 |
1 more article on this subject:
Great Spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. Einstein coined these words long ago and are used today to give hope to many. Now his words are being used again, but perhaps not in a way he would approve of.
Samantha A. Torrence and Thomas A. Torrence - A recently released letter penned on January 3, 1954 by Albert Einstein to philosopher Eric Gutkind has become a spectacle over night, stroking the egos of atheists and inspiring the annoyance of the religious. What else is new when it comes to the words of a great spirit?
Some of the quotes, translated from German, were made available to the public.
"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," Emphasis on word mine.
"For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions, and the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them." Despite his humble opinion of himself, the fact of the matter is if the Germans did not persecute the Jews, Einstein would not have fled to the US and his part in the development of atomic power would have never happened. Arguably therefore the US may not have won the war by dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki forcing Japan to withdraw and leave the Germans without their strongest ally. A Jew secured the end of the war by a display of great power, although he greatly regretted his hand in it all.
Atheists and opponents to religion have jumped on these words and have thrown their weight around to challenge any who would say that the letter is nothing more than a singular view made in response to questions from Eric Gutkind that perhaps we will not know. Einstein had his own words for the way he was misquoted today to support a view he did not hold.
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.
"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth."
So this view that religious concepts are childish is not a new one, so why is this letter some great revelation? Hype. As agnostic as Einstein was he did believe in a God concept. Just to clarify for all of you who do not understand the difference between an atheist and an agnostic.
a·the·ist –noun a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
ag·nos·tic
–noun 1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
–adjective 3. of or pertaining to agnostics or agnosticism.
4. asserting the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge.
Einstein's theories about God are not dissimilar to many who find themselves on the outskirts of the religious and scientific fields.
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.
A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which are only accessible to our reason in their most elementary forms—it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man.
Einstein was indeed a Great Spirit who had to deal with many mediocre minds from the atheist to the religious who strung him up time and time again in an attempt to reign in his brilliance for themselves. He was a man of balance who embraced science, spirituality and philosophy in an intellectual and non evangelical vehement fervor like atheistic scientists and evangelicals do today.
[E]ven though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other" there are "strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies … science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind … a legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot exist
This letter written one year before his death was not in response to an atheist, but to an intellectual peer in debate over Eric Gutkind's book Choose life, the Biblical call to revolt. Eric Gutkind's work is quoted and reviewed far less than Einstein, but one of his most relevant quotes comes from his book The Body of God: First steps toward Anti-theology states:
Our main sin today is that we do not ultimately accept our human destiny…. This demand made upon Man seems to be superhuman, and yet is must be accepted. It is what the great philosopher Kant called: the dignity of Man. We are looking for something petty, something practical, something to give us shelter. We must realize that our present situation is very advanced and by no means petty. It brings us to the awareness that Man is greater than he thinks.
Here is the abridged form of the letter published by the Guardian.
... I read a great deal in the last days of your book, and thank you very much for sending it to me. What especially struck me about it was this. With regard to the factual attitude to life and to the human community we have a great deal in common.
... 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. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them.
In general I find it painful that you claim a privileged position and try to defend it by two walls of pride, an external one as a man and an internal one as a Jew. As a man you claim, so to speak, a dispensation from causality otherwise accepted, as a Jew the privilege of monotheism. But a limited causality is no longer a causality at all, as our wonderful Spinoza recognized with all incision, probably as the first one. And the animistic interpretations of the religions of nature are in principle not annulled by monopolisation. With such walls we can only attain a certain self-deception, but our moral efforts are not furthered by them. On the contrary.
Now that I have quite openly stated our differences in intellectual convictions it is still clear to me that we are quite close to each other in essential things, ie in our evaluations of human behaviour. What separates us are only intellectual 'props' and 'rationalisation' in Freud's language. Therefore I think that we would understand each other quite well if we talked about concrete things. With friendly thanks and best wishes
Yours, A. Einstein
Perhaps the hype surrounding this letter is evidence of atheists grasping at straws and the sad fact of the matter that only pieces of the pieces are being "leaked" to the public is even more suspicious. Of all the speculation put out there here is some more. Perhaps Einstein and Gutkind were arguing the merits and flaws of Jews and the Dogma of religion, but that they may have the most important view in common, that God is more than is defined by man or religion and that religions and their definitions are simplistic or "childish" compared to the truth that is out there.
