Online reading group and book discussion forum
  HOME FORUMS BOOKS LINKS DONATE ADVERTISE CONTACT  
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:13 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average. 
Einstein's Religion 
Author Message


Post Einstein's Religion
In Chapter 1, a "Deeply Religious Non-Believer," Dawkins devotes considerable time to demonstrating that Einstein cannot be claimed by theists as one of there own, and was, in fact, an atheist.

Quote:
Much unfortunate confusion is caused by failure to distinguish what can be called Einsteinian religion from supernatural religion. Einstein sometimes invoked the name of God (and he is not the only atheistic scientist to do so), inviting misunderstanding by supernaturalists eager to misunderstand and claim so illustrious a thinker as their own. (Dawkins, p. 13)


On page 16 he states that Max Jammer's book, Einstein and Religion is the source for the critical letters sent to Einstein in response to an essay titled "Science and Religion" he wrote for a conference at the Union Theological Seminary in New York City held September 9-11, 1940 (Jammer, p. 91 ff.). He also states that the book is his primary source for quotes from Einstein himself on religion. The quote at the top of page 15 is not from that book, however, and Dawkins does not cite a source for it.

Fortunately, Jammer's book is widely available at public libraries, so I checked it out.

Dawkins quotes the Kansas City Times, citing a critical response to Einstein's essay from Bishop Edwin Vincent O'Hara. (Jammer, p. 99) He goes on to cite additional critical letters in the same vein and concludes on page 18 that "The one thing all his theistic critics got right was that Einstein was not one of them. He was repeatedly indignant at the suggestion that he was a theist."

What Dawkins doesn't include are comments from other religious leaders supporting Einstein's position listed on the same page which sites O'Hara:

Rabbi Gershon Hadas of Beth-Sholom Synagogue in Kansas City: "the issue is only a matter of difference in the terminology of our expression about faith in God...Rabbi Samuel S. Mayerberg saw 'nothing sensational in Dr. Einstein's statements'... Dr. Burriss Jenkins of the Community Church 'discerned nothing dangerous in the Einstein point of view...'"

Apparently, they didn't "get it right" that Einstein wasn't one of their own.

What reference Dawkins means to site supporting his assertion that Einstein was repeatedly indignant at being described as a theist I don't know. No statement to that effect appears anywhere in Jammer's book. In fact, just the opposite. Einstein repeatedly denies being an atheist, and, on occasion, indignantly so.

Quote:
"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 languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. 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 the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws." (Jammers, p. 48 )


Quote:
"...every one who is seriously engaged in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble." (Jammer, p. 93)


Quote:
"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for support of such views." (Jammer, p. 97)


Quote:
"I was barked at by numerous dogs who are earning their food guarding ignorance and superstition for the benefit of those who profit by it. Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics and comes from the same source. They are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. The are creatures who



Fri Jan 05, 2007 11:14 pm
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Professor

Silver Contributor

Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 3542
Location: NJ
Thanks: 1
Thanked: 5 times in 5 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Einstein's Religion
Oh my, let it go dude.

Well, if it makes you happy, I did not totally buy that Einstein was an atheist...if though the evil Dawkins was showing that he did not have traditional faith. At any rate, I do not think we can call Einstein a theist either. I never was able to pin down what Einstein believed...and to tell you the truth, I really dont care all that much. Einstein did great things, but if he DID believe in a god, I would tell HIM he was delusional too! The truth is that Einstein, true to form, was on a different level than most about all things!

Here is an excerpt from "Science and Religion" I will first post the website I took this from, it has a good source of items regarding this topic. It shows that he rejects any common standard of a personal god.

www.einsteinandreligion.com/

Quote:
Though I have asserted above that in truth a legitimate conflict between religion and science cannot exist, I must nevertheless qualify this assertion once again on an essential point, with reference to the actual content of historical religions. This qualification has to do with the concept of God.

During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution human fantasy created gods in man's own image, who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate to influence, the phenomenal world. Man sought to alter the disposition of these gods in his own favor by means of magic and prayer. The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old concept of the gods. Its anthropomorphic character is shown, for instance, by the fact that men appeal to the Divine Being in prayers and plead for the fulfillment of their wishes.

