted to make clear what types of Gods he didn't believe in (among them "personal" Gods, Gods that "reward and judge," "anthropomorphic" Gods, etc.) You are the one who seems bent on prematurely defining just which "God" Einstein was talking about. The fact is Einstein was so vague (and even contradictory) in some of his statements that many different groups have tried to "claim" him, as it were. A small list includes:

Christians, Deists, Pantheists, Agnostics, Atheists, New Agers, Buddhists.

Just run a search on the net and you'll find them. I've posted some below.

I am not averse to saying Einstein believed in some form of God -- the question is how did Einstein define God? And it's obvious from what he wrote and said that his definition was nowhere comparable to what Jesus espoused (a personal, anthropomorphic God who rewards and judges).

So what if Hitler believed in God? How would that alter anything?

I was using him as an example. You found one early quote from Einstein and started talking about how Einstein must have believed in Jesus... because he said, at one time, that he respected the "life" in the Gospels.

Hitler came to mind as an example because his beliefs are also a topic that has been debated about much over the years. I was pointing out that, if we were to take one quote from him ("I am and always have been a Catholic") and took that to be 100%, incontrovertible proof that he was a Christian, that would be inaccurate, sloppy, and lazy. Likewise, it is not appropriate to call Einstein a believer in the Christian God or any other based on one quote.

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.

Well, as long as you're defining God that loosely, then how can you say for sure that Einstein believed? You're saying I can't know what God is. Well, can you? What is God and how do you know A) that your definition is correct, and B) that Einstein believed in that same God?

Please provide quotes and biographical information to back this up.

If we're not arguing over Einstein and the Jesus/Biblical interpretation of God (which is what this discussion ostensibly began as). This much is clear: Jesus taught that God was a personal being who rewarded and judged people. Einstein clearly said he did not believe in a personal God that rewards and judges people. If you want to go off on a tangent and start making up other definitions of God and wondering aloud whether Einstein believed in them, go right ahead. No problem. I'm with ya.

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

Well, try reading my posts and maybe you'll notice it. Here it is again, for your benefit:

"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being." [Albert Einstein]​

Now, what this quote shows is that Einstein did in fact have a respect for our "weakness" in understanding nature and our own being - a very common agnostic quality, in fact. This quote does not prove that Einstein did not believe in God (as I'm sure you were quick to notice), and, once again, I have no problem with saying "Einstein believed in God." All this quote shows is that he did not believe in a personal God, which is what all three of the major monotheistic religions teach. That is ALL.

I'm not trying to discredit Einstein's belief in a God (however you wish to define that), but I am saying there is evidence that his views did NOT coincide with traditional, monotheistic beliefs (i.e., a personal God who somehow interferes in the lives of people). Early in his life, Einstein professed a belief in the traditional God of the Bible/Torah - a personal God. This quote clearly shows that his opinions had changed.

If you want to say God is bigger than that or something other than "personal," be my guest. That is and always has been an open debate. All I'm talking about here is Christianity's take on God as opposed to Einstein's.

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.

Good, I'm glad it's only potentially annoying.

What quote have I supplied that is not authentic? What biographical information have I provided that is not authentic? Conversely, what biographical information have you provided, other than your own take on Einstein's life?

As for Adolf....

Again, I was using Hitler as an EXAMPLE to show how selective use of quotations is wrong and misleading. It's called forming a case. I know you don't give a fuck what Hitler thought. Niether do I. It's an example, an analogy. Kinda like a parable, you know? I'm sure you've heard of that. Sheesh.

Josh

It's just a ride. - Bill Hicks

 

[JustARide]

A few interesting links on the subject:


Here is a Christian site (a tad fundie, though) and their take on Einstein's God:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i1/einstein.asp​

A pantheist take on Einstein:

http://members.aol.com/Heraklit1/einstein.htm​

The rationalist view:

http://www.rationalists.org/rc/1998_summer/einstein.htm​

If you read none of these at all, please, please take a look at this. I'll post it for clarity's sake.

The following article by Albert Einstein appeared in the New York Times Magazine on November 9, 1930 pp 1-4. It has been reprinted in Ideas and Opinions, Crown Publishers, Inc. 1954, pp 36 - 40. It also appears in Einstein's book The World as I See It, Philosophical Library, New York, 1949, pp. 24 - 28.

Everything that the human race has done and thought is concerned with the satisfaction of deeply felt needs and the assuagement of pain. One has to keep this constantly in mind if one wishes to understand spiritual movements and their development. Feeling and longing are the motive force behind all human endeavor and human creation, in however exalted a guise the latter may present themselves to us. Now what are the feelings and needs that have led men to religious thought and belief in the widest sense of the words? A little consideration will suffice to show us that the most varying emotions preside over the birth of religious thought and experience. With primitive man it is above all fear that evokes religious notions - fear of hunger, wild beasts, sickness, death. Since at this stage of existence understanding of causal connections is usually poorly developed, the human mind creates illusory beings more or less analogous to itself on whose wills and actions these fearful happenings depend. Thus one tries to secure the favor of these beings by carrying out actions and offering sacrifices which, according to the tradition handed down from generation to generation, propitiate them or make them well disposed toward a mortal. In this sense I am speaking of a religion of fear. This, though not created, is in an important degree stabilized by the formation of a special priestly caste which sets itself up as a mediator between the people and the beings they fear, and erects a hegemony on this basis. In many cases a leader or ruler or a privileged class whose position rests on other factors combines priestly functions with its secular authority in order to make the latter more secure; or the political rulers and the priestly caste make common cause in their own interests.

