Do scientist eventually give up on the ultimate truth?

[rohanprabhu]

Most of the great scientists I have seen..

"God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done"
-Sir Isaac Newton

"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 the support of such views."
-Albert Einstein

are men who have strong belief in God. So is it common for all scientist to give up on the ultimate truth and accept that the occurrings in this universe are controlled by an almighty?

 

[Moridin]

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." - Albert Einstein

"Hypotheses non fingo" - Newton (on the cause of gravity).

93% Of the National Academy of Sciences Are Atheists (more)

"The question of religious belief among US scientists has been debated since early in the century. Our latest survey finds that, among the top natural scientists, disbelief is greater than ever — almost total."

Famous scientists including Nobel Prize winner Marie Curie, James Watson, Francis Crick, Paul Dirac, Richard Feynman, Albert Einstein, Franc Wilczek, Paul Nurse, Paul D. Boyer, Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, Frédéric Joliot-Curie, Harold Kroto, Peter D. Mitchell, Jacques Monod, Hermann Joseph Muller, Linus Pauling, Richard J. Roberts, Steven Weinberg, Amartya Sen, Michael Smith are atheists. Other atheist scientists are Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan, Steven Pinker, E. O. Wilson, Peter Atkins, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Steven Jay Gould, Massimo Pigliucci, Issac Asimov, Noam Chomsky, Michael Shermer, Steven Hawking, Sean Carroll, Victor Stenger, Laurence M. Krauss, Leonard Susskind and more.

 

[Poop-Loops]

Qed?

 

[Danger]

Bravo, Moridin.
I have personally never heard of any scientist who even thinks that there is such a thing as 'ultimate truth'. The purpose of science is to understand reality to as great an extent as possible. Even supposing that there is an 'ultimate truth' is contrary to that goal.

 

[Cyrus]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1150978581009235713&q=beyond+belief+tyson&total=37&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=3

Watch this video, he explains it quite well.

 

[Moridin]

Qed?

Pretty much. This is overkill, but I'll go ahead and do it anyways.

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Nothing/Laws.pdf

"The laws of physics were not handed down from above. Neither are they rules somehow built into the structure of the universe. They are ingredients of the models that physicists invent to describe observations. Rather than being restrictions on the behavior of matter, the laws of physics are restrictions on the behavior of physicists. If the models of physics are to describe observations based on an objective reality, then those models cannot depend on the point of view of the observer. This suggests a principle of point-of-view invariance that is equivalent to the principle of covariance (or cosmological principle, or Copernican principle) when applied to space-time. As Noether showed, this leads to the principles of energy, linear momentum, and angular momentum conservation and essentially all of classical mechanics. It also leads to Lorentz invariance and special relativity. When generalized to the abstract space of functions such as the quantum state vector, point-of-view invariance is identified with gauge invariance. Quantum mechanics is then just the mathematics of gauge transformations with no additional assumptions needed to obtain its rules, including the superposition and uncertainty principles. Conservation of electric charge, isospin, and other quantities follow from global gauge invariance. The forces in the standard model of elementary particles are fields introduced to preserve local gauge invariance. Gravity can also be viewed as such a field. Thus practically all of fundamental physics as we know it follows directly from the single principle of point-of-view invariance."

No deity need apply. Position has been filled.

This is also described in the book "The Comprehensible Cosmos: Where Do The Laws of Physics Come From?" by physicist Victor Stenger.

Here is the refutation of the classic 10% Argument.

 

[lisab]

Of all the professors I had in college, none used the word 'god' more than my physics professors ! In that context, 'god' was intended to mean "that which we don't understand - yet," not the god that is in the bible/torah/koran/(fill in blank_________).

I don't comprehend the need which drives a person to have fundamentalist or strong religious views, but it would appear that whatever that need is, it's fulfilled by understanding the world the way a scientist does.

What do you mean by "ultimate truth", rohanprabhu?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Bravo, Moridin.
I have personally never heard of any scientist who even thinks that there is such a thing as 'ultimate truth'. The purpose of science is to understand reality to as great an extent as possible. Even supposing that there is an 'ultimate truth' is contrary to that goal.