Nobody, certainly, will deny that the idea of the existence of an omnipotent, just, and omnibeneficent personal God is able to accord man solace, help, and guidance; also, by virtue of its simplicity it is accessible to the most undeveloped mind. But, on the other hand, there are decisive weaknesses attached to this idea in itself, which have been painfully felt since the beginning of history. That is, if this being is omnipotent, then every occurrence, including every human action, every human thought, and every human feeling and aspiration is also His work; how is it possible to think of holding men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an almighty Being? In giving out punishment and rewards He would to a certain extent be passing judgment on Himself. How can this be combined with the goodness and righteousness ascribed to Him?

www.einsteinandreligion.com/scienceandreligion.html



He also seems to believe in a god of the gaps:

Quote:
To be sure, when the number of factors coming into play in a phenomenological complex is too large, scientific method in most cases fails us. One need only think of the weather, in which case prediction even for a few days ahead is impossible. Nevertheless no one doubts that we are confronted with a causal connection whose causal components are in the main known to us. Occurrences in this domain are beyond the reach of exact prediction because of the variety of factors in operation, not because of any lack of order in nature.

We have penetrated far less deeply into the regularities obtaining within the realm of living things, but deeply enough nevertheless to sense at least the rule of fixed necessity. One need only think of the systematic order in heredity, and in the effect of poisons, as for instance alcohol, on the behavior of organic beings. What is still lacking here is a grasp of connections of profound generality, but not a knowledge of order in itself.

The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exists as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot.

www.einsteinandreligion.com/scienceandreligion.html



Alot of his comments about 'god' and 'religion' seem to focus on sets of moral codes that help us live and survive. That religion may be useful but not necessarily true, regarding the myths associated with it. The captioned article shows this, IMO. He also praises the Christian/Judaic traditions, which he was brought up in...coincidence, I think not. I think even great minds are susceptible to indoctrination...and by his own admission, he was not a freethinker. (Which, interestingly enough, he states applies more appropriately to atheists. hmm)

Quote:
I am also not a "Freethinker" in the usual sense of the word because I find that this is in the main an attitude nourished exclusively by an opposition against naive superstition.




Sat Jan 06, 2007 11:33 am
Profile YIM WWW
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Professor

Silver Contributor

Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 3542
Location: NJ
Thanks: 1
Thanked: 5 times in 5 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Einstein's Religion
And then we have this!

www.einsteinandreligion.com/freethink.html

Quote:
As the first way out there was religion, which is implanted into every child by way of the traditional education-machine. 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. The consequence was a positively fanatic orgy of freethinking coupled with the impression that youth is intentionally being deceived by the state through lies; it was a crushing impression.




See why there is some confusion for me? He denies Freethinkers in one article and admits to having an 'orgy' with it in this one! lol He sure was a complex person! But are'nt we all?


Mr. P.

Mr. P's place. I warned you!!!

Mr. P's Bookshelf.

I'm not saying it's usual for people to do those things but I(with the permission of God) have raised a dog from the dead and healed many people from all sorts of ailments. - Asana

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"

I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper




Sat Jan 06, 2007 11:36 am
Profile YIM WWW


Post Re: Einstein's Religion
Mr. P:

The point of all this with regard to the reliability of RD's text is that here is yet another instance in which he misrepresents a reference source. Moreover, it seems obvious that he deliberately selected only small parts of the text that appear to support his position, while somewhat sanctimoniously criticizing Christian fundamentalists for doing the same (p. 5, for example). You don't find this the tiniest bit ironic? :)

I agree, however, that the more interesting aspect of this is sorting out Einstein's actual position on the existence of God, or, more accurately, how he conceived of God.

Thanks for posting a link to the Science and Religion essay, I haven't read it yet. Also, and somewhat confusingly, Einstein published another fairly prominent essay, this one titled "Religion and Science" which appeared in the New York Times on November 9, 1930. (Jammer, p. 75)

Quote:
At any rate, I do not think we can call Einstein a theist either.


The rejection of a personal God, that is a God who answers prayers and has human like characteristics (in other words, anthropomorphic) does not disqualify Einstein as a theist. Two points are necessary for theism: the belief that the universe exists because of God and that God still influences the universe in some way. A full reading of Jammer's book suggests that Einstein's belief meets both criteria, but I agree that the matter is complicated.

One issue Jammer discusses, which I did not raise in my initial post, is that Einstein believed in determinism, that is, that all our actions are predetermined. (Doubtless one of the reasons he had so much trouble accepting quantum indeterminacy.) He rejected free will. It was this position that really got conservative theologians worked up.

