On Thu, 3 Mar 2016 01:45:45 -0800 (PST), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahonPost by The StarmakerPost by The StarmakerEinstein wanted to 'know' how God created this world.
Einstein*wanted* to 'know' God's thoughts.
These quote-mining liars always leave out the bit where Einstein
explained what he meant by the word "God". It was a metaphor for the
wonders of the universe.
See the FAQ appended at the end of this message.
But in any case, science isn't about beliefs but the results of
objective research.
Even if the troll were correct, that would just be Einstein's personal
belief speaking, not objective science.
But these morons don't seem to understand the difference,
Post by Malcolm McMahonPost by The StarmakerActually what Einstein was saying was he wanted to know the underlying
structure (physical and mathematical laws) of the universe. For him
to come up with relativity solely from thinking as opposed to
experiment is remarkable. General relativity is Beautiful, Simple and
Profound.
As always, you're wrong again...(it's a pattern with you..you should
switch careers, try laying carpet for a living).
The lying religious fundamentalist accuses those living in the real
world of being wrong, not the bronze age myths and legends he is
stupid enough to imagine are fact.
Post by Malcolm McMahonPost by The Starmaker"I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested
in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element.
I want to know his thoughts." -Einstein
No source given so it is impossible to know the original context, let
alone that he actually said that.
Post by Malcolm McMahonPost by The StarmakerIn other words what Albert Einstein is saying is that he is NOT interested
in: 'the underlying structure (physical and mathematical laws) of the
universe.' as you put it.
Are there any honest creationists out there?
Is it even possible for them to be honest, given that they have to lie
routinely to remain in such deep denial?
Post by Malcolm McMahonPost by The StarmakerEinstein just wants to know...God's thoughts.
Liar.
Post by Malcolm McMahonI think, as far as Einstein was concerned, there is no difference between
the two goals. He seems to have seen the universe and the mind of God
as the same thing.
No. His idea of God wasn't anything like the usual one.
Here's the FAQ. It is extracted and annotated from Einstein's original
article which can be found all over the web. I saw it at...
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/einsci.htm
"This article appears in Einstein's Ideas and Opinions, pp.41 - 49.
The first section is taken from an address at Princeton Theological
Seminary, May 19, 1939. It was published in Out of My Later Years,
New York: Philosophical Library, 1950. The second section is from
Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium, published by the
Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to
the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941."
"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."
===> It takes an exceptional individual to rise beyond an
anthropomorphic concept of God.
===> Very difficult to elucidate the feeling of cosmic awe to anyone
who is entirely without it because 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."
===> Those two paragraphs clarify what Einstein calls his religious
beliefs were. The sort of thing he describes elsewhere as his
awe for the wonders of the universe.
In short, his references to "Spinoza's God". He is in awe of it.
Nowhere does he say he worships it. Which would be silly because
it's not a personal God.
And while we feel the same awe, it would never occur to us to
call it "God".
The only people who do, can't throw off the language of the
belief they grew up with.
"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."
===> Kind of religious feeling, no dogma and no God conceived in
man's image.
"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."
===> No definite notion of a God and no theology.
"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."
===> He's describing the traditional religionist view of science.
Now he describes how he sees it in terms of his own "religious"
views. His cosmological religious feeling. His awe for the
wonders of the universe:
"Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves
are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist
between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies.
Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has,
nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what
means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up.
But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued
with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of
feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there
also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid
for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to
reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that
profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science
without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
===> I don't like his saying that the sort of feeling towards the
universe that scientists have, springs from religion. Because
it doesn't.
His use of the words religion and God have convinced the hard of
thinking that he was something he wasn't.
But given his painstaking explanation of what he means by the
words, I suppose we can't blame him.
No scientist I know has "profound faith". But again he's using
the word in a different way religionists do.
I wish Einstein and others didn't use this kind of religious
language. It means that believers with an axe to grind always
get his views wrong.
But it has to be remembered that this address was to a
theological seminary. So he had to use religious language to
get his point across.
When read in the original context, it is blatantly obvious that
the Liars For God who produce the books of mined quotes are
totally twisting he said and meant.
He was not talking about what is generally understood by
religion - let alone about their religion.