The social impulses are another source of the crystallization of religion. Fathers and mothers and the leaders of larger human communities are mortal and fallible. The desire for guidance, love, and support prompts men to form the social or moral conception of God. This is the God of Providence, who protects, disposes, rewards, and punishes; the God who, according to the limits of the believer's outlook, loves and cherishes the life of the tribe or of the human race, or even or life itself; the comforter in sorrow and unsatisfied longing; he who preserves the souls of the dead. This is the social or moral conception of God.

The Jewish scriptures admirably illustrate the development from the religion of fear to moral religion, a development continued in the New Testament. The religions of all civilized peoples, especially the peoples of the Orient, are primarily moral religions. The development from a religion of fear to moral religion is a great step in peoples' lives. And yet, that primitive religions are based entirely on fear and the religions of civilized peoples purely on morality is a prejudice against which we must be on our guard. The truth is that all religions are a varying blend of both types, with this differentiation: that on the higher levels of social life the religion of morality predominates.

Common to all these types is the anthropomorphic character of their conception of God. In general, only individuals of exceptional endowments, and exceptionally high-minded communities, rise to any considerable extent above this level. But there is a third stage of religious experience which belongs to all of them, even though it is rarely found in a pure form: I shall call it cosmic religious feeling. It is very difficult to elucidate this feeling to anyone who is entirely without it, especially as there is no anthropomorphic conception of God corresponding to it.

The individual feels the futility of human desires and aims and the sublimity and marvelous order which reveal themselves both in nature and in the world of thought. Individual existence impresses him as a sort of prison and he wants to experience the universe as a single significant whole. The beginnings of cosmic religious feeling already appear at an early stage of development, e.g., in many of the Psalms of David and in some of the Prophets. Buddhism, as we have learned especially from the wonderful writings of Schopenhauer, contains a much stronger element of this.

The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling, which knows no dogma and no God conceived in man's image; so that there can be no church whose central teachings are based on it. Hence it is precisely among the heretics of every age that we find men who were filled with this highest kind of religious feeling and were in many cases regarded by their contemporaries as atheists, sometimes also as saints. Looked at in this light, men like Democritus, Francis of Assisi, and Spinoza are closely akin to one another.

How can cosmic religious feeling be communicated from one person to another, if it can give rise to no definite notion of a God and no theology? In my view, it is the most important function of art and science to awaken this feeling and keep it alive in those who are receptive to it.

We thus arrive at a conception of the relation of science to religion very different from the usual one. When one views the matter historically, one is inclined to look upon science and religion as irreconcilable antagonists, and for a very obvious reason. The man who is thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of the law of causation cannot for a moment entertain the idea of a being who interferes in the course of events - provided, of course, that he takes the hypothesis of causality really seriously. He has no use for the religion of fear and equally little for social or moral religion. A God who rewards and punishes is inconceivable to him for the simple reason that a man's actions are determined by necessity, external and internal, so that in God's eyes he cannot be responsible, any more than an inanimate object is responsible for the motions it undergoes. Science has therefore been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death.

It is therefore easy to see why the churches have always fought science and persecuted its devotees.On the other hand, I maintain that the cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest motive for scientific research. Only those who realize the immense efforts and, above all, the devotion without which pioneer work in theoretical science cannot be achieved are able to grasp the strength of the emotion out of which alone such work, remote as it is from the immediate realities of life, can issue. What a deep conviction of the rationality of the universe and what a yearning to understand, were it but a feeble reflection of the mind revealed in this world, Kepler and Newton must have had to enable them to spend years of solitary labor in disentangling the principles of celestial mechanics! Those whose acquaintance with scientific research is derived chiefly from its practical results easily develop a completely false notion of the mentality of the men who, surrounded by a skeptical world, have shown the way to kindred spirits scattered wide through the world and through the centuries. Only one who has devoted his life to similar ends can have a vivid realization of what has inspired these men and given them the strength to remain true to their purpose in spite of countless failures. It is cosmic religious feeling that gives a man such strength. A contemporary has said, not unjustly, that in this materialistic age of ours the serious scientific workers are the only profoundly religious people.​

Josh

It's just a ride. - Bill Hicks

 

[Jan Ardena]

JustARide,

The point is, he started to doubt the Bible's claims. This is not the sign of a steadily growing faith in the Bible-God.

He has never said (to my knowledge) that he doubted the bible claims.

"As the first way out there was religion, which is implanted into every child BY WAY OF THE TRADITIONAL EDUCATION-MACHINE."

Then he says;

Thus i came- though the the child of ENTIRELY irreligioius parents (Jewish) - to a deep religiousness, which however, reach an abrupt en at the age of twelve.

As he was born in the year 1879, this meant his interest in religion came to an end in 1891. But his religious education continued while at school.

Through the reading of science books i soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true.

So was he disillusioned with the stories in the bible or the bible itself, that is the question?
And to this, he gives no direct answer.

You are only allowing for certain changes, based on what you want Einstein to have believed.

That is not a fair analysis. I said change is inevitable as I can understand from my own experience. It spoils the conversation when you infer like that because it means I have to keep going over a same point. It impedes the flow.

But if I state that he steadily grew away from it (which all sources indicate he did), then you seem uninterested. Hmmm.

Some sources do indicate that, but not all. It’s not that I become disinterested, it’s just tedious when you try and interpret his own words into something that is non recognisable, like the quote in question.

I'm sure you have a much more accurate take on Einstein's spirituality based on this one quote you've unearthed and the mountains of generalizations you've worked up to support your case.

I think there are more quotes than this one.
In fact, if you look at some of my previous posts you may just see some.

Wow, you concocted exactly the speech I would give you. Interesting.