I would say that the goal is more to produce models that predict what is observed. Whether or not the model for the atom leads to an understanding of the reality of an atom is indeterminate.

Science is about models, not truth.

Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind - Albert Einstein,

 

[Huckleberry]

So is it common for all scientist to give up on the ultimate truth and accept that the occurrings in this universe are controlled by an almighty?

I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Einstein never gave up on his theory of everything. To his last day he tried unsuccessfully to reconcile his theory with his vision of God. Quantum physics interfered with his vision because it seemed as if nobody was 'at the controls.'

Oddly enough, quantum physics today is the source of many of the new religious/spiritual myths. Depending on how many times a thing is turned on its head some new interpretation of it can be found to be meaningful to one's worldview.

I like this quote from Isaac Asimov for it's intellectual honesty and emotional balance. I've made a very different choice for almost the same reasons.

Asimov: I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I've been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn't have. Somehow it was better to say one was a humanist or an agnostic. I finally decided that I'm a creature of emotion as well as of reason. Emotionally I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time.

Anyway, Truth is more in the realm of philosophy than science, near as I can tell. Science is limited to objective facts. I'm not sure what you mean by 'ultimate truth,' but I doubt scientists will ever give up their inquiry into the nature of the universe by postulating that God is the cause of all causes. The moment that hypothesis is accepted scientifically is the moment scientific inquiry dies.

 

[hotcommodity]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1150978581009235713&q=beyond+belief+tyson&total=37&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=3

Watch this video, he explains it quite well.

My physics seminar professor is in that video :)

Science is a tool that is used to model and predict phenomena in the physical world, whereas philosophy is used to make logical assumptions about anything you can imagine. Therefore I'm of the opinion that science is not the proper tool to use when it comes to "proving" the existence of a deity. Philosophy on the other hand may be the best approach. It discriminates against the misuse of logical assumption, whereas science discriminates against anything that cannot be physically proven.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." - Albert Einstein

The key concept being a "personal God".

Before God we are all equally wise — and equally foolish
Albert Einstein

I believe in Spinoza's God, Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.
Albert Einstein (24 April 1929)

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. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science.

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. Morality is of the highest importance — but for us, not for God.
Albert Einstein

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.
Albert Einstein, Letter to Edgar Meyer (2 January 1915)

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious, then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
Albert Einstein from a letter to an atheist, written in English (24 March 1954). It is included in Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman

My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment.
Albert Einstein, Letter to M. Berkowitz (25 October 1950)

The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of true art and true science... ~ Albert Einstein

The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of true art and true science. Whoever does not know it and can no longer wonder, no longer marvel, is as good as dead, and his eyes are dimmed. It was the experience of mystery — even if mixed with fear — that engendered religion. A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, our perceptions of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which only in their most primitive forms are accessible to our minds: it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute true religiosity. In this sense, and only this sense, I am a deeply religious man.
Albert Einstein
Variant translation: The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed.

 

[Evo]

The key concept being a "personal God".

Before God we are all equally wise — and equally foolish
Albert Einstein

I believe in Spinoza's God, Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.
Albert Einstein (24 April 1929)

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. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science.

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. Morality is of the highest importance — but for us, not for God.
Albert Einstein

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.
Albert Einstein, Letter to Edgar Meyer (2 January 1915)

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious, then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
Albert Einstein from a letter to an atheist, written in English (24 March 1954). It is included in Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman

My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment.
Albert Einstein, Letter to M. Berkowitz (25 October 1950)

The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of true art and true science... ~ Albert Einstein

The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of true art and true science. Whoever does not know it and can no longer wonder, no longer marvel, is as good as dead, and his eyes are dimmed. It was the experience of mystery — even if mixed with fear — that engendered religion. A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, our perceptions of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which only in their most primitive forms are accessible to our minds: it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute true religiosity. In this sense, and only this sense, I am a deeply religious man.
Albert Einstein
Variant translation: The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed.

True, Einstein did not believe in a "god". This is a great quote showing Einstein's disdain for a "god".