Quote:
how is it possible to think of holding men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an almighty Being? In giving out punishment and rewards He would to a certain extent be passing judgment on Himself. How can this be combined with the goodness and righteousness ascribed to Him?


The above snippet is from the Science and Religion quote you posted. What he is essentially saying is that since our actions are predetermined (by God) it is unreasonable to hold us morally accountable for them. In that sense, God "would be passing judgment on Himself."

Care should be taken with this "God of the gaps" argument. It is certainly applicable to fundamentalist Christian views and what has transpired during the history of modern science. But nowhere does Einstein make any argument that God is the explanation for what science has not discovered. What he actually asserts is that science is the only way we have to understand the real character of God, by discovering the natural laws that govern our universe, but that can ultimately provide only a limited understanding of God's true nature.

I have to confess I find this to be a subtle and beautiful idea.

What he has to say about religion is confusing because he uses the term religion in two distinct ways. In one sense he applies it to what is often referred to (though not by Dawkins!) as Einstein's "cosmic religion," a non-anthropomorphic concept of deity. In this since, he would say things like "morality has nothing to do with religion." But he also used religion to describe beliefs that involved a personal God, which is the second phase in what Einstein conceived of as a three phase development of religious belief starting out with primitive animism and culminating with his concept of cosmic religion.

He denounced the use of religion (in the personal God sense) as an indoctrination tool by the state, but he also argues that this sort of religion is an important basis for morality, not because it reflects the true nature of God, but because some aspects of such religious training encourages ethical conduct. In fact, throughout his life he continued to read the Bible and Jammer includes several quotes from Einstein speaking of Jesus in particularly glowing terms. His early religious training included both Catholic instruction (in German public schools) and private tutoring in the Hebrew faith. Needless to say, his parents were not orthodox Jews!

The Jammer book also includes excerpts from a response by Paul Tillich (a German theologian) to Einstein's rejection of a personal God in which he argues that the Christian concept of a personal God is actually a symbol or cypher for the non-anthropomorphic God in which Einstein believed. It's pretty interesting.

The book includes a third chapter which considers the implications of Einstein's concept of God in combination with developments in physics, but this final chapter does not reflect Einstein's personal beliefs because the ideas were put forth after his death and are controversial in nature according to Jammer. I haven't read this chapter yet.

Fiske
www.fiskemiles.com

Edited by: FiskeMiles at: 1/6/07 11:52 am



Sat Jan 06, 2007 11:51 am
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Stupendously Brilliant


Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 716
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 0 time in 0 post
Gender: None specified
Country: Ireland (ie)

Post Re: Einstein's Religion
Dawkins uses a lot of space in the book to "queen" certain historical figures. Anybody he likes, he "queens". The American founding fathers become atheistic, Mendel who became a monk (you know, giving up sex, money and all that lark) apparently wasn't religious and only wanted a research grant and Einstein becomes that which he denied he was for most of his life.

We're told that the great artists of the renassiance were all theists just because there was no other option, and the great works of art and philosophy inspired by religion would have had equally great secular equivalents had religion ever been absent.

He later goes on to distance atheism from well know "atheistic" (to borrow Dawkins' phrase) dictators.

Now the first thing that strikes me about this, is that Dawkins is playing with double standards.

The second is that I don't really know why he's devoting so much space to the exercise.

Full of Porn*

http://plainofpillars.blogspot.com




Sat Jan 06, 2007 4:14 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Professor

Silver Contributor

Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 3542
Location: NJ
Thanks: 1
Thanked: 5 times in 5 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Einstein's Religion
Fiske:

Here is a passage from your last post. I just want to get us both on the same page.

Quote:
One issue Jammer discusses, which I did not raise in my initial post, is that Einstein believed in determinism, that is, that all our actions are predetermined. (Doubtless one of the reasons he had so much trouble accepting quantum indeterminacy.) He rejected free will. It was this position that really got conservative theologians worked up.


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
how is it possible to think of holding men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an almighty Being? In giving out punishment and rewards He would to a certain extent be passing judgment on Himself. How can this be combined with the goodness and righteousness ascribed to Him?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The above snippet is from the Science and Religion quote you posted. What he is essentially saying is that since our actions are predetermined (by God) it is unreasonable to hold us morally accountable for them. In that sense, God "would be passing judgment on Himself."