To assume that a man's entire life, his works, his views, and his achievements can be summed up in one sentence or one letter is arrogant to say the least. We as people who could only dream of being as profound as this great spirit should come to acceptance that he was a diverse man and that his death has caused our world to be bereft of a great mind and the only man who can answer the question, "What did Einstein beleive?"
-
My question is, who has authenticated this letter that has been unknown for 50 years?
Beyond that, Einstein was a Physicist, not a theologian. He is entitled to his personal beliefs just as the rest of us are.
-
Albert Einstein was an atheist. That is general knowledge. So much so that Christian groups even mounted hate campaigns against him while he was still alive.
The problem is that we are all children of our own culture. This taints the way we express our views.
Einstein is far from the only top scientist to be claimed by the god-believers because of the way he talks. Ursula Goodenough is an even more striking example. As staunch an atheist as any, her book is nevertheless often sold as a religious book.
Stephen Hawking has often been called religious, because of:
However, if we discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable by everyone, not just by a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason -- for then we should know the mind of God.
Stephen Hawking is an atheist.
Another well-known atheist is Carl Sagan. The religious lot have also tried to recuperate him because of his "religious" language.
Richard Dawkins, the most visible atheist of our time, is often called a deeply religious man. He is an atheist.
Even I have been taken on my word here in Digital Journal, when I used God in some expression. I am an atheist, let there be no doubt.
Why are God-believers so desperate to show that renowned atheists are religious anyway? I have only found one tentative explanation so far: in spite of their claimed convictions, they are full of doubt, because their God is awfully silent and unhelpful, and because there are so many sects that all claim to believe in the same God and that have different beliefs regardless.
The only thing that can be said about all the above atheists, is that they are de facto atheists, i.e. the accept that we cannot disprove the existence of God, all while affirming that God is becoming vanishingly improbable very rapidly. -
@ LewWaters
My question is, who has authenticated this letter that has been unknown for 50 years?
Beyond that, Einstein was a Physicist, not a theologian. He is entitled to his personal beliefs just as the rest of us are. Actually, some people *do* call him a theologian.
I have always wondered what people find so special about theologians. These are people that read religious books. Nothing more. They don't know anything about the existence or non-existence of a God. Any God. They are among the most useless people in academia. What has a theologian ever done that has advanced our society? -
@ LewWaters
My question is, who has authenticated this letter that has been unknown for 50 years?
Beyond that, Einstein was a Physicist, not a theologian. He is entitled to his personal beliefs just as the rest of us are. I think anyone who studies religion, and thinks on the subject, qualifies as a theologian.
But I think it is a moot point, since there is tons of other corroborating evidence that he was an agnostic.
@ Bart B. Van Bockstaele
Albert Einstein was an atheist. That is general knowledge. So much so that Christian groups even mounted hate campaigns against him while he was still alive.
I'm afraid I'm gonna have to disagree with you there Bart, it clearly says in the article a quote from Albert Einstein hinmself denying being an atheist.
"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."
"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth." Those are both quotes from Albert Einstein.
@ Bart B. Van Bockstaele
Einstein is far from the only top scientist to be claimed by the god-believers because of the way he talks. Ursula Goodenough is an even more striking example. As staunch an atheist as any, her book is nevertheless often sold as a religious book. :.
Probably because she is a member of the Institute on Religion in an Age of Science (IRAS) which attempts to understand religion with science. ;) I have never seen a reference to her as an atheist though.
@ Bart B. Van Bockstaele
Stephen Hawking is an atheist.
Actually Stephen Hawking denies being an atheist, very vehemontly from what I understand. He is an agnostic, like Eisntein who believes God exists, in such a way as incomrehensible to mortal minds. That is a distinct difference from atheism which believes there is no God.
It is difficult to discuss the beginning of the universe without mentioning the concept of God. My work on the origin of the universe is on the borderline between science and religion, but I try to stay on the scientific side of the border. It is quite possible that God acts in ways that cannot be described by scientific laws, but in that case, one would just have to go by personal belief."
"These laws may have originally been decreed by God, but it appears that he has since left the universe to evolve according to them and does not now intervene in it"
@ Bart B. Van Bockstaele
Another well-known atheist is Carl Sagan. The religious lot have also tried to recuperate him because of his "religious" language. Carl Sagan is another well known pantheist, believing "The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard, who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by 'God,' one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God."
This pantheistic belief is what Einstein meant by "Spinoza's God" or "Buddha's" Since Einstein was an agnostic, and felt God was both incomprehensible and unable to be disproven.
