Do scientist eventually give up on the ultimate truth?

[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.