This is the whole quote you reference and then state that Einstien rejected free will and believed in determinancy, and you used this to prove that stand:

Quote:
Nobody, certainly, will deny that the idea of the existence of an omnipotent, just, and omnibeneficent personal God is able to accord man solace, help, and guidance; also, by virtue of its simplicity it is accessible to the most undeveloped mind. But, on the other hand, there are decisive weaknesses attached to this idea in itself, which have been painfully felt since the beginning of history. That is, if this being is omnipotent, then every occurrence, including every human action, every human thought, and every human feeling and aspiration is also His work; how is it possible to think of holding men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an almighty Being? In giving out punishment and rewards He would to a certain extent be passing judgment on Himself. How can this be combined with the goodness and righteousness ascribed to Him?


I just do not see how the point you made is supported by this at all. In the passage from the essay, he is explaining why he does NOT believe in a personal god and gives this as the reason. Not saying he believes it. You seem to be using it to show that Einstein rejected free will and that he believed in determinism. Now I know he had a problem with indeterminism, but I thought he also came to terms with it later in life. I just do not see how your samples can support your claim at all.

Here is a quote from Einstein directly refuting this claim:

Quote:
"I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism."

Albert Einstein, replying to a letter in 1954 or 1955; from Albert Einstein the Human Side, Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, eds., Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981, p. 39.





Fiske:

Quote:
But nowhere does Einstein make any argument that God is the explanation for what science has not discovered.


Sure he does, from the Science and Religion (or vice versa) article:

Quote:
To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot.


That is the God of the Gaps argument...maybe he did not truly believe this, but he defends its existence!

Here is an excerpt from a book from Ronald W. Clark (I have not read the book at all so please forgive me if I missed something in the original context, but it seems a straight forward conclusion of Einsteins agnosticism):

Quote:
"However, Einstein's God was not the God of most other men. When he wrote of religion, as he often did in middle and later life, he tended to adopt the belief of Alice's Red Queen that "words mean what you want them to mean," and to clothe with different names what to more ordinary mortals



Sat Jan 06, 2007 4:53 pm
Profile YIM WWW


Post Re: Einstein's Religion
Dear Mr. P:

Quote:
I just do not see how the point you made is supported by this at all. In the passage from the essay, he is explaining why he does NOT believe in a personal god and gives this as the reason. Not saying he believes it. You seem to be using it to show that Einstein rejected free will and that he believed in determinism. Now I know he had a problem with indeterminism, but I thought he also came to terms with it later in life. I just do not see how your samples can support your claim at all.


The passage we're discussing is a convoluted argument in which Einstein seeks to demonstrate the inconsistency of an omnipotent God as posited by Hebrew, Christian, and Muslim faiths.

Here is the portion of the sentence preceding the part you bolded:

Quote:
That is, if this being is omnipotent, then every occurrence, including every human action, every human thought, and every human feeling and aspiration is also His work;


This is the predetermination. Note, that Einstein is not denying predetermination. In fact, he believes in it implicitly. What he does not believe in is the personal God who would hold humans morally accountable for actions God was, in effect, responsible for committing. From a Christian, Hebrew, and Muslim point of view, the idea that Free Will does not exist, and humans are therefore not morally culpable for their choices, is unacceptable. Free Will is a foundational belief for all these religious systems.

It seems clear that Einstein was somewhat surprised by the critical backlash from some theologians, resulting from his essay. It might be that he more or less backed into the rejection of free will while making an argument against the existence of a personal God. That is, a God with anthropomorphic features. In other words, determinism was so fundamental to his world view, it didn't occur to him that others wouldn't necessarily accept it implicitly too.

(Incidentally, the source reported on the Einstein Science and Religion website for this essay does not match the reference provided by Jammer. I rather suspect the website reference is mistaken or confused. Jammer seems to have done a lot of research in primary sources.)

Quote:
To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot.


When you suggest that this is Einstein resorting to a God of the Gaps argument, I think you're misinterpreting what is actually being said. Remember, Einstein explicitly rejects the existence of a personal God. That is unequivocal. So, when he says that "the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted," he is not arguing for the existence of such a God, but pointing out the impossibility of disproving the belief, even though it is not likely to be true.

Scientific knowledge has limits. People who wish to do so can always appeal to what lies beyond those limits to support their beliefs. Such appeals do not provide any sort of definitive proof, obviously, but they also cannot be disproved. I think this is what Einstein was getting at.

