A letter being auctioned in London this week is sure to add fuel to the long-simmering debate about the religious views of Albert Einstein.
In the note, written a year before his death, the Nobel prize-winning physicist dismisses the idea of God as the product of human weakness and the Bible as “pretty childish.”
In it, Einstein said that “the word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.”
Illustrating a sharp difference between his public and more politic statements – and what he clearly addressed to his peers.
Theists commonly use the “beg the question” logical fallacy when describing their beliefs. Using your Tolkien example as one that a person might ascribe to real life, we cannot ascertain the validity of what the hobbits told Bombadil until we formalize what we mean exactly by “elves” and “hobbits” (and Tom Bombadil) and are able to validate that these things exist.
A clearer example would be something like, “Widgets are heavy.” Unless we can agree on what is meant by a “widget” and that such a thing exists, any discussion about the validity of the original statement is a fruitless exercise.
#59 was in response to #54
#58
We’re an experiment sitting in a petri dish of some extra-dimensional middle school science class. Once it’s over, we’re all going to be flushed down the toilet.
The Nobel prize-winning physicist dismisses the idea of God as the product of human weakness and the Bible as “pretty childish.”
That’s funny because I consider Einstein’s celebrated contribution to special relativity as pretty childish.
#50 – Thomas,
That’s true as well. I was making a different point. Even if we agree on these terms, they are terms from mythology. There is no given that any of them exist at all. So, in my point, even if we have all read Tolkien and all know what the terms mean, at least some of us do not believe such creatures even exist. So proving the existence of one by the statements of another made to a third is not a proof of anything at all.
#33 – Max,
Presumably you will tell me that you do not believe in the Tolkien characters I listed. When you can tell me why you do not believe in them, I will tell you why I do not believe in god. The answers will sounds nearly identical.
#58 – Ah, Scottie, Scottie, Scottie. I’m far too weary to engage in this battle. You believe what you believe, and I believe what I believe. As long as I’m not trying to make your wife wear a burqa or to make you to burn her at the stake for witchcraft, what’s the problem?
Just like love, or the meaning of life, there are some things that are resistant to quantification by the electron microscope or the superconducting supercollider.
To steal a line from Iris Dement, why not just let the mystery be?
#25. God does not play dice with the universe (true, but only because god does not exist)
Ha-ha! God not only plays dice with the universe, —He cheats.
#66 – Musty,
Don’t ask questions you are not willing to answer when the tides are turned.
I enjoy the mystery as much as you do, more even, because I’m willing to ask questions or at least read about people asking the questions in ways that can actually produce answers.
There is grandeur in this view of life, as Darwin said.
All truth is subjective and partial, conditioned and limited by context. As far as dragons are concerned, I guess that would also depend on the definition. I imagine some dinosaur could have come close and if not why not some creature on another planet at any given time since the beginning. So many intellects, so little sense. God is a symbol that our ancesters have always had and often revered. If the human race were really that stupid as to believe in something that didn’t exsist and/or had no use, I really doubt we’d’ve made it this far. Much as I’d like to demonstrate the exsistence of god, there are some things you have to take on faith (or do without).
#69–amodedoma==interesting how you stumble.
1. All truth is subjective, yet on the subject of dragons, you immediately go to trying to actually find one–in the fossil record or on another planet. Why not just say “you believe”?==because that is never proof.
2. Our ancestors have only had god as a symbol for 2-3 thousand years. Before that it was many gods and before that it was nature gods as in sun, wind, animals etc. Mans natural state is to make nature his god, only with sophistication/culture do we mold god in our own image.
3. It pretty obvious that nothing needs to be taken on faith.
Other than being totally wrong on each point you make, good post.
#66–Mustard==aren’t you tired of posting the same weak diversion all the time? Why will you post repeatedly against J over Oriental but give up on your religion on the merest inquiry? Very weak and revealing on your part. If you have no argument, best to hide it with dismissive talk. HAH!
But to your continuing poor argument–when you post on a blog you advance your position.
You have your pants down around your ankles to post you think the world is flat and when asked to explain how satelites orbit the earth that you aren’t trying to force your views on people. That argument is IRRELEVANT AND A DODGE as is your entire position on religion.
The problem then to restate the above is you wish to advance an argument on faith and not be expected to back it up. In fact, you are “insulted” you have to back it up. But such is the nature of a blog.
As to love and the meaning of life, any such “meaning” those concepts have will be provided by science==not the tools your suggest but rather by chemical asseyers and MRI machines and wht not. Certainly love is greatly defined by a quick rush of dopamine —blah, blah, blah.
