Einstein and God

[paximperium]

Not really the same, is it?

Really? In what way is it different?

 

[paximperium]

Well, some other philosopher then. That is just the first name I thought of.

What I mean is, why do people care what scientists think about gods? It's not like they are experts in the area.
In the same way no one cares what philosophers think about science, unless it involves ethics.

My apologies but I rarely have that great a respect for philosophers just because they are an "expert" in philosophy.

While I respect certain aspects of philosophy especially epistemology and certain interesting metaphysical mind-games; philosophy is filled with the detritus of useless naval-gazing and useless semantic games.

I can respect Einstein or just about anyone who can give a good logical justification for his/her/its belief. So, I would care what Einstein said about philosophical concepts if it was logical and well justified.

My 2 cents.

 

[tyciol]

I think Einstein had vague deist beliefs.

 

[Tricky]

This comes up all the time, usually about Einstein or Darwin. One thing people should always remember is that they both lived long lives. That gave them plenty of time to say plenty of things. I've only been on these forums eight years, and not only have my beliefs in some matters changed, but I'm sure any serious student of my history (I'm taking applications) would discover that I have made some statements, sometimes years apart, that are outright contradictory.

Einstein was a thoughtful human, and like most, he probably had moods, shuffled beliefs around in his head, said things off-the-cuff and even maybe sometimes dissembled when talking to a reporter. We shouldn't treat his quotes like they are monuments to be etched in stone.

It is well recorded that Darwin lost his religion over the course of his lifetime. Some claim (with poor evidence) that he regained it on his death bed. You would expect any book of Darwin's quotes to show variability in beliefs. Why not Einstein?

 

[Third Eye Open]

My apologies but I rarely have that great a respect for philosophers just because they are an "expert" in philosophy.

While I respect certain aspects of philosophy especially epistemology and certain interesting metaphysical mind-games; philosophy is filled with the detritus of useless naval-gazing and useless semantic games.

I can respect Einstein or just about anyone who can give a good logical justification for his/her/its belief. So, I would care what Einstein said about philosophical concepts if it was logical and well justified.

My 2 cents.

I agree with you about the value of philosophy in that I think it has very little. I just find it odd that instead of listening to or caring about the words of someone who has spent their whole life writing about and disusing and debating the topic at hand, people find more importance in a scientist saying 'yes there could be a god'.

 

[paximperium]

I agree with you about the value of philosophy in that I think it has very little. I just find it odd that instead of listening to or caring about the words of someone who has spent their whole life writing about and disusing and debating the topic at hand, people find more importance in a scientist saying 'yes there could be a god'.

Beats me.

I believe it's a a kind of self-affirming Argument from Authority justification for someones belief ie. "Einstein is smart therefore he must be right/Einstein believed in god/did not believe in god, he was smart maybe I'm smart too?"

I quote Thomas Jefferson more often than Einstein since Jefferson has written extensively on this and has some justifications for his deistic claims unlike Einstein who we have less of his writings about his thoughts on religion.

 

[Tricky]

I agree with you about the value of philosophy in that I think it has very little. I just find it odd that instead of listening to or caring about the words of someone who has spent their whole life writing about and disusing and debating the topic at hand, people find more importance in a scientist saying 'yes there could be a god'.

Perhaps, but one of the many things I learned here is the difference between philosophy and Philosophy. No, I don't have much use for those guys like Cant and Spitguard and goCarte and such, but little-p philosophy is simply the way you think about what you think.

Skepticism is a philosophy. The scientific method is a philosophy. Your personal morality is a philosophy. You don't have to discuss dueling isms or p-zambonis to engage in philosophy. You just have to think about thinking.

 

[H3LL]

I've been admonished for reading too much into the OP.

For that I apologise, but would like to say why I reacted so. Rightly or wrongly that is for you to judge:


The implication of the OP, although not specifically stated, is that it is somehow important what Einstein thought about gods. Darwin is also subjected to minute scrutiny on the same topic.

This is deliberate, dishonest, calculated misdirection from the religious lobby and should be treated with the contempts it deserves as is their attempts to apply unnecessary and unwanted religious requirements to science and scientists.

Is Howard Hanson's (Musical Set Theory) religious position discussed? Is Agner Krarup Erlang's (Queueing Theory) thoughts on gods endlessly dissected? Does Max Horkheimer (Critical Theory) need to justify his beliefs? Are Murray Gell-Mann and George Zweig's (Quark Theory) church-going activities important to their contributions? Is pretending Newton was an atheist even slightly useful or helpful in any way whatsoever?

I think not.

Yes, I suppose from a biographical perspective, speculation, because speculation is all it can be, on Einstein's god beliefs may be slightly interesting (not!) despite the fact that we have no way of knowing what they are.

What is very apparent is the religious lobby consider it important for their own business needs and acquisition of more grovellers - not a noble reason IMHO.

The fact that they do consider it important should raise alarm bells straight away.

Why pander to them?

Einstein's god beliefs are unknown. Period.

 

[westprog]

Really? In what way is it different?

The two phrases say entirely different things. Only one mentions killing Jews. Only one mentions Christ.

The convention is that if I write

Hitler said Jesus wanted him to kill the Jews.

then that's a potentially debatable paraphrase.

If I write

Hitler said "Jesus told me to kill the Jews".

then I'm making a specific quote and it is meant to be accurate.

When you're making accusations of inconsistency against some vaguely defined group and using supporting quotes to justify them, then you need to make sure that the quote is reasonably accurate. In this case, it wasn't.

 

[paximperium]

The two phrases say entirely different things. Only one mentions killing Jews. Only one mentions Christ.