Here is a sentence from the quote you include from Ronald Clark's book:

Quote:
Instead, Einstein's God appears as the physical world itself, with its infinitely marvelous structure operating at atomic level with the beauty of a craftsman's wristwatch, and at stellar level with the majesty of a massive cyclotron.


I think this misrepresents what Einstein actually said, which is something along the following lines: God can in no way be understood to possess human characteristics; the only way we could understand anything about God, and this understanding is necessarily limited and vague, is by understanding the natural laws that govern our universe, because God is ultimately responsible for creating those laws.

This is why he denied being a pantheist -- he did not believe that God is the natural world, only that we must study the natural world to know anything about God.

As you point out, this concept of God is far different to the God proposed by Christians, Hebrews, and Muslims. It is still theism, though.

Fiske
www.fiskemiles.com

Edited by: FiskeMiles at: 1/9/07 7:03 pm



Tue Jan 09, 2007 6:51 pm


Post Re: Einstein's Religion
Oh, one other point: it's not deism either.

What Deists essentially argue is that God created the universe and is no longer concerned with it or no longer interacts with it. The argument is egocentric. What they are really saying is that since God obviously doesn't answer human prayers, or take a hand in human events (so far as they can tell), He's not paying attention. This presupposes that humans are why God created the universe.

Douglas Adams had all sorts of fun with this type of egocentric fallacy.

One can easily hear Einstein pointing out that human concepts of will and intent can in no way be applied to God. Nothing can be asserted about what concerns God. It is illogical, therefore, to conclude that God is not still involved with his creation.

Fiske

PS: This is important because if Einstein had argued for Deism, he actually would not be a theist.




Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:58 pm
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Professor

Silver Contributor

Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 3542
Location: NJ
Thanks: 1
Thanked: 5 times in 5 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Einstein's Religion
Fiske:

Quote:
The passage we're discussing is a convoluted argument in which Einstein seeks to demonstrate the inconsistency of an omnipotent God as posited by Hebrew, Christian, and Muslim faiths.


I agree with this, but then you go on and submit this:

Quote:
Here is the portion of the sentence preceding the part you bolded:


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is, if this being is omnipotent, then every occurrence, including every human action, every human thought, and every human feeling and aspiration is also His work;
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This is the predetermination.


Yes...but he is NOT using this to show his BELIEF in determinism...he is using this as an example of why a "omnipotent, just, and omnibeneficent " personal god is a silly notion. The sentence prior to the one you caption is this: "by virtue of its simplicity it is accessible to the most undeveloped mind. But, on the other hand, there are decisive weaknesses attached to this idea in itself, which have been painfully felt since the beginning of history."

While I am not arguing against your assertion that Einstein was a determinist, I am questioning whether this carried over to his ideas on free will. Was his determinism strictly applied to his science? He seems to be arguing against determinism actually. Maybe not ardently against it, but certainly not FOR it.

Quote:
From a Christian, Hebrew, and Muslim point of view, the idea that Free Will does not exist, and humans are therefore not morally culpable for their choices, is unacceptable.


And I have never seen a satisfactory explanation on how these intercessory gods can exist while free will remains intact.

I am at a library now and my time is running short...but that is pretty much all I have on this right now anyway!

Mr. P.

Mr. P's place. I warned you!!!

Mr. P's Bookshelf.

I'm not saying it's usual for people to do those things but I(with the permission of God) have raised a dog from the dead and healed many people from all sorts of ailments. - Asana

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"

I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper




Thu Jan 11, 2007 9:43 pm
Profile YIM WWW


Post Re: Einstein's Religion
Dear Mr. P:

Quote:
While I am not arguing against your assertion that Einstein was a determinist, I am questioning whether this carried over to his ideas on free will.


From my reading of Jammer's book and some other incidental Einstein reading, I believe his position on determinism actually did cause Einstein to reject free will, but that issue goes well beyond our current discussion.

And I agree with you that Einstein does not assert his own belief in determinism in this argument. What he is doing is pointing out the inconsistency of belief in an omnipotent deity combined with human culpability for moral decisions which would essentially be predetermined IF God were omnipotent. That this argument delves into the extremely complex issue of apologetics, seems not to have been carefully considered by Einstein before making the argument. But then he was a theoretical physicist, not a theologian. Thank goodness! ;)

Fiske




Fri Jan 12, 2007 12:57 am
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Professor

Silver Contributor

Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 3542
Location: NJ
Thanks: 1
Thanked: 5 times in 5 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Einstein's Religion
I keep looking into this matter...and I am still not convinced that Einstein can be considered a theist typical of the definition that we accept. I tend to think he was more of a deist and his 'cosmic religious feeling' speaks to why I feel this way.