For the meaning of life, we have philosophy==not to be “believed in” but a process of constant consideration and reflection. Some things are a process and not a nail.
Part of the meaning of life is to reveal the mystery–for those who wish to do so. For those who don’t, indeed, there is religion.
Amen
#69
> All truth is subjective and partial,
> conditioned
> and limited by context. As far as dragons are
> concerned, I guess that would also dep
What utter sophistry. If I point a gun at watermelon and fire (on Earth under normal conditions), it will blow it to bits. No amount of subjective reinterpretation or interpretive context will change that. How we define truth is as important as how we determine it. Subjective analysis goes to the very core of what is wrong in how the faithful attempt to find truth. Biasing your results is the worst and most common kind of mistake and it is why science requires independent verification.
> If the human race were really that stupid
> as to believe in something that didn’t
> exsist (sic) and/or had no use, I really
> doubt we’d’ve made it this far.
Really. Do you believe in Zeus and the Greek gods as a set of plural entities? No? Well, cultures that believed in them survived for thousands of years. Our imagination makes it very easy for us to delude ourselves into thinking we have found truth. In addition, it is not always necessary to know why something happens to make good use of it. Knowing why the Nile floods every year is not nearly has important as the knowledge that it does and reacting accordingly. Given that, it is quite easy to make up all kinds of stories as to why it happens.
I suspect that it is still the case that of all the men that have ever lived, more have lived believing in the existence of multiple deities than in a single deity.
Bobbo, you talked me to death again.
#74–Mustard, I agree. Too bad you won’t talk about the details of your religion as your other ideas I find to be factually based and intelligently thought thru. I was hoping for this same unique take on your religious views but I guess we won’t find out.
I will admit my mind is made-up on the issue, but there is still room to understand how others come to such superstitions. And not so much that, but how they take comfort in the same set of ideas that I take dis-comfort in. I guess that’s part of the mystery huh?
Enjoy your porridge, looks like another warm day coming up.
>>Too bad you won’t talk about the details
>>of your religion
Mr. Bobbolina, I’m not interested in converting you to “my religion”. And if I were (and started evangeliing), I’d be hearing about how I want to impose Sharia law, or burn witches at the stake, introduce creationism into public schools’ science curriculum, or some other such nonsense. I believe what I believe, you believe what you believe, and we all go home happy.
It’s one thing when someone attacks me for being a “racist” when I say that Italians talk with their hands. That offends me. If you choose not to share the same spiritual beliefs that I do, that’s freedom of religion. Hey, ain’t that America?
#76–Mustard==and I’m not interested in converting you. I have been clear what I am interested in.
When you post religious points of view, and refuse to discuss them, your position is clear also.
>>When you post religious points of view,
>>and refuse to discuss them, your position
>>is clear also.
Bobster, the only “religious point of view” that I have ever posted (and one that has been discussed WAAAAY too many times to hold any interest for me as a topic of online discussion) is that atheism is a belief system regarding God, one that is accepted on faith by its adherents.
If you’d like to discuss the pros and cons of various organized religions with people who are interested in discussing that sort of thing, go to some churches or mosques or temples.
about time this was published.
how on earth can anyone seriously dispute evolution? it is quite pathetic. and indeed childish.
the sooner the notion of religion has disappeared the sooner there will be a chance we can all get on.
A person who lives by a THOUGHT, either from philosophy/bible/teaching, and has Never THOUGHT about it/discussed it/wondered at its Meaning…
Is a fool with a tongue tied in Unreason.
This is like telling a child NOT to cross the freeway, and the child doesnt understand. and the parent doesnt explain..
This is like the POPE saying you shouldnt use contraception..
If you disagree, find a REASON. EXPLAIN your side, and your understanding.. JUST saying something, BECAUSE someone ELSE “SAID SO” is NOT thinking for yourself…Baaa…Baaaa..
>>A person who lives by a THOUGHT, either from
>>philosophy/bible/teaching, and has Never THOUGHT
>>about it/discussed it/wondered at its Meaning…
>>Is a fool with a tongue tied in Unreason.
ArE yOu TaLkInG tO mE, ECA? i HoPe NoT, bUt If YoU aRe, YoU bEsT wAtCh YeRsElF.
Don’t ever assume that because I choose not to squabble with online avatars and trolls about the specifics of my personal beliefs, that I have never “THOUGHT about it/ discussed it/ wondered at its Meaning” (sic).
This is the internet, man. It’s not real life. Why do you think they came up with the abbreviation “IRL”?? To distinguish REAL LIFE from the nonsense that transpires online.