You should try reading my posts sometimes, you will find more interesting things.

What exactly do you want this dialogue to produce? Were it to produce the conclusion that Einstein strayed from his belief in Jesus and the Bible-God, would you accept that?

You’re not really listening to what I am saying, are you?
Lets move away from this Judeo-Christian god concept, because that is the impedence.

Not likely. You have a predetermined agenda here. Einstein needs to believe in certain things for you to be happy.

Why?

I'm asking you to take a look at Einstein's life. READ A BIOGRAPHY. Stop highlighting one quote and pretending it has to be valid for Einstein's entire life.

How do you know I haven’t read a biography? You must stop assuming things about me, and please stop accusing me unless you can point out the source of your accusations. Thanks

Clearly, you're not after the truth about Einstein... because you are denying the complexity of his life, and reversing the order of his quotations to somehow show that science led him to religion, or more specifically belief in Jesus (?)

Again you are putting your own spin on my explanations, please don’t do that.

Between 1879 and 1891, he describes himself as deeply religious, and then he became disillusioned. He starts to gain knowledge through reading science books, which lead him to question the validity of much of the stories in the bible.
In 1929, some 38 years later, in an interview with George Sylvester Viereck, he is asked whether he accepts the historical Jesus, hence the quote;

Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus………

So please explain to me how he comes from being disillusioned with much of the stories in the bible, to unquestionable belief in a personality, who is the point of the bible (NT anyways)?

We can have an open dialogue about Einstein's beliefs and cover a wide array of topics, but that's impossible if you continue to insist upon placing gigantic weight on the quotes you like and dismissing or downplaying the others.

Examples?

I'm not saying Einstein never believed in Jesus, or stopped believing that the man existed.

Has he ever questioned the existence of Jesus, to your knowledge?
Out of curiosity. If I had made the quote in question, on this forum, instead of Mr.Einstein, how would you react to it?

And I think an objective look at Einstein's life does not show any support for this idea you have about his underlying (apparently latent) belief in Jesus.

What does it mean to believe in something?

Wow, above you accuse me of only being concerned with my beliefs. Then when I tell you the truth about myself later, you instantly deny it, as if you somehow know more about me than me (I think I'm getting the drift now).

Before you get the slippers and cocoa, let me explain something. You made two points, one of which were in brackets, in the segment I replied to;

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

I replied to both of them. Yeah right! you are not trying to promote………
And then I inquired “what are you if not atheist.”
My bad, apologies….neeeeeexxxxxt!!!!!!!!!!!

THAT is exactly the problem with debating Christians - everyone else must be a God-hating atheist.

Which could well have been the disillusionment Mr.Einstein had regarding his implantation from the traditional education-machine as opposed to the Bible itself.

I will never tell anyone I KNOW for sure that one spiritual philosophy has to be wrong, because I realize far more in this world is not known than is known. I make no claims when it comes to the nature of God.

All understanding of God comes from 3 sources; God, His devotee, or Vedas. There is only one God, despite the confusion being banded around. All major religions are within the above 3. The common conception is that there are as many gods as there are people to think them up. This is incorrect. When Mr, Einstein talks about God, he talks about God, the one God, but different aspects. Within this one Absolute God, there are innumerable aspects to His Personality and Character. Each aspect is an outright individual, simultaneously one and different, from each other. You know they say God is great? You’d be surprised how great He is. This is why there are different religions and beliefs, because people are attracted to different aspects of God. The atheists are attracted to life without God. The attractions are based on the type of consciousness we have, so Mr. Einstein was interested in how God made this world, not if God made this world. That was his religion based on “religion.”

All I'm arguing is that trying to cast Einstein as some great believer in Jesus or Jesus' conception of God is not supported by the evidence. (Again, read a biography.)

Jesus was a great person, why is that hard to accept. Mr.Einstein probably understood Jesus in a way you or I can’t fully understand, because Mr. Einstein himself was no slouch in the great department. If a man of his stature has a great respect for someone, then we should find out why, instead of speculating on whether he meant this or that. He said what he meant, that is the only conclusion we can come to, it the truth be told, end of story.

If you are willing to admit that this is one quote, from very early in fact, does necessarily represent what Einstein became later in life, then we can move on..

Simple.
I admit it.
Lets move on.

Look, as evidenced by the number of exclamation quotes in your response, I think it's fairly easy to draw the impression that you're somewhat passionate, if not desperate, about your position here.

You mean like the exclamation quote in Mr. Einsteins; “Unquestionably!”

"God" much like Einstein's -or at least a basic spiritual drive that leads man to seek answers to the bigger questions.

Mr.Einstein already believed he knew the answer, he saw it as his duty to find out how God made the world.

The question you seem to be posing is, "Would the non-Christian world respect Einstein as much had he been a Christian or believer in a personal, perhaps mainstream, God?"

No. The questions being posed are; 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.

and history does not suggest that he stood for anything even resembling a Christian outlook.

Arrrrrrrrrrrrrggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
STOP WITH CHRISTIAN THING
ARE YOU OBSESSED WITH CHRISTIANITY?

Need I continue?

NO.
Thanks.

If there are/were not different conceptions of God (or rather, definitions), then why did Einstein feel the need to specify that he believed in Spinoza's God as opposed to, say, Wesley's God or Joseph Smith's God?

Because he understands that God is the source of everything, and as a natural scientist he is naturally interested in nature. Spinoza’s God is nature. Nature is one of God’s energies. The only difference between Spinoza’s God and Vishnu, is Spinoz’s understanding of God.

