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.
Relinquish
To me, science is a method, or a collection of methods, to measure and research the observable or deductable phenomena. It is a neutral descriptive term. It cannot be inferior or superior.
As for believing, to me the concept God is the same as a character from a novel. Take Hamlet, just as an example. Do I believe in Hamlet? I can’t answer that question. If then, someone would state ‘so you don’t believe in Hamlet?’, I would have to say that I neither believe, nor don’t believe in Hamlet.
I think you cannot say to me ‘you don’t believe in God’. To relate it to atheism, I think that atheism is the absence of believe, which in turn does not mean the denial of unseen or unexperienced phenomena (the need for everything to be proven).
Of course I have a subjective bias. I consider myself a buddhist. To be more specific, a therevada buddhist and I do not view it like mahayana (including tibetan) buddhist, that, in general, feel that there are spirits that might help out. The most important thing the buddha said, in my opinion is that he said not to believe him on his word but to check it out for yourself and if you find it not to be true, consider it not to be true.
At best, I’m aware of my bias and my tendency to explain everything in that light.
I do try to draw a sharp line between my science side and my spiritual side, for both serve a different, non-overlapping purpose (or so I like to think).
In buddhism, there is an agnostic tendency: it does not matter if there is a god or not. I translate that as: it does not matter what people believe, but what they do. Religion is a s neutral as science, it cannot do anything. As long as people don’t act upon it, it does nothing. If people act upon it, good or bad, it does not give that religion good or bad attributes.
To bring it back to a religious example: even if God stood before me (giving no doubt about His existence) and demanded me to offer my son to Him, it is my responsibility to say no, and my fault, if I did so.
You know, I think if we met face to face, I don’t think we would agree but I do think we’d have a very civil and worthwile discussion. From behind the keyboard I am not as considerate as I would be in real life. And that goes for most of us.
#117
And I was typing in the time you posted 117. You got to love the intertubes temporal delay š
I mess up on a daily basis š
Eblonk – #121 nice posting. Well stated!
>>And how do you decide to have faith in
>>God but not Zeus.
Maybe God and Zeus are the same entity. Slip yourself of the surly bonds of organized religion, Mr. Bobbolina. Perhaps all religions are different interpretations of the same thing. Don’t go getting Roman Catholic on me.
# 124 Mister Mustard
“Maybe God and Zeus are the same entity.”
Not as they are defined in literature.
>>Not as they are defined in literature.
There’s “literature”, “J”, and then there’s real life. Roman and Greek gods are defined differently in the “literature”, but there are parallels.
You’ve got to think outside the chalupa, or whatever it is that they say.
#124–Mustard you are quite right. J should be ashamed looking to literature for what these common entities mean to the average untwisted person. Zeus and God are the same which is Why God said to have no other gods before him because god did not want to trip over himself on the way to the loo.
Just as black and white are the same color as god stands outside of color. You don’t have to be Roman Catholic to stick to the dictionary, logic, and honest responses.
When everything is anything and everything is unknowable and religion tries to play Mr. Potato Face with settled facts of science, then it is “I” who stand outside of religion. And it does feel good. Ain’t it great?
#124 – Mister Mustard,
Maybe God and Zeus are the same entity.
OK. I can understand your point on this. An unorthodox view of god may not care so much about a name or any particular story of said god’s existence. A god by any other name would still stink if he failed to shower, or some such.
And, since you’ve invoked the argument from personal experience, which can only ever work for one who has had such an experience, I will avoid replacing Zeus with dragons, which would make them totally different.
However, I would simply request that if you are not claiming your belief to be based on reason, then you stop making your big spiel about atheism also being not based on reason.
Since you admit that you are willing to believe based on something as fuzzy as feeling a presence, perhaps you are trying to assert that everyone else forms their beliefs based on equally squishy feelings.
This is not the case.
Some of us have spent years of logical debate coming around to our conclusions. Some of us have had to listen to people harangue us repeatedly demanding to know why we gave more credence to god than to dragons before realizing that there was no reason and that the two were equally nonexistent absent evidence to the contrary before reaching our conclusions.
