First off, "Spinoza's god" is a deist position, not theist.Originally Posted by Gladys
Secondly, Einstein's feelings on the theist position are best exemplified in his private correspondence where he describes the belief as "childish".
First off, "Spinoza's god" is a deist position, not theist.
Secondly, Einstein's feelings on the theist position are best exemplified in his private correspondence where he describes the belief as "childish".
Well, he also said that science without religion and religion without science were "blind" and "lame," respectively. It doesn't clarify anything by saying that Einstein used "God" metaphorically. Einstein was not an atheist. He clearly professed a belief in God (as did Newton and Darwin). Einstein's God seems to have been like Spinoza's, which was like the God of the Deists.
Spinoza was excommunicated for heresy in teaching that the Universe was a manefestation of God. It's a bit unclear whether his ideas amounted to pantheism or panentheism, but from my reading it seems he tended to believe more in the latter.
Science may never be able to prove that God exists or does not exist.
I have read Dawkin's books quite closely, and I don't think I have misunderstood anything he wrote. Of course he was never so foolish as to say that evolutionary biology disproved the existence of a Creator, but he clearly takes he position that a Creator is extremely improbable and is in any case "unecessary" from the scientific point of view.
I think that it is possible to believe in a Creator of the Universe, a supreme being who preceded existence and at some point said "Let there be..." time, matter, the Big Bang, or whatever.
Trying to present Einstein as anything other than the mildest form of deist is flat wrong.
How clear do you want it?
I don't think anyone's suggested he was an atheist, so I'm not sure why you keep repeating that he wasn't.The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this
Science has no business in it at all; the onus is clearly in those who posit god/s to present evidence on their behalf. Science can then test those claims, but matters of faith are irrelevant to science.
Which is why I agreed with you.
Yes.
It's also possible to believe in fairies, the Loch Ness monster, alien crop circles and bigfoot.
I imagine so because it's logically impossible to prove anything, and the god hypothesis is unfalsifiable, thus can not be disproved by convention of it's formation.
I can't prove or disprove the existence of the Easter Bunny, it is hardly worth mentioning.
Of course the existence of God is unnecessary in science, all untestable hypotheses are unnecessary.
I just don't get the idea that religions of any kind have to prove themselves by the methods and demands of science. It's just dumb. It's like asking science to prove it's existence in the Bible or Koran or Bhagavad Gita.
How about we prove that I love my wife my doing a color analysis of my love? Or ask me to measure the stink of latest trip to the can in centimeters? Or produce a logical tautology as prove why my 5-year old daughter cries when no one sits next to her on the school bus?
“Oh crap”
-- Hellboy
Religions don't have to prove anything, but if claims are made that god/s exist and interact with the physical world, they are claims which are testable.
I'm just putting the onus of proof onto those who make claims.
No claims = no proof needed.
It's pretty simple.
I agree. There are falacies in scinetific theories or hypotheses. What we call science today may be a dogma tomarrow
“Those who seek to satisfy the mind of man by hampering it with ceremonies and music and affecting charity and devotion have lost their original nature””
“If water derives lucidity from stillness, how much more the faculties of the mind! The mind of the sage, being in repose, becomes the mirror of the universe, the speculum of all creation.
Science is a methodology, it is a tool, not a way of belief.
Well, I'm glad that you admit that Einstein believed in a Creator (you can call it "Spinoza's God," "Deus, Mildest Form," or whatever, but it is still a Creator. This is more than just using the term, "God" metaphorically, which was your original comment. As an atheist, are you in any way disappointed that Einstein (or Newton or Darwin) was not? Do you think that they were deluded?
I don't know why you have to refer to fairies, the Loch Ness monster, alien crop circles, and Bigfoot, except to take a cheap shot to equate belief in God
with belief in hoaxes.
No, I do not admit that Einstein believed in a creator and I'm not at all sure he did. I read his words and se metaphors.
Since he's not here to ask, I never take much interest in what he thought aside from ensuring people don't try to claim he was a theist, which he very clearly was not.
It always amuses me that people pick on what Einstein thought as though he was some kind of guru who could not be wrong. Yes, he was the greatest genius we've known, but he still made mistakes, plus, an important factor is that Einstein was very keen not to step on toes and kept his real feelings to himself, which is why we only now can look at what he really did think by virtue of his private correspondence.
No disappointment at all. They lived in a different world to me and I hold no enmity for their beliefs. Like Einstein, we are only guessing at what Darwin and Newton thought, because we can't ask them.
If they were actually theists, then they were certainly deluded.