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.

Thanks, Ivan for posting those.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

He clearly did believe in a God; just not a personal God who punishes.

I believe in Spinoza's God, Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.

 

[Cyrus]

My physics seminar professor is in that video :)

Science is a tool that is used to model and predict phenomena in the physical world, whereas philosophy is used to make logical assumptions about anything you can imagine. Therefore I'm of the opinion that science is not the proper tool to use when it comes to "proving" the existence of a deity. Philosophy on the other hand may be the best approach. It discriminates against the misuse of logical assumption, whereas science discriminates against anything that cannot be physically proven.

You should read a few books on this subject. I would recommend the God Delusion. Science absolutely is able, and the proper tool to falsify such claims.

 

[Cyrus]

He clearly did believe in a God; just not a personal God who punishes.

Thats a benign god that has no effect, at all, on our daily lives or how we live them. I have no problem with people believing that all day long. It does not require praying, taking science out of the classrooms, not eating pork, or any other silly ritual.

 

[Evo]

He clearly did believe in a God; just not a personal God who punishes.

Exactly, he didn't believe in a "religious" god. He only believed in nature and science.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

He clearly assigns a consciousness to his God concept.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Thats a benign god that has no effect, at all, on our daily lives or how we live them. I have no problem with people believing that all day long. It does not require praying, taking science out of the classrooms, not eating pork, or any other silly ritual.

That is the difference between spirituality and religion.

FYI, I consider myself to be spiritual, but I accept no religion as being absolute.

I pray from time to time. Also, to say that this sort of God concept has no effect on our lives is a leap of faith. But does a God check to see if I went to Church on Sunday... I'm with Einstein.

 

[Danger]

Einstein very clearly stated, as is quoted above, that he believed in Spinoza's god. As much as I don't like referencing Wikipedia, it's as good a source as any for this definition.
The consequences of Spinoza's system also envisage a God that does not rule over the universe by providence, but a God which itself is the deterministic system of which everything in nature is a part. Thus, God is the natural world and He has no personality.

In other words, there is no god. It's just nature being itself.

 

[Cyrus]

That is the difference between spirituality and religion.

FYI, I consider myself to be spiritual, but I accept no religion as being absolute.

I pray from time to time. Also, to say that this sort of God concept has no effect on our lives is a leap of faith. But does a God check to see if I went to Church on Sunday... I'm with Einstein.

In the sense that we don't have books on how to 'live our lives properly'. It might give you happiness, but it does not dictate how to live your life.

 

[Moridin]

Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind - Albert Einstein

Otherwise science would have nothing to do.

"Science must begin with myths, and with the criticism of myths" - Karl Popper

He clearly did believe in a God; just not a personal God who punishes.

Spinoza just about defined away any theistic god. Pantheism is pretty much indistinguishable from sexed-up atheism.

 

[Huckleberry]

I wish Einstein was alive today to argue his own theism. The man never claimed to be atheist or agnostic. He was very clearly a devout theist. Any claims to atheism rely on one word, Spinoza, and ignore a lifetime of faith. That's wishful thinking.

 

[Cyrus]

I wish Einstein was alive today to argue his own theism. The man never claimed to be atheist or agnostic. He was very clearly a devout theist. Any claims to atheism rely on one word, Spinoza, and ignore a lifetime of faith. That's wishful thinking.

I don't know how you got to that leap of faith, considering the quotes by the man himself in this thread.

 

[Huckleberry]

He was agnostic to the aspect of a personal God. He did believe in a conscious God that ordered the universe. He believed unquestionably in Jesus.

When asked if he believed in the God of Spinoza...

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. 26
-Albert Einstein

Einstein was not an atheist and did not consider himself a pantheist. If we are going to disregard how a person considers themselves so we can make our lists as we choose then there will be millions of lists with no meaning. Einstein does not regard himself as an atheist and it is disrespectful to consider him one against his wishes.

"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 the support of such views."
-Albert Einstein

I feel it is safe to say that anyone claiming Einstein to be an atheist is the one making the leap of faith.