John should make sure there’s religious post every day – keeps the post count up…
#78–Mustard==that is about 99% true. “However” you have posted you believe your god to be all loving. I simply ask then if you believe in hell/judgment. If you do, how is that all loving. If you don’t, how is god relevant. Then I even supplied one answer that I have heard. So==you have not been talked to death, you have not been proselytized, you have not been accused of trying to force your views on people.
What you have done is walk into the middle of an emergency room and repeatedly tell people you don’t want medical care. If you don’t want medical care, stay out of E/R’s. If you don’t want to discuss religion, don’t go to a blog and make entries on it.
Simple.
#78 – Mister Mustard,
Bobster, the only “religious point of view” that I have ever posted (and one that has been discussed WAAAAY too many times to hold any interest for me as a topic of online discussion) is that atheism is a belief system regarding God, one that is accepted on faith by its adherents.
Patently false on two counts. First, atheism is a belief system about what evidence is required before any real consideration is given to any hypothesis. Second, in your post #59, quoted in its entirety below, you attempt to make a point.
# 59 Mister Mustard said, on May 14th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
>>To Einstein, the universe was God.
So God created God? Or is there a SuperGod who created God/ Universe?
From this post, it is clear to me, though I could be misreading it, that you are advancing the watchmaker argument. In brief, the watchmaker argument states that a watch on the beach proves the existence of a watchmaker. It is essentially a cause and effect based argument. Every effect has a cause. The universe exists, therefore there must be a prime cause. I call that prime cause god.
It is the strongest argument there is for the existence of god and yet falls apart miserably on two counts.
1) If every effect has a cause, god too must have a cause. This is infinitely recursive* and leads to the turtles all the way down argument that I linked to above.
2) We know as well as we know anything, from one of the most tried and proven scientific theories in the world, that cause and effect is false. Quantum mechanics makes short work of proving that cause and effect does not hold at the quantum level. The big bang was a time when the entire universe was at the quantum level. Just as matter pops in and out of existence at the quantum level, so too did the universe pop into existence in a quantum state 13.7 billion years ago, plus or minus 200 million years.
So, I throw your own question back at you. I have answered where the best available science to date says that the universe came from. Since you asked the question, it is genuinely your responsibility to state your views on where exactly your god came from.
You can state and re-state and re-re-state that you are tired of arguing, but the statement rings hollowly as you continue to post again and again after stating that you no longer want to argue. I believe you would like to think of yourself as not being hypocritical. On most other topics, you are not. However, on this one, you do expect us to be convinced by your little statements, or at least be convinced that they have sound logic, and yet you refuse again and again to really lay out this logic.
It is true that I cannot prove the non-existence of god. It is false that it is my responsibility as an atheist to do so. You make the claim that there is a god. You flatly refuse to give any real reason other than claiming that your mind is more open than mine. I ask you this. You are so open minded about the existence of god. Why do you not give exactly the same credence to any or all of The Great Pumpkin, Fire-Breathing Dragons, elves, gnomes, hobbits, unicorns, etc.?
When you can tell me why you don’t believe these to be real, you will at least understand atheists. You will likely still disagree. But, you will stop making your erroneous statement about atheists taking the non-existence of god on faith.
Atheists believe there is no god precisely because no evidence has ever been presented to show otherwise, period. No faith there. Show us some real shred of evidence and we will likely all become agnostic overnight.
*Recursion: In order to understand recursion, one must first understand recursion.
Bobster, go to Barnes & Noble and look for a copy of “Religion for Dummies”. All your questions are answered there, and you’ve talked me to death. Yet again.
Scottie:
>>First, atheism is a belief system about what
>>evidence is required before any real
>>consideration is given to any hypothesis.
No, Scottie, Atheism is the belief that there is no God. Those who don’t know, or don’t think it CAN be known, or don’t care, they’re agnostics. And don’t start up with that nonsense about fire-breathing dragons or leprechauns or the Great Pumpkin.
As to the rest of your post, are you being mentored by Mr. Bobbolina? Christ, you’re talking me to death!
Just accept it that there are some people who feel the spiritual existence of a higher power, and there are some who don’t.
There are some things in life that will remain mysteries long after you and I are pushing up daisies. Revel in the diversity, man! Why must you continue to attempt to persecute and ridicule me? Other than poking a hole in your “Atheism is not a belief system” balloon, what have I ever done to pester you?
#85–Now Mustard, why should I pay for some book at B&N when I’ve already got the bible for free?
You seem to miss the point that I’m not searching for “knowledgde” other than how YOU understand the issues.
I don’t even mind you don’t want to play. Just stop playing the victim and blaming others for what is your own reluctance.