Look at his quotes. Einstein didn't just say, "I believe in God" and leave it at that. He always followed up with his definition of God, because he wanted to make clear what types of Gods he didn't believe in (among them "personal" Gods, Gods that "reward and judge," "anthropomorphic" Gods, etc.)

There is only one God. The personal God, is the same one God, but the personal angle is man’s understanding of God.

The fact is Einstein was so vague (and even contradictory) in some of his statements that many different groups have tried to "claim" him, as it were. A small list includes:

I don’t think he was vague at all.

Christians, Deists, Pantheists, Agnostics, Atheists, New Agers, Buddhists.

As I said, he is interested in God, not aspects of God. So if you are not aware of that, he would come across as vague and changeable.

And it's obvious from what he wrote and said that his definition was nowhere comparable to what Jesus espoused (a personal, anthropomorphic God who rewards and judges).

You think Jesus espoused that?
Really?
Show me.

because he said, at one time, that he respected the "life" in the Gospels.

If you were a real fan of Mr. Einstein, you would make sure you quoted him properly. Or is it that all this time you have been reading incorrectly.

Likewise, it is not appropriate to call Einstein a believer in the Christian God or any other based on one quote.

The Christian god is “God” as defined by Christians.

Well, as long as you're defining God that loosely, then how can you say for sure that Einstein believed?

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

You're saying I can't know what God is. Well, can you? What is God and how do you know A) that your definition is correct, and B) that Einstein believed in that same God?

A) As long as my definition is consistent with the scriptures, namely Bhagavad Gita, then my definition is correct.
B) Because he said so. Read the above quote.

Jesus taught that God was a personal being who rewarded and judged people.

Firstly, essentially God is a personal being, in that he has a form and personality. However, the personal aspect of God described by Mr.Einstein, was one given by man and his puny mind.

"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one.

Take a look at the constant bickering between people of different faiths on this board alone, or look at what is happening in the middle-east. I’m afraid I believe he is right on that one, because the bickering is centred around who’s god is greater, and who’s scripture is right. This is what he means by “personal God.”

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.

Again look at the forum, check out some atheists, they cannot get their head out of Christianity. No matter how much you tell them that is not “religion,” they still cling to what they think it is, as if obsessed.
Rather like you.

I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being." [Albert Einstein]

Bravo! Mr.Einstein, if you could only see how science and religion, the two subjects you cared so much about, if you could only see the direction they are taking, I think you would be disappointed.

This quote does not prove that Einstein did not believe in God (as I'm sure you were quick to notice), and, once again, I have no problem with saying "Einstein believed in God."

Relax man. Just take it all in.

That is and always has been an open debate. All I'm talking about here is Christianity's take on God as opposed to Einstein's.

Christianity…Shmrishtianity
Sience…….Shmience.

This is a very long post, and I’m now going into chill out mode. So I will leave it here and look foreward to your reply.

1 dude,

I’m sorry for hijacking you thread, please say if you want us to stop or be more general with regard to the subject matter.

Jan Ardena.

------------------------------------------------

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

Ahh! Food.

 

[JustARide]

You’re not really listening to what I am saying, are you?
Lets move away from this Judeo-Christian god concept, because that is the impedence.

Your original point, and the one I took exception to, was the quote about Jesus and the gospels. Of course you want to move away from that - not because I've changed the subject, but because to remain on that subject would prove that Einstein did not maintain a lifelong belief in the Judeo-Christian God.

How do you know I haven’t read a biography? You must stop assuming things about me, and please stop accusing me unless you can point out the source of your accusations. Thanks

I never said you didn't. I just asked to you read one. By the way, have you?

So please explain to me how he comes from being disillusioned with much of the stories in the bible, to unquestionable belief in a personality, who is the point of the bible (NT anyways)?

Hmm. Thought you wanted to get away from the Judeo-Christian God hypothesis you have. Apparently not.

A) It is possible to believe in a God who is not the Christian God.
B) Einstein repeatedly said he did not approve of an anthropomorphic God who judges and rewards people. This is the God portrayed in the Bible.

Examples?

The fact that you ignore or twist every non-Judeo-Christian sounding quote here produced. I'll bet you just skim through his statements until you find the word God, don't you? Then you try to figure out why all the context surrounding it doesn't mean what it sounds like it means.

What does it mean to believe in something?

I told you - we can have no idea what people believe, except by their actions and words. Einstein might have believed in Pan the Goat God too; we have no way of knowing. All we know is what he said, and I think if he had been a devotee of any particular religious affiliation he would have made it far more clear than he did.

Which could well have been the disillusionment Mr.Einstein had regarding his implantation from the traditional education-machine as opposed to the Bible itself.

I think I've figured this out. You have a very liberal interpretation of God that you base on the scriptures -- albeit not a mainstream one. And you are taking Einstein's quotes as merely extensions of the same attitude: a loss of faith in man-made churches, but not in the Bible or some higher spiritual truth which only you seem to be able to define. How do you know that Einstein's disillusionment was not also with the doctrines of faith, ones that he regularly lamented?

All understanding of God comes from 3 sources; God, His devotee, or Vedas. There is only one God, despite the confusion being banded around. All major religions are within the above 3. The common conception is that there are as many gods as there are people to think them up. This is incorrect. When Mr, Einstein talks about God, he talks about God, the one God, but different aspects. Within this one Absolute God, there are innumerable aspects to His Personality and Character. Each aspect is an outright individual, simultaneously one and different, from each other. You know they say God is great? You’d be surprised how great He is. This is why there are different religions and beliefs, because people are attracted to different aspects of God. The atheists are attracted to life without God. The attractions are based on the type of consciousness we have, so Mr. Einstein was interested in how God made this world, not if God made this world. That was his religion based on “religion.”