 

[Moridin]

I feel it is safe to say that anyone claiming Einstein to be an atheist is the one making the leap of faith.

He himself confessed to being an atheist as we now define the term, so I do not see how you can be confused? But I guess that is a prominent feature of disingenuous theists such as yourself, desperately preferring historical revisionism over truth. You are simply repeating the lie Einstein himself spoke of. Einstein rejected a theist god.

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." - Albert Einstein

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings" - Albert Einstein

Einstein's God = "orderly harmony of what exists".

 

[Gokul43201]

He did believe in a conscious God that ordered the universe.

No, only in a "god" that was the order in the universe.

Since we're playing this quote game now, here's an Einstein quote on praying:

Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the action of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a Supernatural Being.
-- Albert Einstein, 1936

Does no one believe Einstein's views on a god may have changed over the course of his lifetime? Seems to me, that the older he got, the more he rejected the common man's God.

 

[Cyrus]

I like the claim that he, 'unquestionably in Jesus.'

I have no idea where you got this notion from.

 

[moe darklight]

Does no one believe Einstein's views on a god may have changed over the course of his lifetime?

I think this is the key of this whole argument. I'm yet to meet an intelligent person who does not change their mind every so often. Einstein lived for almost 80 years, are we to assume he kept the exact same unchanging world-view throughout all those years?

Maybe he went back and forth, maybe he turned less or more religious as he aged... I'm sure that if we look at those quotes chronologically we'll find that they each belong to a different period in his life.

Either way, I don't think it really matters. Newton was extremely religious. People often use that as proof of a god: "well, so and so believed in God." No one, no matter how brilliant, is infallible and completely free from being affected by their presuppositions. At the end of the day it's up to one to trust one's own instincts and intellect and arrive at a conclusion (or not).

 

[Cyrus]

Einstein was also WRONG on quantum theory. So, does that mean quantum theory is wrong? Just because the man is Einstein does not make him God, speaker of all truth. Everyone is wrong on some things.

 

[Huckleberry]

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings" - Albert Einstein

Einstein's God = "orderly harmony of what exists".

Einstein's God = "who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists".

The thing that is being revealed is the cosmic intelligence that is as much a part of Einstein's God as the universe itself. I think this union of concepts is what attracted him to Spinoza's pantheism. What you are attempting is to separate the consciousness from the universe and then claim that Einstein never believed in a God, just the universe. Einstein's beef was with people accusing him of believing in a personal God, and people using his words to support atheism. Somehow you twist this into him being an atheist. That's disingenious.

Unless the definition of atheism has changed so much that it now includes people who believe devoutly in God, Einstein was a theist. You can spin it any way you like, but the truth is that he believed in God. As far as I'm concerned that would make him some form of theist.

I like the claim that he, 'unquestionably in Jesus.'

"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
-Albert Einstein

What this means could be interpreted many ways. I take it to mean that he accepts that Jesus was a divinely inspired moral teacher.

 

[Poop-Loops]

Einstein's God = "who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists".

The thing that is being revealed is the cosmic intelligence that is as much a part of Einstein's God as the universe itself. I think this union of concepts is what attracted him to Spinoza's pantheism. What you are attempting is to separate the consciousness from the universe and then claim that Einstein never believed in a God, just the universe. Einstein's beef was with people accusing him of believing in a personal God, and people using his words to support atheism. Somehow you twist this into him being an atheist. That's disingenious.

Way to completely ignore the first quote. You know, the one who makes your entire commentary paragraph BS.

What this means could be interpreted many ways. I take it to mean that he accepts that Jesus was a divinely inspired moral teacher.

Errr, no. He's saying Jesus was a person in history, because of how real it seems, i.e. you can't make anything up that would be as believable. Notice how he called it a MYTH?

 

[moe darklight]

You are putting words in his mouth. By saying no myth could be filled with such life, he is clearly saying it is not a myth:

If I were riding a motorcycle and you asked me "is that a bike?," I would say "no. no bike could ever go this fast." I am clearly stating it is a motorcycle and not a bike, for no bike could go as fast.