So, please, in the future, have the respect for atheists to take their beliefs at face value and not add your own weak interpretation on top.
It is very disrespectful.
Atheists are already the least respected group in the country. We don’t need otherwise intelligent people who really should know better making things worse.
Thanks.
#111
If you are unable to articulate what exactly this “god” thing is, then how can you possibly ascribe any credence to its existence much less garner support for your position that it does exist? You can neither provide evidence nor can anyone refute any evidence of its existence until we first agree upon what exactly “it” is. If it is a being that exists in nature, then we can establish its existence through tangible means. If it does not exist in nature, then there is no means for you to support your claim that it exists and it is a real as the Easter Bunny.
RE: ‘God’ being absolute and perfect
Following #112, are you suggesting that your deity intentionally introduced imperfections? If your deity is omniscient, I would consider this quite sadistic.
> God exists plain and simple.
“Widgets exist plain and simple”. Just as you haven’t the foggiest notion what I mean a “widget”, I do not know what you mean by “god”.
#120
> God can be all loving and
> Hell still exist in this manner.
Huh? How does that work? Did your deity create the areas of universe in which they are absent? In other words, did your deity create hell? Presuming an omniscient deity, would you not find this also sadistic?
#124
What about Apollo, Mercury and the host of other individual and distinct deities in Greek mythology? How do you explain the stories where the Greek gods talk and fight amongst themselves? Is this a sort of “Fight Club” schizophrenia where your deity is actually fighting itself?
>>Some of us have spent years
As, Scottie, don’t be telling me about years. You may not realize it, but I’ve spent years also.
For most of my life, I’ve fallen into the atheist/ agnostic/ didn’t give a fuck camps. I’ve chanted the Marxist slogans like “Die Religion … ist das Opium des Volkes”; I’ve spent hours reading Hobbes, Spinoza, Mill, congratulating myself on my superiority to the “sheeple” and their foolish beliefs in a power greater than themselves. Fools like Jim & Tammy Faye, Jerry Falwell, and the “Meth and Man-Ass” crowd made my self-congratulatory utterances all the easier. Were they around at the time, “God is not Great” and “The God Delusion” would have been my “bibles”.
However, with advancing age sometimes comes greater wisdom. In my post-Atheism, I can see more clearly just how hollow was my imaginary superiority, now embarrassingly silly my hubris.
I realize that my beliefs are not for everyone, just as yours are not. As long as a person’s beliefs do not have a negative impact on my right to the pursuit of happiness, I’m fine pleased to live and let live. I don’t ridicule or disrespect others for their beliefs (other than the “Meth and Man-Ass” folks), and request the same in return.
In short, Scottie, I DO “have the respect for atheists to take their beliefs at face value”. As long as they recognize that their stance is nothing more than a belief, rather than “I am right any you are a weak, stupid, narcotized fool, without the intelligence or intestinal fortitude to live life on its own terms”.
#130 – Mister Mustard,
You’re so holier than thou it’s sickening. Even as you say you respect atheists, you feel the need to make stupid and condescending comments. Damn you’re annoying.
However, with advancing age sometimes comes greater wisdom.
… thus implying that you have greater wisdom than I.
As long as they recognize that their stance is nothing more than a belief,….
… thus completely and utterly ignoring what I’ve been stating again and again. It is not a belief, unless it’s a believe about evidence.
You’re still doing it even as you say you’re not. You have no respect for atheists and merely wish to pretend you do.
In short, on this topic, you are a complete and utter ass.
>>Youāre so holier than thou itās sickening.
>>Damn youāre annoying.
>>you are a complete and utter ass.
Jeez, Scottie. You wake up on the wrong side of bed this morning or something?
I’m deeply saddened that you don’t deign to give my BELIEFS the same respect that I give your BELIEFS, but I guess some people are that way.