That's a wonderful opinion you've concocted there. Allow me to remind you that it is merely your interpretation of the ways things are, not necessarily fact. If there were agreement on this issue, we'd know about it.

Once again, if you want to label Einstein's "religion" as the correct one, go right ahead. All I'm saying is your liberal interpretation of God and his sources is not necessarily a worldwide view. From what you said, I'd say you have a very Unitarian take on things -- which does not include a traditional interpretation of the Bible or Jesus or the Judeo-Christian God. If you want to switch the conversation over to that of some more New Age, universal God, fine. But don't go dragging in references to the Bible then.

Mr.Einstein already believed he knew the answer, he saw it as his duty to find out how God made the world.

Einstein said nothing of the kind. He repeatedly made mention of the smallness of human intellect (including his own) when it came to understanding the "answers."

No. The questions being posed are; 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.

I consider him a great thinker, a brilliant scientist, and a man who asked the big questions. He had a spitiual as well as scientific drive to discover them. His musings about the nature of God are insightful and far-reaching. Tell me where I'm wrong?

ARE YOU OBSESSED WITH CHRISTIANITY?

Let me ask you something. If you answer nothing else, answer this:

Do you believe Einstein believed in the Bible's depiction/interpretation of Jesus?

And no wishy-washy New Age answers about all Gods being the same, OK? Just a straight answer, so I know what your position is. If you are a pantheist who believes there is only one God and all the different religions are just flawed manifestations of him, great. Say that, so I know that you too do not believe in the traditional idea of Jesus. Then the debate is over.

There is only one God. The personal God, is the same one God, but the personal angle is man’s understanding of God.

That is solely your interpretation. Einstein believed in a God who was not personal - you can say that means he merely did not believe in a "part" of God, but the fact remains: Einstein did not believe in a personal God. He stated it time and time again.

I don’t think he was vague at all.

Well, I'm glad you and Einstein are on the same intellectual plane. Tell me when you come up with an earth-shattering scientific breakthrough.

The fact that he waffled on spiritual issues is nothing strange. It's normal for people who, you know, think.

You think Jesus espoused that?
Really?
Show me.

Well, now this depends, doesn't it? Are you using a standard translation of the Bible, a new New Age version full of "God is all" quotes, the Jefferson Bible, or do you simply doubt the accounts of what Jesus said in the Bible?

If in fact you are using the standard King James or what have you, then dare I say Jesus makes many references to resurrection (Einstein specifically said he did not believe in an afterlife or that people "survive" death), judgment (Einstein often said he did not believe in a God who judged), an athropomorphic God expressing love, forgiveness, condemnation, etc. (Einstein also expressed doubt in the anthropomorphic God)....

If you want the verse numbers, I'd be happy to provide them, but there are so many you might have to give me time.

A) As long as my definition is consistent with the scriptures, namely Bhagavad Gita, then my definition is correct.
B) Because he said so. Read the above quote.

Yeah, I guess you're right. How can I challange such in depth research.

Firstly, essentially God is a personal being, in that he has a form and personality. However, the personal aspect of God described by Mr.Einstein, was one given by man and his puny mind.

Great. And remind me again how you can assume that Einstein's statements about his disbelief in a "personal God" who "intereferes in the lives of men" only applies to a select portion of Bible/religious teaching (of which you seem to be setting yourself up as the arbiter) and not the general notion that God is personal?

Again look at the forum, check out some atheists, they cannot get their head out of Christianity. No matter how much you tell them that is not “religion,” they still cling to what they think it is, as if obsessed.
Rather like you.

Oh get over yourself. Christianity may be very special to you, but it is still a religion. I don't care how much you believe or don't believe in it. It is a system of faith, complete with scriptures, dogma, ceremonies, beliefs, etc. You can call your New Agey brand of Christianity/Unitarianism/Pantheism whatever you want. We all have our own take, don't we? However, I'm sorry to inform you. It's still a religion. Changing the word doesn't change what it is.

I do believe there is a space beyond religion and I highly respect Einstein for discussing it during his life. But I'm not the one trying to imply that Einstein's broad definition of God was so broad it had to have included a requisite belief in any of the man-made religious figures (which he regularly expressed skepticism in).

You seem, on the one hand, entirely in agreement with Einstein's unique form of pantheism/cosmotheism, but on the other hand, you want to ascribe to him belief in figures like Jesus. Which is it? Do you think Einstein was beyond believing in earthly myths or not?

Bravo! Mr.Einstein, if you could only see how science and religion, the two subjects you cared so much about, if you could only see the direction they are taking, I think you would be disappointed.

Far from it. I agree entirely.

Of course, you won't believe me when I say that because you've chosen not to.

It must be fun being so sure of yourself. You know, Einstein once said the greatest thing mankind can experience is the mysterious -- and what is truly mysterious? Things we do not know or understand. Not that which we assume to be correct and consistent. And that sentiment, that love of mystery, is the heart of all great scientific and religious thought - not statements attempting to define God, but one seeking to question, to learn, to go beyond.

How is this:

There is only one God, despite the confusion being banded around.

and this:

Within this one Absolute God, there are innumerable aspects to His Personality and Character.

and this:

This is why there are different religions and beliefs, because people are attracted to different aspects of God.

represent a true attitude of universal wonder? These are declarations of what you perceive God to be, not openended suggestions/questions about God.

You have simply figured the whole God thing out (bravo, now publish your findings and see who gives a shit), and are quite sure of yourself. That's wonderful and I'm happy for you, but please do not assume that Einstein believed the above tenets as you do just because he happened to be a great mind who was open to new ideas. (This does not make you or me a "great mind" by association anyway.)