I am an agnostic, strongly bordering on atheist, and a moral anti-theist. But it is rather obvious to me from those that he did believe in God (whether he changed his mind, I don't know. Anyone have dates for those quotes), and that some of you are having a really hard time accepting this.

As far as the historical Jesus, there is strong evidence against not only him not having been sent by God, but of never having existed at all. A movie called "the God who wasn't there" is a good introduction into the misconception that "well, I don't believe that he was divine, but clearly there was a man named Jesus who did great things." All signs (hard historical evidence) point to not even this being true.

That's a completely different topic though.

 

[Cyrus]

You are putting words in his mouth. By saying no myth could be filled with such life, he is clearly saying it is not a myth:

If I were riding a motorcycle and you asked me "is that a bike?," I would say "no. no bike could ever go this fast." I am clearly stating it is a motorcycle and not a bike, for no bike could go as fast.

I am an agnostic, strongly bordering on atheist, and a moral anti-theist. But it is rather obvious to me from those that he did believe in God (whether he changed his mind, I don't know. Anyone have dates for those quotes), and that some of you are having a really hard time accepting this.

As far as the historical Jesus, there is strong evidence against not only him not having been sent by God, but of never having existed at all. A movie called "the God who wasn't there" is a good introduction into the misconception that "well, I don't believe that he was divine, but clearly there was a man named Jesus who did great things." All signs (hard historical evidence) point to not even this being true.

That's a completely different topic though.

Yeah, I read the quote wrong. You are right. Basic reading comprehension is beyond me today.

 

[Moridin]

Huckleberry has gone of the deep end.

Einstein's God = "who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists".

= "who is identical to the orderly harmony of what exists".

As modern science has shown, consciousness is a material phenomena, so immaterial beings cannot have a consciousness.

 

[Noone]

life

Thats a benign god that has no effect, at all, on our daily lives or how we live them. I have no problem with people believing that all day long. It does not require praying, taking science out of the classrooms, not eating pork, or any other silly ritual.

Intresting comment's...this thread has, but do you all believe those to be what you belive? or do you find its best to create your own answer that suites you personaly like Albert has done. instead of quoting his his thoughts on his way of couping with this physical world and the time we must past through day after day, he would say it would be wise to make your own that quenches your thirst for the understanding of the "God" and the question of "Why" but that wouldn't take Albert to point that out :D people just use him as a point of refrence...alot :)

-<(this comment is true)>- I'm sure you would have a problem with what they were doing if what they were doing was effecting the life that you wanted to live.

People will allways seek to others for the answer's of questions of these kind of matter's.
Only a hand full will kill others or take from others to forfill or protect there ritual's...even start wars...but so do traditions..the thing that we all do, hence isn't thanksgiving a tradition? isn't the way people do every thing a way of tradition? only thing difrent is that people's trad's don't take away from other's. the ones that due get on tv and make conflict. Dosnt seem wise :D but that would be the world of today.

_<(Please if you find my comment incorrect please state why it is and why you think it is, then state why it wouldn't be and why i could think it wouldn't be to better understand without conflict.)>_ But since we know the problems wouldn't it be easy to find the ways to fix them? I am sure we all know what not to say or do to those people to make it worse. Got any idea's? I DO :D but would you think it would be wise to phycological war fare on people of ritual and relig points of view that hurt and take away from our world of humanity? a lot of thinken x.X "Do onto others as want done onto ones self" could help if they didnt lie about what they wouldn't mind done onto them selfs. so meany problems the brain has made can the brain fix the problems it made aswell? well i allready know the answers x.X O and to recap on the hole pork and science things... yes its beyond silly...those people are not thinking correctly, i could change there mind on there views of why they think those things, by showing them why,how ,and what makes that idea wrong on all levels, ... if i knew where they are :D

 

[Huckleberry]

Huckleberry has gone of the deep end.



= "who is identical to the orderly harmony of what exists".

As modern science has shown, consciousness is a material phenomena, so immaterial beings cannot have a consciousness.

Einstein's God = "orderly harmony of what exists".

Einstein's God = "who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists".