If you choose not to believe anything until you see it with your own two eyes, that’s fine. Me, I believe a whole passel of stuff that I’ve never seen with my own two eyes; evolution, particle physics, the existence of the Oort cloud, microwaves, the number of processor cores in my computer, the list goes on ad infinitum.
Limiting your beliefs to what you can determine yourself with your microscope and home chemistry set seems like it would lead to a somewhat impoverished quality of life, but hey. If it works for you, it works for you. I’m not going to argue about it.
La chaim!
#131–Scott==once again I gotta go with Mustard at #132. 95% of truth holders look down on the unbelievers==makes it very hard not to commit the sin of pride.
Not hard for an atheist to do though===unless it is a belief system as Mustard likes to push.
As a “true” atheist myself, I’ve always taken Mustards condescension as enjoyable humor. To the degree that is true, maybe his definition of atheism applies to you, but not to me??????
Wish I had a bear claw to go with my cappacino.
>>unless it is a belief system as Mustard
>>likes to push.
Aw, Bobbolina. I thought you’d been paying attention here. I have NEVER “pushed” my belief system. The only thing I have ever “pushed” is the self-evident fact that beliefs about God are beliefs about God, whether you worship, revile, deny, or just don’t give a fuck.
#134–Mustard==and you just pushed it again. We can all define words as wish, who needs the dictionary?
>>and you just pushed it again.
Oh, I get it now. Stating my belief that a belief is a belief is “pushing my beliefs”, eh?
Jesus. For the Logic Master of the Universe, you sure don’t make sense a lot of the time.
Trying to explain God to an atheist is like trying to explain the internet to someone from the 18th century. Neither can grasp the possibility.
#132 – Mister Mustard,
Jeez, Scottie. You wake up on the wrong side of bed this morning or something?
I was doing fine ’til I read your post.
Iām deeply saddened that you donāt deign to give my BELIEFS the same respect that I give your BELIEFS, but I guess some people are that way.
Well, if I’ve offended you then I have indeed given your beliefs exactly the respect you have given me.
If you choose not to believe anything until you see it with your own two eyes, thatās fine. Me, I believe a whole passel of stuff that Iāve never seen with my own two eyes; evolution, particle physics, the existence of the Oort cloud, microwaves, the number of processor cores in my computer, the list goes on ad infinitum.
Oh good. Putting more words in my mouth. I said evidence. I did not say it had to be seen with my own eyes. But go ahead and keep building strawmen and knocking them down. It’s starting to make you look like a fool now.
… Iām not going to argue about it.
There you go again. You’re not going to argue about it except that you continue to do so. Stop saying such patently false crap. You contradict yourself completely in every post where you make such a comment.
You must be a lot of fun at cocktail parties. I have visions of a conversation like this:
Fred: Musty old man, I’m just curious. What are your religious beliefs?
Musty: I don’t believe in (carefully lists nearly every creature on this wikipedia list of mythical creatures) pausing at G to insert I do believe in God and then continues through the rest of the list.
I assume you have a belief about each of the creatures on the list. Even if you do not believe in them, you must list them as part of your belief system, right?
I really don’t know why I care that you have no respect for me. I really don’t know why I care that you are incapable of distinguishing a belief in evidence from an irrational belief in the non-existence of god.
Just stop putting words in my mouth and being such a condescending asshat and perhaps we’ll call it a day. (Yeah, like that’s going to happen.)
Oh, and Musty, stop being holier than thou about pushing one’s opinions. It’s what we’re all here for if we have half a spec of self-honesty.
#133 – bobbo,
To the degree that is true, maybe his definition of atheism applies to you, but not to me??????
That’s the whole point though. There is no truth in his definition of atheism. He made it up. No atheist I know believes as he describes.
Musty has admitted to an irrational belief from personal experience. Perhaps he is incapable of understanding the concept of non-belief based on reason and evidence, or complete lack thereof. Perhaps that’s why his own brand of atheism didn’t stick and he picked up religion. Perhaps I’m being just as condescending to him as he is to me and I should just ignore his condescension. (This last paragraph is starting to sound that way, though I’ve been careful to avoid this before.)