Luckily, being in the minority of people in the world who don't believe in god/s, I figured out very early on that what anyone else believes is no consequence to me.
I hold all irrational beliefs to be equal.I don't know why you have to refer to fairies, the Loch Ness monster, alien crop circles, and Bigfoot, except to take a cheap shot to equate belief in God
with belief in hoaxes.
Atheist,
Thanks for your responses, and let me say that I really don't think we disagree on fundamentals. I agree that Einstein did not believe in a "theistic" God (a redundancy?), which is to say a "Personal" God that interfered in the day to day events of the Universe. I think that I believe in the same God that Einstein believed in, which is to say a Creator of the Universe, a Being that created matter, energy, and the laws of nature. In that sense, God is the "Designer" of the universe, but we don't have to believe that God micromanaged the "Design" of living things or anything else. He created the material world and the laws which decribe material behavior. In the case of material behavior, the physical laws can explain much of what we experience. There is a lot we still can't understand, and to the extent we can't, it remains mysterious. There may even be limits to what we can understand. "The unviverse may not only be stranger than we think; it may be stranger than we can think."
There are two ways for honest scientists to deal with the limits of our undertanding of the Universe. One approach is to postulate the existence of an omniscient inscrutable Creator who made the world and its laws and set it in motion (this is the Spinozan/Deist approach). The other approach is that of the atheist, who forgoes a Creator and assumes that the Universe just came into being. You can't prove or disprove either approach.
Oh, I'm fairly certain that science is in part a "belief" -- ultimately, you simply have to believe in the methodology. Faith in the scientific method as a truth-getting device is an essential lens to scientific insight.
“Oh crap”
-- Hellboy
This annoys me every time someone brings it up.
If we talk about faith in the scientific method, we mean something very different from faith in religion. I'm not trying to say one's better than the other. It's not a matter of degree, they're fundamentally different.
We say we know things through scientific inquiry because we understand its basis. Empirical research has illuminated many former mysteries of our universe. We affirm the validity of the scientific method because of the consistency and intelligibility of its results: everyone understands what we mean when we say we know the Earth orbits the Sun, even if technically that's an oversimplification of astronomical research.
Religious faith is completely different. In religion, we have faith in deities or forces that by definition can't be understood. We can't point to the efficacy of religion in any objective way, because there's no consistent definition for a term like God or soul.
Trying to conflate these two very different concepts is futile and counter-productive. Let's keep them separate.
Regards,
Istvan
Well said.Atheist,
Thanks for your responses, and let me say that I really don't think we disagree on fundamentals. I agree that Einstein did not believe in a "theistic" God (a redundancy?), which is to say a "Personal" God that interfered in the day to day events of the Universe. I think that I believe in the same God that Einstein believed in, which is to say a Creator of the Universe, a Being that created matter, energy, and the laws of nature. In that sense, God is the "Designer" of the universe, but we don't have to believe that God micromanaged the "Design" of living things or anything else. He created the material world and the laws which decribe material behavior. In the case of material behavior, the physical laws can explain much of what we experience. There is a lot we still can't understand, and to the extent we can't, it remains mysterious. There may even be limits to what we can understand. "The unviverse may not only be stranger than we think; it may be stranger than we can think."
There are two ways for honest scientists to deal with the limits of our undertanding of the Universe. One approach is to postulate the existence of an omniscient inscrutable Creator who made the world and its laws and set it in motion (this is the Spinozan/Deist approach). The other approach is that of the atheist, who forgoes a Creator and assumes that the Universe just came into being. You can't prove or disprove either approach.
It's a popular, and as you say, unprovable (and untestable) hypothesis. It's to the world's great detriment that some where along the line USA changed from a deist society at the time of the founding fathers to the christian one it is now. I know a surprising [to me] number of people who'd agreed with you 100%. My own dad was always the believer in the inscrutable "supreme being" without wanting a personal god.
I'm not knocking it, but the question I always have to the approach is simply, what's the point? A god creates the universe, then what? I guess it suits a zen-like philosophy, but it seems to me to be an easy way out. If a god has no presence or effect in the physical universe, what, exactly, is there to believe in?
Still, I will admit that that type of god needs a lot less cash than the other one!
Wait until you've been hearing it for 40 years, you get past annoyed and into completely disgusted.
I'm sorry if my ideas disgust/annoy you both. I'll refrain from posting any honest inquiry here, lest I annoy or disgust you further.
Wait until you've been hearing it for 40 years, you get past annoyed and into completely disgusted.
Apologies,
The Comedian.
“Oh crap”
-- Hellboy
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