Josh

It's just a ride. - Bill Hicks

 

[atheroy]

Sorry I got short with you Jan, my bad.

 

[1Dude]

1 dude,

I’m sorry for hijacking your thread, please say if you want us to stop or be more general with regard to the subject matter.

Jan Ardena.


No problem Jan! Peace to you!

Personally, I only had one simple thought when I started this thread. It was simply that there are very intelligent people on both sides of the fence. Nothing more! I happen to know people who are not able to admit even something as simple as that. That is all I wanted to say! I was not trying to challenge the fabric of the universe here. I was not trying to even make a statement about Evolution vs. Creation.

To anyone who believes in God I would say:
The mere fact that many of these scientists believed in God does not prove that Christianity is true or even that God exists. Your faith better be based on something a whole lot more profound than that or it will fall.

To anyone who does not believe in God I would say:
The mere fact that many other scientists are atheists does not prove that Christianity is not true or that God does not exist. Your view also better be based on something a whole lot more profound than that or it will fall as well.

The same logic applies to both equally. Very simply, in my opinion, both sides have brilliant and intelligent people on their side.

 

[Jan Ardena]

JustARide,

Of course you want to move away from that - not because I've changed the subject, but because to remain on that subject would prove that Einstein did not maintain a lifelong belief in the Judeo-Christian God.

Nobody is saying he believed in a "Judeo-Christian God" (not me anyway). He believed in God is what i'm saying.


I never said you didn't. I just asked to you read one. By the way, have you?

Yes.

Hmm. Thought you wanted to get away from the Judeo-Christian God hypothesis you have. Apparently not.

Jesus spoke about God, not the Judeo-Christian God, that description is purely for referance.

A) It is possible to believe in a God who is not the Christian God.
B) Einstein repeatedly said he did not approve of an anthropomorphic God who judges and rewards people. This is the God portrayed in the Bible.

A) a "Christian god" exists in our mind, which is why it is a "personal" god. There is only one God.
B) Mr. Einstein did not approve of a "personal" god, one designed for specific sect or denomination. If you study the gospels, you will realise that Jesus did not speak of such a god, which is most probably why Mr. Einstein had such awe and respect for him.

The fact that you ignore or twist every non-Judeo-Christian sounding quote here produced.

We are not talking about the concept of a Judeo-Christian God, neither is Mr. Einstein. You are the one bringing it up.

I'll bet you just skim through his statements until you find the word God, don't you?

You're out of order.

I think if he had been a devotee of any particular religious affiliation he would have made it far more clear than he did.

I did not say he was affiliiated with any state religion. Is that what you want me to say? Will it make your responses easier?

I think I've figured this out. You have a very liberal interpretation of God that you base on the scriptures -- albeit not a mainstream one.

There is nothing to figure out. We're having a conversation. Just respond to what i say, not what you want me to say, or what you think i may have said.

And you are taking Einstein's quotes as merely extensions of the same attitude:

Why does there always have to be an angle with you people? It doesn't matter to me whether or not he believes in God, i have to worry about my life.

a loss of faith in man-made churches, but not in the Bible or some higher spiritual truth which only you seem to be able to define.

The definition of spiritual truth is found in vedic literature, the scriptures of sectarien religions are taken from them. They highlight a way of life for particular types of peoples at certain times. So if you are really interested, you will search. But in our present dialouge, you are currently at a dis-advantage, as the only spiritual truth you are presenting is the Judeo-Christian concept, which right from the word go, it is man-made. Of course it contains truth, but is put from the point of view of man.

How do you know that Einstein's disillusionment was not also with the doctrines of faith, ones that he regularly lamented?

Because he didn't say that.

That's a wonderful opinion you've concocted there. Allow me to remind you that it is merely your interpretation of the ways things are, not necessarily fact. If there were agreement on this issue, we'd know about it.

No it is not my opinion, that is what spirituality is at the most confidential level. Don't take my word for it, study for yourself. Mr. Einstein was seriously into vedic literature, to the point he could speak some sanskrit, although rather badly, from reports. This is the essence of the Vedas, as is the teaching of Jesus. Check it out for yourself.

All I'm saying is your liberal interpretation of God and his sources is not necessarily a worldwide view.

My interpretation of God, is coming from the Vedas. The Vedas is the source of all knowledge IMO, including all religions. The book of genisis is actually in the ancient Puranas. There are prophecies of Jesus (Issa), Mohammad, and Buddha, to name just a few.

If you want to switch the conversation over to that of some more New Age, universal God, fine. But don't go dragging in references to the Bible then.

LOL!!!
New Age.
I have not dragged any references to the Bible. All i said is that Mr. Einstein has a great respect for Jesus and the gospels, these are his words, not mine. Why can't you just accept that?

Einstein said nothing of the kind. He repeatedly made mention of the smallness of human intellect (including his own) when it came to understanding the "answers."

It is very obvious that Einstein believed there was a creative brain behind the universe, that it didn't pop into existence by chance. He wanted to know God's mind, and how it is possible to create such a masterpeice.

Do you believe Einstein believed in the Bible's depiction/interpretation of Jesus?

What do you mean by believed in?
I think he believed in what Jesus spoke of, and who he was.

And no wishy-washy New Age answers about all Gods being the same, OK?

It's not my fault that you are stuck in a loop. You don't even know what New Age is, do you?

Just a straight answer, so I know what your position is.

You need only look through any one of my posts to see what my position is.

If you are a pantheist who believes there is only one God and all the different religions are just flawed manifestations of him, great. Say that, so I know that you too do not believe in the traditional idea of Jesus. Then the debate is over.