Below is his "Religion and Science" essay. This is not the same essay I posted earlier, which was titled "Science and Religion". Also, I was thinking...would anyone be interested in a topical discussion of Einstein's ideas and opinions? NOT choosing a biography, but choosing some of his writings and discussing those. There is a book of writings we can focus on, but we can also use any items that he himself has written. What better topic to discuss than the most prominant thinker we may well have ever had on this planet?

Religion and Science Essay:

Quote:
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.


Mr. P.


I'm not saying it's usual for people to do those things but I(with the permission of God) have raised a dog from the dead and healed many people from all sorts of ailments. - Asana Boditharta (former booktalk troll)

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

What is all this shit about Angels? Have you heard this? 3 out of 4 people believe in Angels. Are you F****** STUPID? Has everybody lost their mind? - George Carlin

I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper




Mon Jan 22, 2007 4:52 pm
Profile YIM WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average. 



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:


BookTalk.org Links 
Forum Rules & Tips
Frequently Asked Questions
BBCode Explained
Info for Authors & Publishers
Featured Book Suggestions
Author Interview Transcripts
Be a Book Discussion Leader!
    

Love to talk about books but don't have time for our book discussion forums? For casual book talk join us on Facebook.

Featured Books

Books by New Authors



Booktalk.org on Facebook 



BookTalk.org is a free book discussion group or online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a group. We host live author chats where booktalk members can interact with and interview authors. We give away free books to our members in book giveaway contests. Our booktalks are open to everybody who enjoys talking about books. Our book forums include book reviews, author interviews and book resources for readers and book lovers. Discussing books is our passion. We're a literature forum, or reading forum. Register a free book club account today! Suggest nonfiction and fiction books. Authors and publishers are welcome to advertise their books or ask for an author chat or author interview.