#137 – Max,
Trying to explain God to an atheist is like trying to explain the internet to someone from the 18th century. Neither can grasp the possibility.
Equally: Trying to explain atheism to the religious is like trying to explain the internet to someone from the 18th century. Neither can grasp the possibility.
The religious often mistake God Delusion, End of Faith, God is not Great, etc. for atheist bibles precisely because they can’t comprehend non-belief.
Old joke: Yes, I understand you are an atheist, but please explain exactly which god you do not believe exists.
#137, Max,
Trying to explain that āgodā is a myth to a believer is like trying to explain the difficulties of nuclear fusion to Pope Clement II.
#130
> In short, Scottie, I DO āhave the respect for
> atheists to take their beliefs at
> face valueā. As
> long as they recognize that their stance is
> nothing more than a belief
Your entire basis for this claim is the wholly illogical idea that “lack of belief” is a state that cannot exist. You have twisted the meaning of your vocabulary to fit this premise. The *only* way you can argue consistently that lack of belief in the god claim is a belief unto itself is if every other variant is also a belief. “Not believing in the Easter Bunny is a belief.” “Not believing in Xenu is a belief.” “Not believing in Thor is a belief” It is a logical error. It is the mistake of thinking that !A = A is true.
#140 – Mr. Gawd Almighty,
That’d bomb, big time!
It occurs to me that given what MM has said about drifting away from atheism, a significant reason might be his twisted understanding of the term. If he concluded that atheism was a belief, then it appears he simply evaluated atheism along with all other “beliefs” equally and judged atheism lacking as a belief system. Granted, this is logically flawed on a epic scale because it assumed that an absence of belief was a state that could not exist nor did he realize that atheism is that state.
Tommie: My flawed understanding of Atheism is, at WORST, no more flawed than your understanding of religion. It’s entertaining to make fun of the “Meth and Man-Ass” hypocrites and the kidding-fucking priests, but that’s not what the majority of theism is about. Broaden your horizons, son.
You know folks, Mustards post at #130 really is worth a few reads.
Young man in search of meaning and did not rest until he found some. Not content with existential philosophies, or the mystical element of the unknown, he went for certainty.
Still, if looking for a belief system and Mustard rejects atheism, how now does he call it a belief system?
Something still not connecting. But logic will not sway him, never does with believers. Not their thing.
I virginally take Mustard at his word, fairly represented on this blog, that he is not as would the worst of his kind, force his views on other people===but then, he simply isn’t in a position to do so either.
I know I would, if I could. I’d be like god. Why have power and not exercise it???? Morality does not overcome my weaknesses either.
#139 – MS
#140 – MGA
The only thing you have proved is that using a person’s argument against them doesn’t always work. Still, nice try.
“Meth and Man-Assā hypocrites and the kidding-fucking priests, but thatās not what the majority of theism is about. ”
Um. I would say that isn’t what it is about at all! Your statement leave it open that maybe there is apart that is. lol
>>But logic will not sway him, never does
>>with believers.
Bobster, with your pretzel logic, you’re not one to EVER talk about what dots should and should not be connected.
>>Your statement leave it open that maybe there
>>is apart that is. lol
No, it’s not. Just like beating and urinating on your own mother, then murdering and chopping up Madalyn Murray O’Hair (as American Atheists member David Waters did) isn’t part of Atheism. Every group has its black sheep.
#148–Mustard, so thats what happened to her? Last show I saw just stopped after the son turned religious (hah!!!) and she disappeared. I’ll go google but yes indeed, I assume Waters was religious and not an atheist.
It’ll crack me up if I’m right. I have faith I am right, so I guess the facts don’t matter?
# 148 Mister Mustard
I don’t think you understood what I was saying.
I am not attacking you. It is just the way your statement is worded leaves it open for “āMeth and Man-Assā hypocrites and the kidding-fucking priests” being part of the religion. I don’t think it is and I am an agnostic.