I find on most issues, I follow Scott. He uses objective cites much better and more often than I do.
So, the search for an intelligent man willing to discuss his faith continues.
Someone comes up to me and says ‘there is X’. I respond ‘I see no evidence’. He states ‘so you believe there is no X’.
What is wrong here? Well, I did not bring X into the conversation but somehow I now adhere to a beliefsystem that excludes X? Sorry, that doesn’t fly.
To bring it to religion, I apparently belief in the non-existence of any unwordly being anyone ever was convinced of to be real. There is no logic in that.
#28 (et al) – anyone seeking to disprove the existence of a person 2000 years ago had better have some very convincing proof. Theories and postulations that someone (or the events surrounding that person) was fictional in a book where every other aspect (places, people, lifestyles, context) historically has been supported by documents and archeology (new testament anyway) are merely contrary arguments from silence. This is very much like me saying that I don’t think you really exist now (really because I am certain that I don’t want you to exist that I will just state that I think you are merely fictional). It is the same foundation as you asking someone to prove the existence of God when you can’t disprove the existence of God. This is the entire reason that ‘religions’ or any system(s) of belief are based upon what is more commonly known as FAITH. Now go on and argue back all you want – when you argue ardently your point so much upon others you begin to look and sound like those you are arguing against. I do understand the aspect of reason, but I also understand the aspect of faith – I have plenty of friends and experience in both realms. Somehow both sides seem to coexist without issue in my world. If you can agree to disagree it doesn’t matter if the other side does – just ignore them (its only a conversation string you can move on away from anyway).
As for your antitheist POV. Interesting – I have never heard it posited as you note. I do agree that religions have caused more pain and problems through history and to the present day. I will set forth however, in all those cases that I think (personally) it was human motivation that obstructed their common sense, judgment, decency and overall actions to the results of the problems and atrocities done in the name of God, YHWH, Allah, etc. From what I know and have read – had these people through time and to the current day followed teachings of the ‘founders’ of their faith – they may possibly agree with my statement (upon truthful honest examination). Then again perhaps that is a glass half full statement on the character of the human species (while damning the human motivations – hmmm dichotomy – should I retract?). I think I will have to think on my own statement a bit more. Any other thoughts out there? Just out for discussion.
MUSTARD,
I try to respect you personally and not weigh in against you. unfortunately though, you have made a grave error I will call you on.
You stated that atheism is a belief system, the same as religion. Wrong. Our argument that there is no religion is because there is no PROOF. Demanding proof is not the same as a belief, in fact, it is a system of knowledge or knowing as a fact. Having a fact is totally different than just “believing” because you were told to believe.
I BELIEVE my wonderful wife loves me. She gives me all indications she does. I do not KNOW though as her love is something I can not prove. I do KNOW she is my wife as I have a copy of the Marriage License. I KNOW I have to pay the mortgage in a couple of weeks. They sent me a letter. I BELIEVE they will charge me a penalty if I am late because I can’t answer with certainty what they might possibly do in the future.
#85 Mister Mouseturd,
You don’t get to ask questions that you refuse to answer. You’ve got this double standard shit going and it’s making me sick. You expect to be able to question and makes points about the beliefs of atheists, including putting words in the mouths of others, but expect equally not to be questioned about your own perfect beliefs.
You have nothing but disrespect and contempt for the views of atheists but expect nothing but the highest degree of unquestioning respect for your own views. This is a crock of shit and it stinks.
And, I’m calling you on it, you hypocrite.
Do to others as you would have them do to you. Treat others with respect and take their views at face value, as you would have us do for you.
If our beliefs are not beyond question, neither are yours.
And, it’s not a valid way to have a debate to continually claim to be tired of a topic while continually posting on the same topic.
You are the single most passive aggressive person on the planet. And, on this one topic, you just may be the biggest and most subtle hypocrite on the planet.
I answered your question. Answer mine.
Why is god different to you than fire breathing dragons?
Answer, or concede that you just accept some shit on faith but not others and have no rhyme or reason to it.
My belief that there is no god is for the same reason as my belief that there are no fire breathing dragons. It is a rational belief based on thousands of years of people attempting to find evidence of god and always always always coming up with nothing.
Got something? Let the rest of us know.
Got nothing? Then your belief is based on nothing. It is no more reasonable than a belief in dragons.
You really are infuriating.
I would not care a whit for your beliefs except for two things:
1) You claim your beliefs are based on reason.
2) You show blatant disrespect and contempt for atheists.
3) You demand respect for your beliefs.
You can’t get my respect without showing a little from your side. Sorry.