The convention is that if I write



then that's a potentially debatable paraphrase.

If I write



then I'm making a specific quote and it is meant to be accurate.

When you're making accusations of inconsistency against some vaguely defined group and using supporting quotes to justify them, then you need to make sure that the quote is reasonably accurate. In this case, it wasn't.

Would you agree that a more accurate paraphrase for that quote from Hitler is that he is saying that "Killing the Jews is accomplishing, God's work."

Beats me. I don't care much care for using some genocidal madman's words to malign an opposing belief...now if theist would do the same.

 

[westprog]

Would you agree that a more accurate paraphrase for that quote from Hitler is that he is saying that "Killing the Jews is accomplishing, God's work."

I don't mind paraphrasing where it's acknowledged to be such.

 

[paximperium]

I don't mind paraphrasing where it's acknowledged to be such.

No contention there.

 

[Egg]

I've been admonished for reading too much into the OP.

For that I apologise, but would like to say why I reacted so. Rightly or wrongly that is for you to judge:


The implication of the OP, although not specifically stated, is that it is somehow important what Einstein thought about gods. Darwin is also subjected to minute scrutiny on the same topic.

This is deliberate, dishonest, calculated misdirection from the religious lobby and should be treated with the contempts it deserves as is their attempts to apply unnecessary and unwanted religious requirements to science and scientists.

Is Howard Hanson's (Musical Set Theory) religious position discussed? Is Agner Krarup Erlang's (Queueing Theory) thoughts on gods endlessly dissected? Does Max Horkheimer (Critical Theory) need to justify his beliefs? Are Murray Gell-Mann and George Zweig's (Quark Theory) church-going activities important to their contributions? Is pretending Newton was an atheist even slightly useful or helpful in any way whatsoever?

I think not.

Yes, I suppose from a biographical perspective, speculation, because speculation is all it can be, on Einstein's god beliefs may be slightly interesting (not!) despite the fact that we have no way of knowing what they are.

What is very apparent is the religious lobby consider it important for their own business needs and acquisition of more grovellers - not a noble reason IMHO.

The fact that they do consider it important should raise alarm bells straight away.

Why pander to them?

Einstein's god beliefs are unknown. Period.

Although probably used in a metaphorical sense, Einstein seemed to have brought such speculations on himself by mentioning God when he was talking about his work. Also his work was related to the universe and everything, which are traditionally theologically related.

I think with Darwin there's an interest because of the whole creationist vs evolutionist thing which has grown up and how some on either side there are the extremes saying you can't be both religious and scientific. Interestingly, it would appear that Darwin himself was a theist when he developed his theory.

I think, however, that using either of their religious beliefs (or lack of) to support either theism or atheism is fallacious.

 

[RobRoy]

I've been admonished for reading too much into the OP.

For that I apologise, but would like to say why I reacted so. Rightly or wrongly that is for you to judge:


The implication of the OP, although not specifically stated, is that it is somehow important what Einstein thought about gods. Darwin is also subjected to minute scrutiny on the same topic.

This is deliberate, dishonest, calculated misdirection from the religious lobby and should be treated with the contempts it deserves as is their attempts to apply unnecessary and unwanted religious requirements to science and scientists.

If it helps, this was not then, nor is it now, my intention. This was information gathering with which I'd hoped to impress my wife. Nothing more. I wasn't laying a trap or trying to build a case either for or against God in regards to Einstein. My only unstated aim was trying to answer a pretty girl's question in the hopes of furthering her regard for me, and perhaps getting a little play on the side.

 

[westprog]

My only unstated aim was trying to answer a pretty girl's question in the hopes of furthering her regard for me, and perhaps getting a little play on the side.

This forum was set up to answer the fundamental questions of the universe, not to provide you with nookie.

 

[kbm99]

This forum was set up to answer the fundamental questions of the universe, not to provide you with nookie.

However, it's well recognized that "How can I get me some nookie" IS one of the fundamental questions of the universe. In that light, your criticism is null and void.

 

[westprog]

However, it's well recognized that "How can I get me some nookie" IS one of the fundamental questions of the universe. In that light, your criticism is null and void.

In any case, I'm not sure that the technique is universally applicable. RobRoy might turn down the lights, play some soft jazz, and put on his Barry White voice to say "Heeeey, baby, did you know that Einstein was somewhat ambivalent about his religious beliefs?" Just doesn't work for me.

 

[RobRoy]

In any case, I'm not sure that the technique is universally applicable. RobRoy might turn down the lights, play some soft jazz, and put on his Barry White voice to say "Heeeey, baby, did you know that Einstein was somewhat ambivalent about his religious beliefs?" Just doesn't work for me.

And yet it works for Mrs. RR, so whatcha gonna do? Not answer my questions any more on the off chance that I'm just asking them in order to do the mommy-daddy dance with my beloved?

Wait, please don't stop answering my questions! It's my only shot and appearing edjumacated!

 

[H3LL]

I think, however, that using either of their religious beliefs (or lack of) to support either theism or atheism is fallacious.

That'll do it.

We have something that we both agree upon. This is probably a first for me and Egg.

Tangental topicisation is probably not modable so I might be safe.

I'll let the thread return to 'Einstein quotes to seduce with'.

 

[Hokulele]

I'll let the thread return to 'Einstein quotes to seduce with'.

"You see, wire telegraph is a kind of a very, very long cat. You pull his tail in New York and his head is meowing in Los Angeles. Do you understand this? And radio operates exactly the same way: you send signals here, they receive them there. The only difference is that there is no cat."


No?