Your problem is you must always categorise, you cannot think without some kind of mental construct which has been created for you. Not everybody falls into these constructed categories, try and understand that. It is a form of brainwash.

That is solely your interpretation.

Don't be stupid. What else could it be?

Well, I'm glad you and Einstein are on the same intellectual plane. Tell me when you come up with an earth-shattering scientific breakthrough.

You are a weakling. Pull yourself together man.

The fact that he waffled on spiritual issues is nothing strange. It's normal for people who, you know, think.

Ahh, here we see the true fan of Mr. Einstein. Regarding science he talks and lectures because it is important, regarding religion he "waffles" because it is not important. Thank you for revealing yourself, but i already knew.

Well, now this depends, doesn't it?

Just show me.

Jesus makes many references to resurrection (Einstein specifically said he did not believe in an afterlife or that people "survive" death),

The institution teaches that Jesus rose from the dead with a new physical body, so the story goes, if you accept Jesus as your personal saviour, then come the day of judgment, you will ascend into heaven, as you are. And the Christians who have died, will rise out of the grave and ascend also. That is probably what Einstein was taught in his formitive years.

If you want the verse numbers, I'd be happy to provide them, but there are so many you might have to give me time.

3 or 4 will do.

Yeah, I guess you're right. How can I challange such in depth research.

You can tell when someones brains are exhausted, they always revert to cheap shite-hole wit.

Oh get over yourself. Christianity may be very special to you, but it is still a religion.

I did not say it wasn't "a" religion, i said it isn't "religion." Try and work that one out. Yeah? Cool.

You seem, on the one hand, entirely in agreement with Einstein's unique form of pantheism/cosmotheism, but on the other hand, you want to ascribe to him belief in figures like Jesus. Which is it? Do you think Einstein was beyond believing in earthly myths or not?

As I said earlier, you are in brain-wash mode and as such you have to categorise everything. This is your mistake, and it becomes very difficult to get thru to you, especially as you have no real idea of where i'm (or Einstein) is coming from. Try not being so one-tracked minded.

Jan Ardena.

 

[atheroy]

Hey Jan, are you going to reply to my post on the bottom of page 2? I apologised for any offence given because I was sorry but I was also hoping you might reply to my post. No biggie if you don't, it's just you replied to everyone else's.

a

 

[Paula]

This is a bit off-topic but BBC did a study of religion in the world and discovered that trends in religion pointed to wealthier and more educated people filling the ranks of religious associations of all kinds. In fact, in many countries, religious observance was higher among the college-educated upper middle class than among the lower classes.
This study and several like it which reported similar results, totally confounds the view that an atheist is more intelligent than a theist.

I believe this is a view popularized by atheists to justify their non-belief. The BBC study also indicated that 30% of atheists admitted that they secretly prayed. A physicist (whose name escapes me) said recently on television that Newtonian physics had taken God out of science and quantum physics had put Him back in.

This may not have been a literal reference to a god or gods, but the point I took from it is that science is always discovering new things and it is impossible to say whether or not these partial truths are in conflict with the existence of God.

Psychologists have often stated that there apears to be a God-shaped hole in the human psyche and researchers have discovered a portion of the brain which seems to serve no other purpose than to become active when one prays. It was described by one of the researchers as being hardwired for a belief in a god. The scientists in question were explaining that this was the reason so many people believed in God when a reporter asked, "Do we believe in God because we have this wiring or do we have this wiring because there is a God in which to believe?" The reply was, "Well, of course, we'll never know."

I am religious, but as a reformed atheist I can understand the reluctance to believe in that which does not fall into the realm of our usual experience. My question is, even with a God, why wouldn't the world work in some reasonable, logical fashion?

 

[SkinWalker]

All types of religious groups tend to have a higher percentage of females than males
(Miller and Hoffman 1995; Stark 2002). But novel religious movements tend to be quite disproportionately female (Stark and Bainbridge 1985; Stark, Bainbridge, and Kent 1981). Participation in new age activities such as astrology also exhibits a disproportionate female to male ratio. Stark and Bainbridge (1985) argue that new religious movements especially appeal to women because such groups frequently provide a greater opportunity for positions of leadership for females than do traditional religious groups.

Stark and Bainbridge (1985) also found out that religious cults tend to recruit more efficiently from the "more favored segments of the population." In other words, the rich and educated may have what cults want: money.


Miller, A. S. and J. P. Hoffman (1995). Risk and religion: An explanation in gender differences in religiosity. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 34(1):63-75.
Stark, R. (2002). Physiology and faith: Addressing the "universal" gender difference in religious commitment. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 41(3):495-508.
Stark, R. and W. S. Bainbridge (1985). The future of religion: Secularization, revival and cult formation. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA
Stark, R., W. S. Bainbridge, and L. Kent (1981). Cult membership in the roaring twenties: Assessing local receptivity. Sociological Analysis 42(2):137-62.

 

[Jan Ardena]

atheroy,

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.

Ultimately, religion answers the "why" in our queStions who/what we are, who/what God is, why are we here, and what happens when we die. The enquiries are natural within humans.

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?

What does this have to do with religion and it’s role. There are still questions you must have asked similar to ones i posed, at some time. You may have come to the conclusion that religion was nonsense or not, but that conclusion is distinguishable from religion, as millions of people will attest to.

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.


You are assuming that the stories and myths are pumped up. They may or may not be, but the stories are not religion. The stories and myths are in a religious context, within which God can be easily understood by a conditioned mind. Religion is the vehicle, spirituality is the essence. In this world we see the shape and design of vehicles changing all the time, but the point (essence) of the vehcle will always remain the same. Science deals with the vehicle, religion deals with the essence, art illustrates either, by using imagination and bringing them to life, while philosophy tries to make sense of it all. The stories and myths encompass all the different aspects of knowledge.