@ Bart B. Van Bockstaele
Richard Dawkins, the most visible atheist of our time, is often called a deeply religious man. He is an atheist./quote]
I've never heard himn referred to as religious, but he is a very recognized atheist.
@ Bart B. Van Bockstaele
Even I have been taken on my word here in Digital Journal, when I used God in some expression. I am an atheist, let there be no doubt.
I don't think any doubt that Bart. :)
@ Bart B. Van Bockstaele
Why are God-believers so desperate to show that renowned atheists are religious anyway? I have only found one tentative explanation so far: in spite of their claimed convictions, they are full of doubt, because their God is awfully silent and unhelpful, and because there are so many sects that all claim to believe in the same God and that have different beliefs regardless.
The same could be said of the other side of the fence Bart. You were, after all, the one who brought up all these scientists, who aren't even atheists for the most part, with the exception of one. This Op/Ed was a rebuttal, Sammy wasn't the one who brought Einstein up. ;)
@ Bart B. Van Bockstaele
The only thing that can be said about all the above atheists, is that they are de facto atheists, i.e. the accept that we cannot disprove the existence of God, all while affirming that God is becoming vanishingly improbable very rapidly. Quite the contrary, most of them believe in God, while understanding man can never truly understand Him.
For the record, Sammy and I, while we accept the title religious, Christian in fact, share these scientists pantheistic, often ecumenical beliefs in the Presence of God. And while Spinoza was "excommunicated" in his time for his pantheistic beliefs, many ancient Jews would have agreed with him. -
@ LewWaters
My question is, who has authenticated this letter that has been unknown for 50 years?
Beyond that, Einstein was a Physicist, not a theologian. He is entitled to his personal beliefs just as the rest of us are. I think anyone who studies religion, and thinks on the subject, qualifies as a theologian.
But I think it is a moot point, since there is tons of other corroborating evidence that he was an agnostic.
@ Bart B. Van Bockstaele
Albert Einstein was an atheist. That is general knowledge. So much so that Christian groups even mounted hate campaigns against him while he was still alive.
I'm afraid I'm gonna have to disagree with you there Bart, it clearly says in the article a quote from Albert Einstein hinmself denying being an atheist.
"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."
"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth." Those are both quotes from Albert Einstein.
@ Bart B. Van Bockstaele
Einstein is far from the only top scientist to be claimed by the god-believers because of the way he talks. Ursula Goodenough is an even more striking example. As staunch an atheist as any, her book is nevertheless often sold as a religious book. :.
Probably because she is a member of the Institute on Religion in an Age of Science (IRAS) which attempts to understand religion with science. ;) I have never seen a reference to her as an atheist though.
@ Bart B. Van Bockstaele
Stephen Hawking is an atheist.
Actually Stephen Hawking denies being an atheist, very vehemontly from what I understand. He is an agnostic, like Eisntein who believes God exists, in such a way as incomrehensible to mortal minds. That is a distinct difference from atheism which believes there is no God.
It is difficult to discuss the beginning of the universe without mentioning the concept of God. My work on the origin of the universe is on the borderline between science and religion, but I try to stay on the scientific side of the border. It is quite possible that God acts in ways that cannot be described by scientific laws, but in that case, one would just have to go by personal belief."
"These laws may have originally been decreed by God, but it appears that he has since left the universe to evolve according to them and does not now intervene in it"
@ Bart B. Van Bockstaele
Another well-known atheist is Carl Sagan. The religious lot have also tried to recuperate him because of his "religious" language. Carl Sagan is another well known pantheist, believing "The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard, who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by 'God,' one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God."
This pantheistic belief is what Einstein meant by "Spinoza's God" or "Buddha's" Since Einstein was an agnostic, and felt God was both incomprehensible and unable to be disproven.
@ Bart B. Van Bockstaele
Richard Dawkins, the most visible atheist of our time, is often called a deeply religious man. He is an atheist./quote]
I've never heard himn referred to as religious, but he is a very recognized atheist.
@ Bart B. Van Bockstaele
Even I have been taken on my word here in Digital Journal, when I used God in some expression. I am an atheist, let there be no doubt.
I don't think any doubt that Bart. :)
@ Bart B. Van Bockstaele
Why are God-believers so desperate to show that renowned atheists are religious anyway? I have only found one tentative explanation so far: in spite of their claimed convictions, they are full of doubt, because their God is awfully silent and unhelpful, and because there are so many sects that all claim to believe in the same God and that have different beliefs regardless.