Navigation 
MAIN NAVIGATION

HOMEFORUMSBOOKSTRANSCRIPTSOLD FORUMSADVERTISELINKSFAQDONATETERMS OF USEPRIVACY POLICY

BOOK FORUMS FOR ALL BOOKS WE HAVE DISCUSSED
Oliver Twist - by Charles DickensSense and Goodness Without God - by Richard CarrierFrankenstein - by Mary ShelleyThe Big Questions - by Simon BlackburnScience Was Born of Christianity - by Stacy TrasancosThe Happiness Hypothesis - by Jonathan HaidtA Game of Thrones - by George R. R. MartinTempesta's Dream - by Vincent LoCocoWhy Nations Fail - by Daron Acemoglu and James RobinsonThe Drowning Girl - Caitlin R. KiernanThe Consolations of the Forest - by Sylvain TessonThe Complete Heretic's Guide to Western Religion: The Mormons - by David FitzgeraldA Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man - by James JoyceThe Divine Comedy - by Dante AlighieriThe Magic of Reality - by Richard DawkinsDubliners - by James JoyceMy Name Is Red - by Orhan PamukThe World Until Yesterday - by Jared DiamondThe Man Who Was Thursday - by by G. K. ChestertonThe Better Angels of Our Nature by Steven PinkerLord Jim by Joseph ConradThe Hobbit by J. R. R. TolkienThe Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas AdamsAtlas Shrugged by Ayn RandThinking, Fast and Slow - by Daniel KahnemanThe Righteous Mind - by Jonathan HaidtWorld War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War by Max BrooksMoby Dick: or, the Whale by Herman MelvilleA Visit from the Goon Squad by Jennifer EganLost Memory of Skin: A Novel by Russell BanksThe Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas S. KuhnHobbes: Leviathan by Thomas HobbesThe House of the Spirits - by Isabel AllendeArguably: Essays by Christopher HitchensThe Falls: A Novel (P.S.) by Joyce Carol OatesChrist in Egypt by D.M. MurdockThe Glass Bead Game: A Novel by Hermann HesseA Devil's Chaplain by Richard DawkinsThe Hero with a Thousand Faces by Joseph CampbellThe Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor DostoyevskyThe Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark TwainThe Moral Landscape by Sam HarrisThe Decameron by Giovanni BoccaccioThe Road by Cormac McCarthyThe Grand Design by Stephen HawkingThe Evolution of God by Robert WrightThe Tin Drum by Gunter GrassGood Omens by Neil GaimanPredictably Irrational by Dan ArielyThe Wind-Up Bird Chronicle: A Novel by Haruki MurakamiALONE: Orphaned on the Ocean by Richard Logan & Tere Duperrault FassbenderDon Quixote by Miguel De CervantesMusicophilia by Oliver SacksDiary of a Madman and Other Stories by Nikolai GogolThe Passion of the Western Mind by Richard TarnasThe Left Hand of Darkness by Ursula K. Le GuinThe Genius of the Beast by Howard BloomAlice's Adventures in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll Empire of Illusion by Chris HedgesThe Sound and the Fury by William Faulkner The Extended Phenotype by Richard DawkinsSmoke and Mirrors by Neil GaimanThe Selfish Gene by Richard DawkinsWhen Good Thinking Goes Bad by Todd C. RinioloHouse of Leaves by Mark Z. DanielewskiAmerican Gods: A Novel by Neil GaimanPrimates and Philosophers by Frans de WaalThe Enormous Room by E.E. CummingsThe Picture of Dorian Gray by Oscar WildeGod Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything by Christopher HitchensThe Name of the Rose by Umberto Eco Dreams From My Father by Barack Obama Paradise Lost by John Milton Bad Money by Kevin PhillipsThe Secret Garden by Frances Hodgson BurnettGodless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists by Dan BarkerThe Things They Carried by Tim O'BrienThe Limits of Power by Andrew BacevichLolita by Vladimir NabokovOrlando by Virginia Woolf On Being Certain by Robert A. Burton50 reasons people give for believing in a god by Guy P. HarrisonWalden: Or, Life in the Woods by Henry David ThoreauExile and the Kingdom by Albert CamusOur Inner Ape by Frans de WaalYour Inner Fish by Neil ShubinNo Country for Old Men by Cormac McCarthyThe Age of American Unreason by Susan JacobyTen Theories of Human Nature by Leslie Stevenson & David HabermanHeart of Darkness by Joseph ConradThe Stuff of Thought by Stephen PinkerA Thousand Splendid Suns by Khaled HosseiniThe Lucifer Effect by Philip ZimbardoResponsibility and Judgment by Hannah ArendtInterventions by Noam ChomskyGodless in America by George A. RickerReligious Expression and the American Constitution by Franklyn S. HaimanDeep Economy by Phil McKibbenThe God Delusion by Richard DawkinsThe Third Chimpanzee by Jared DiamondThe Woman in the Dunes by Abe KoboEvolution vs. Creationism by Eugenie C. ScottThe Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael PollanI, Claudius by Robert GravesBreaking The Spell by Daniel C. DennettA Peace to End All Peace by David FromkinThe Time Traveler's Wife by Audrey NiffeneggerThe End of Faith by Sam HarrisEnder's Game by Orson Scott CardThe Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time by Mark HaddonValue and Virtue in a Godless Universe by Erik J. WielenbergThe March by E. L DoctorowThe Ethical Brain by Michael GazzanigaFreethinkers: A History of American Secularism by Susan JacobyCollapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed by Jared DiamondThe Battle for God by Karen ArmstrongThe Future of Life by Edward O. WilsonWhat is Good? by A. C. GraylingCivilization and Its Enemies by Lee HarrisPale Blue Dot by Carl SaganHow We Believe: Science, Skepticism, and the Search for God by Michael ShermerLooking for Spinoza by Antonio DamasioLies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them by Al FrankenThe Red Queen by Matt RidleyThe Blank Slate by Stephen PinkerUnweaving the Rainbow by Richard DawkinsAtheism: A Reader edited by S.T. JoshiGlobal Brain by Howard BloomThe Lucifer Principle by Howard BloomGuns, Germs and Steel by Jared DiamondThe Demon-Haunted World by Carl SaganBury My Heart at Wounded Knee by Dee BrownFuture Shock by Alvin Toffler

OTHER PAGES WORTH EXPLORING
Banned Book ListOur Amazon.com SalesMassimo Pigliucci Rationally SpeakingOnline Reading GroupTop 10 Atheism BooksFACTS Book Selections

cron
Copyright © BookTalk.org 2002-2014. All rights reserved.
Website developed by MidnightCoder.ca
Display Pagerank