It seems to me what you are saying is that to reveal something is the same as being the thing revealed. That is not always true.

Again, you are seperating Einstein's idea of consciousness from the universe in order to make a claim that he was atheist; something he expressly claimed he was not. It's not only dishonest, it's disrespectful.

 

[Kurdt]

These debates on whether Einstein was a theist are not tend to go nowhere fast.

I think some scientists get frustrated at their inability to solve all the problems they want to. It doesn't mean there isn't an answer because often later generations of scientists will solve that problem with the extra information they have available. Perhaps its ego that leads them to say there can't be an answer because they can't find it.

 

[Evo]

I agree Kurdt, how can someone read Einstein's own quotes and not understand? Einstein considered himself agnostic, but tended to lean more towards atheism.

“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”

Albert Einstein, in a letter March 24, 1954; from Albert Einstein the Human Side, Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, eds., Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981, p. 43.

“My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment.”

Albert Einstein in a letter to M. Berkowitz, October 25, 1950; Einstein Archive 59-215; from Alice Calaprice, ed., The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2000, p. 216.

“The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naïve.”

Albert Einstein in a letter to Beatrice Frohlich, December 17, 1952; Einstein Archive 59-797; from Alice Calaprice, ed., The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2000, p. 217.

“It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem—the most important of all human problems.”

Albert Einstein, 1947; from Banesh Hoffmann, Albert Einstein Creator and Rebel, New York: New American Library, 1972, p. 95.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quotes_einstein.html

 

[Moridin]

Einstein's God = "orderly harmony of what exists".

Einstein's God = "who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists".

It seems to me what you are saying is that to reveal something is the same as being the thing revealed. That is not always true.

Again, you are seperating Einstein's idea of consciousness from the universe in order to make a claim that he was atheist; something he expressly claimed he was not. It's not only dishonest, it's disrespectful.

He said he was an atheist, since he did not believe in a personal god. Can you read? You are the one being pathological dishonest here.

 

[Cyrus]

I think its fair to say Einstein went back and forth on this issue, as he was not able to come to a concrete decision.

 

[dst]

Einstein decides whether our creator exists

 

[Evo]

I think its fair to say Einstein went back and forth on this issue, as he was not able to come to a concrete decision.

He was a smart man, stating he was atheist would have created a media scandal, not to mention condemnation from religious groups, which happened to some extent for his constant repetition of not believing in a religious god. But when he says that he's agnostic, that he doesn't believe in the god described by religion, why can't people accept it? It's not arguable, it's in his letters.

 

[Huckleberry]

He said he was an atheist, since he did not believe in a personal god..

No, he said he was not an atheist, and he did not believe in a personal God. The two concepts are not exclusive.

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. 26

-Albert Einstein

The only flip-flopping I am sure of is which branch of theism he preferred. In the above quote he doesn't consider himself a pantheist. In another quote he does. The rest of his views appear to be consistent throughout his lifetime. His agnostic position refers to the idea of a personal God, something he never believed in. I have yet to see him describe himself as an atheist of any kind.

I've seen a lot of quotes using what Einstein thought God wasn't as proofs of what he thought God was. Yet, every time I find a question that asks him specifically what God is I find an answer like this.

My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior Spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. The deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning Power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God. 20

 

[moe darklight]

It seems to me that this is pretty much as far as this argument can go, given just his public words and no personal knowledge of the man. Whether his earlier references to a form of non-personal God were a means of not causing a scandal, or whether he did in fact believe in a God, I don't think any of us here can say for sure.

All I see is that his tone did change with time and that his later quotations (such as those you've posted, from the 40's-50's) are more explicitly agnostic and atheistic.

 

[Evo]

It seems to me that this is pretty much as far as this argument can go, given just his public words and no personal knowledge of the man. Whether his earlier references to a form of non-personal God were a means of not causing a scandal, or whether he did in fact believe in a God, I don't think any of us here can say for sure.

All I see is that his tone did change with time and that his later quotations (such as those you've posted, from the 40's-50's) are more explicitly agnostic and atheistic.

And on that note, the thread is closing.