The same could be said of the other side of the fence Bart. You were, after all, the one who brought up all these scientists, who aren't even atheists for the most part, with the exception of one. This Op/Ed was a rebuttal, Sammy wasn't the one who brought Einstein up. ;)
@ Bart B. Van Bockstaele
The only thing that can be said about all the above atheists, is that they are de facto atheists, i.e. the accept that we cannot disprove the existence of God, all while affirming that God is becoming vanishingly improbable very rapidly. Quite the contrary, most of them believe in God, while understanding man can never truly understand Him.
For the record, Sammy and I, while we accept the title religious, Christian in fact, share these scientists pantheistic, often ecumenical beliefs in the Presence of God. And while Spinoza was "excommunicated" in his time for his pantheistic beliefs, many ancient Jews would have agreed with him. -
You just made my point better than I did. What you call an agnostic is what is now usually called a de facto atheist. As I wrote:
The only thing that can be said about all the above atheists, is that they are de facto atheists, i.e. they accept that we cannot disprove the existence of God, all while affirming that God is becoming vanishingly improbable very rapidly.
Agnostic, by the way, is someone who does not know if there is a God, i.e. someone who does not believe in a God. It is a tad hard to believe in God while at the same time not knowing if it exists, right?
True atheists, by the way, are far and between. I don’t know a single one. It would simply not be a scientific attitude. In this stage of our evolution, it would be akin to a god-less religion.
As for Ursula Goodenough: this is what she says in her book "The Sacred Depths of Nature" about her religious naturalism:
a profound appreciation of the genuine workings of nature, conjoined with a commitment to preserving that natural world in all its staggering, interdependent splendor. Or call it transcendent atheism: I may not believe in life after death, but what a gift it is to be alive now. Yes, she is an atheist alright.
Actually Stephen Hawking denies being an atheist, very vehemontly from what I understand. Of course. He also vehemently denies believing in a God, in spite of what several hoaxes on YouTube claim.
As for Carl Sagan, he wrote in Pale Blue Dot:
How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, 'This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant'? Instead they say, 'No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.' A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the Universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths.
The religion of these three is what Dawkins calls in his immortal words: “Science is the poetry of reality”.
We are scientists/naturalists because we admire nature, we want to understand it. We don’t need a God –any God- to explain it.
There are exceptions, and maybe you should look that way. Robert Winston is one of the very very few high level scientists who still publicly claims to believe in a God. In my opinion, he is a deist, not a theist, but I could be convinced otherwise with the right evidence. -
To the Torrence's ... great post, quite thought provoking.
@ Bart B. Van Bockstaele
You just made my point better than I did. What you call an agnostic is what is now usually called a de facto atheist ....
Agnostic, by the way, is someone who does not know if there is a God, i.e. someone who does not believe in a God. It is a tad hard to believe in God while at the same time not knowing if it exists, right?
Bart I take exception with what you are saying here. There are very clear definitions of what atheist and agnostic:
Atheist: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Agnostic: a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
Nothing in there about an agnostic denying or disbelieving in the existence of a "god" or supreme being, just that it is unknown or unknowable. -
I'm with Lew on this, I'd like to know if the letter has been authenticated.
Put me in category #1 under "Agnostic. As someone who has been burned royally by organized religion on more than one occasion, I have to say that I'm always amazed at the vehemence with which the atheist community attacks the religious community. Sitting on the sidelines for a number of years now since I left organized religion, I have to say that I still finding it completely and utterly astounding. For a group of people who proclaim that they don't believe in something, they certainly do kick heartily against that which the profess to disbelieve.
An attempt at proving a negative? Futile.
Faith lies within the heart of the individual, belief comes through a rationalization of what one perceives and learns as one grows, in this case, belief in the existence of or the non-existence of a supernatural being called, for the sake of argument, God. According to the Bible I studied when I was younger (and even refer back to from time to time still), God has no name, at least no name that he would reveal when he spoke with Moses through the burning bush. "I am that which I am." The message here? "My name is not important, what is important is that you trust that which is shown to you through means of which you have no understanding." In other words, faith.
Within each of us there lies the capacity for a common search, however, and that search is one for an ultimate truth through which we can find peace and meaning, a purpose for our existence. Some time back I had decided that I had fulfilled my purpose here on earth and questioned, daily, why I would awaken each morning and be forced to continue on in the abject state of dispair and misery that I had come to. My question was answered, not by a "small, still voice," but in the form of a confession made to me that gave me the wherewithal to rise daily and retake the mantle of Quest upon myself, a quest that I remain on today and will continue for the rest of my days even when the objective is met. A higher power telling me to be patient, and to trust? Perhaps. I have found that there are often situations in which only an unseen hand of a higher power could have been involved.