See, this is why you're wrong. You think I make arrogant assumptions, this is you're definition of what all atheists think.

What do you think atheists think?

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?

That is my point, I don’t think they are, even though society in the early twentieth century, appears to be different in so many ways, to society now. The essence of the human will never changes because it is natural, in the same way the essence of water will never change. How we perceive ourselves, others and the world around us however, will change, because the external objects (the vehicle) is constantly changing.


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?

What has changed? In the UK, the rate of illiteracy is growing at an alarming rate but yet
the theory of evolution is taught as fact, not only in schools but on television and radio. Does any ordinary person really understand how it occurred? Will they ever be able to understand the complex language?
How can these people relate to it? Come to think of it, how can anybody relate to it? It has nothing to do with our day to day existence, we have to believe that it happens over millions of years.
All your point proves is that, institutionalised scientists are the priests of the day, and we must trust what they say.

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.

You do not know about religion outside of the institution of religion.

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?

That does not mean some humans didn’t question the authority or validity of the bible. If the noble classes were the only ones who had access to “spirituality,” and all the low classes followed blindly, then there would have been no need for the laws of blasphemy, and life would still be that way today. The fact that we question, change, and reconstruct religion today, is evidence that it was emerging through time, as opposed to an overnight sensation. Which would imply, that the spiritual quest of man is natural one, and it cannot be squashed because he has no access to religious literature, or because of brutal regimes.

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.

How do you think historians will describe the twentieth century? Will they account for everything that everybody did and thought? Or will they highlight the moments that generated big changes? History is only an account of significant events and the significant events that lead up to them, from a certain point of view. When they give account of the apartheid movement, will they be able to express the feeling of every individual who was a part of it? Will they express the underlying elemental cause? Or will it be generalised, to the disappointment of those who experienced it? And if some historians do, will there account be acceptable, or will they come under much scrutiny, like religious scripture.
I think it is arrogant of you to think that modern humans are essentially more advanced on the basis of technology.

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.

People may have interpreted the earth was flat, because there was no way of knowing without some kind of knowledge which had to come from outside their experience. The passages in the Bible which may have led people to believe the earth was flat, doesn’t actually say the earth is flat, but basic knowledge,and linear thinking, in my mind was the reason they came to that conclusion. That the earth is flat or spherical, did not affect the ability of the human being in his day to day function, or his thinking. But the desire to reach beyond the boundaries of the earth has always been with some men, and would have affected their lives despite their religious persuasion.
Again, I see the whole thing as an emergent property of the collective mind, not that, they were ignorant and simple then, but we are more advanced now. We must also take into consideration “necessity”. The more we progress materially, the more we need to progress. So although we have made material advancement, we are effectively creating more problems, and as such we need to create more solutions.

Yes, according to all biological laws of this universe, creationism is in fact more logical That' my whole point.

Your religious account of how the material world was created, no doubt stems from the Bible, which does not give detail. If you want to know how God created the universe check out the “Srimad Bhagavatam” and the commentaries and purports, and then get back to me. Otherwise we will continue going round in circles.

Such stories aren't based in our universe, nor are they based off anything that has ever remotely occurred in this universe.

What stories?

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.

Please show me exactly, the various stages of human evolution. I don’t mean talk, I mean intermediate fossils. I want to see pictures of human fossils without evolved joints, eye/ear sockets, and I want to see the development right up to modern day.
Also, explain how nature would have selected a being that can’t see, hear or even transport themselves, in such hostile conditions.


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).

I’m afraid you’re the one that is blind. Religion has nothing to do with the supernatural, and God is not a supernatural being, as He is aloof from nature. Supernature is a product of material nature, not spiritual.

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.

What does that have to do with my question?

So you don't think our dress sense in the 80's and early 90's was backwards?

What is dress sense? It is nothing is what it is. Clothes play a role and that role has neither increased or decreased. This is the foolishness of material life, there is no consideration given to the mechanics of the senses, they are simply taken for granted. As if they appeared by chance,out of nothing.

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?

Knowledge has undoubtedly improved, but so has foolishness which is overwhelmingly popular.

don't think that what we know now makes knowledge from the very first century AD seem simple in comparison?

In some aspects, namely technology, yes. But in some aspects we have become more simple.

eckon religion instils a here and now selfishness into people, as well as a righteousness in ones actions that is undeserved; George W Bush anyone?

Give me one reason why George Bush is a man of religion, apart from the fact that he say’s he is.


e religious folk obviously not, but christianity is basically an end of the world religion.

Lets focus on religion, what it actually is and what it means, and not some aspects of it.

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.

There is no better way of preserving the planet than being a servant of God. This materialistic way of life is the downfall of the earth. The materialist only thinks of how he can make life more comfortable for himself, family, society and/or nation. The materialistic mind is lost.

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 don’t understand. How does “religion” not put people in the frame of mind to help one another?

an 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. B]
But not that surprised.

These are activities, thoughts and ideas, executed by “man,” men who crave power, respect and glory.

Jan Ardena.

 

[RawThinkTank]

Why waste energy discussing about people of era in which concept of atheism may lead to mob based death, Those people were very smart not to admit such a doubt.

Forget all those listed in the first message in this thread because RawThinkTank the greatest scientist there ever again would be doubts gods existence, although he has kept an open mind of its possibility.

More info here : http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=34030


Strictly speaking from evolutionary point of view this thread is more about Jan Ardena than Scientists who believed in God