For those who don't know, I spent several years as a fire fighter. Before that, I was (an in my heart still am) a soldier. Much have I seen, and much have I marveled in beholding.
"Faith is the highest passion in a human being. Many in every generation may not come that far, but none comes further."
"Patience is necessary, and one cannot reap immediately where one has sown."
"I must find a truth that is true for me... the idea for which I can live or die." - Soren Kierkegaard -
Well written article.
I don't know if the Torrances actually exist, but it does seem as if there is some evidence to believe they might.
-
Einstein was indeed an agnostic. My comment on his not being a theologian was a misspeak (I'm studying to be a Democrat). I mean that we should not base our personal beliefs on what others say.
In matters of religion it is a personal relationship with God that matters, not aligning oneself with what others claim.
If one chooses to not believe, that is their business and their right. I have no problem with either.
To the claim of it being well known that Einstein was an atheist, I found a few quotes that might interest others.
I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.
- Albert Einstein, letter to Guy H. Raner Jr., Sept. 28, 1949, quoted by Michael R. Gilmore in Skeptic, Vol. 5, No. 2
Perhaps this is the letter recently sold?
I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.
- Albert Einstein, letter to Guy H. Raner Jr, July 2, 1945, responding to a rumor that a Jesuit priest had caused Einstein to convert from atheism; quoted by Michael R. Gilmore in Skeptic, Vol. 5, No. 2
Einstein Quotes on Atheism & Freethought-
@ Carolyn E. Price (gohomelaker)
To the Torrence's ... great post, quite thought provoking.
Bart I take exception with what you are saying here. There are very clear definitions of what atheist and agnostic:
Atheist: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Agnostic: a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
Nothing in there about an agnostic denying or disbelieving in the existence of a "god" or supreme being, just that it is unknown or unknowable. I am always ready to accept a new viewpoint. However, it'll be very tough to show me that someone can be an agnostic and a believer at the same time. That's what I was talking about. From the standpoint of *any* religion, an agnostic is just as awful a creature as an atheist, or someone who believes in a God from the competition, because an agnostic cannot, and will never be, a believer.
That is why agnostics are usually put together with de de facto atheists, for that's what they are. It is just a more modern term for the same thing. -
@ Gar Swaffar
Well written article.
I don't know if the Torrances actually exist, but it does seem as if there is some evidence to believe they might. Indeed. At the very least, there are some "entities" working under that name. For that reason, I am much more prepared to believe in the Torrences than in God. At the very least, I could be tempted to entertain the idea that they exist. -
@ Mr GaribaldiI have to say that I'm always amazed at the vehemence with which the atheist community attacks the religious community. I don't think that any atheist will ever attack the religious community. They will attack abuse and exploitation specifically caused by religion, and for good reason. After all, we also attack other forms of superstition and quackery. For the same good reasons. I have never found a good reason to leave religion alone while attacking astrology and homeopathy. Either we let all delusions be, or none. -
@ LewWatersIn matters of religion it is a personal relationship with God that matters, not aligning oneself with what others claim. I agree with that. I have always said that if someone wants to believe in a God, that they should be free to do so, and they are.
One of the problems that atheists have with religion is that it is heavily subsidised. Doctors heal more people than all religions together. Yet, they pay taxes. Why? I won't repeat what I already said before, but think of it. -
@ Bart B. Van Bockstaele
I am always ready to accept a new viewpoint. However, it'll be very tough to show me that someone can be an agnostic and a believer at the same time. That's what I was talking about. From the standpoint of *any* religion, an agnostic is just as awful a creature as an atheist, or someone who believes in a God from the competition, because an agnostic cannot, and will never be, a believer.
That is why agnostics are usually put together with de de facto atheists, for that's what they are. It is just a more modern term for the same thing.
Do you believe that there is the possibility of an intelligent hand behind the creation of the universe? -
@ Mr Garibaldi
Do you believe that there is the possibility of an intelligent hand behind the creation of the universe? The possibility? That's what "God cannot be disproven" means. I do not know a single scientist who would deny that. At the same time, they would also all say that this possibility is rapidly becoming vanishingly unlikely.
That reminds me of another fallacy of believers: it is not because we accept a possibility that this possibility is as likely as any other. It isn't. -
@ Bart B. Van Bockstaele
The possibility? That's what "God cannot be disproven" means. I do not know a single scientist who would deny that. At the same time, they would also all say that this possibility is rapidly becoming vanishingly unlikely.
That reminds me of another fallacy of believers: it is not because we accept a possibility that this possibility is as likely as any other. It isn't.
My question was a simple "yes or no" question. -
@ Mr Garibaldi
My question was a simple "yes or no" question. The question of the existence of a God is a scientific one of the utmost importance. Not a binary one for some television quiz. It is precisely this type of oversimplification that leads to erroneous impressions. -
Can you NOT just simply answer a question instead of dodging a definite answer?
I'll make it simple for you, your answer would be, barring other pontification, "no," as you claim atheism.
The agnostic would typically answer "yes."
NOW to the point of why, and this is key in how atheists and agnostics are different. Most of us who are truly agnostic see patterns that indicate and would suggest an intelligent design and order to the ways of the universe. While not prescribing to the concept of God, Allah, Zoroaster, Zeus, Odin, or any of the other "father" gods, we don't discount that there could be something out there of a higher level of existence than us.
We don't deny the concept of God, we just see God differently from the way religion sees him.
Thus, we don't cotton to being called atheists. We're not.
-
@ Mr Garibaldi
Can you NOT just simply answer a question instead of dodging a definite answer?
I'll make it simple for you, your answer would be, barring other pontification, "no," as you claim atheism.
The agnostic would typically answer "yes."
NOW to the point of why, and this is key in how atheists and agnostics are different. Most of us who are truly agnostic see patterns that indicate and would suggest an intelligent design and order to the ways of the universe. While not prescribing to the concept of God, Allah, Zoroaster, Zeus, Odin, or any of the other "father" gods, we don't discount that there could be something out there of a higher level of existence than us.
We don't deny the concept of God, we just see God differently from the way religion sees him.
Thus, we don't cotton to being called atheists. We're not.
I suggest you read a bit more. You may discover that there is a difference between theist and deist, for example.
I have given my answer. It's all there. Read it. -
I've read pontification after pontification from you in your rants against religion. So far I've gotten nothing from it other than that you grew up Catholic and now you snarl and snap anytime there is a religious discussion.
You've also tried to lump agnosticism in with atheism. I hadn't said anything one way or the other about your rants until that. You're entitled to your opinion. But don't kid yourself into thinking that I, the agnostic, or others like me, think the way that you, and other atheists, do.
-
@ Mr Garibaldi
Can you NOT just simply answer a question instead of dodging a definite answer?
I'll make it simple for you, your answer would be, barring other pontification, "no," as you claim atheism.
The agnostic would typically answer "yes."
NOW to the point of why, and this is key in how atheists and agnostics are different. Most of us who are truly agnostic see patterns that indicate and would suggest an intelligent design and order to the ways of the universe. While not prescribing to the concept of God, Allah, Zoroaster, Zeus, Odin, or any of the other "father" gods, we don't discount that there could be something out there of a higher level of existence than us.
We don't deny the concept of God, we just see God differently from the way religion sees him.
Thus, we don't cotton to being called atheists. We're not.
Very well said. I think by focusing on the semantics rather than the meat of it, you lose sight of the...dare I say it? "Spirit" of the conversation? The simple fact of the matter was Einstein was not a non-believer. Yes I know that is a double negative, but it is more accurate than saying he was a believer. He believed something, just not the conventional wisdom of the proscribed religions. He was a scientific pantheist. Just as I am. However he and I differ because I speak to God, hold a very personal relationship with Him, and often crack jokes with each other...
Sometimes I'll call Him God, other times Adonai, Allah, whatever. I generally avoid Jehovah or Yahweh, simply because we don't actually know how to pronounce YHVH, nor should we try, hence the ineffible name part, but whatever.
Technically, I belong to a Presbyterian Church. I do so for traditional reasons. My family belonged to that Church for centuries, and my great grandftather had a hand in the current building our church is in. I also respect that one of the tenets of the Presbyterians is that they are a democratic religion. It is ok to argue with the church about doctrine, and indeed Presbyterians encourage it. So while I may not believe all the Prebyterian doctrine, I'm allowed to without threat of excommunication.
Which leads me to my next point about the semantics of this friendly debate. What we call agnostics, is based on denotation. However what happens when we add connotation, i.e. personal perspective and interpretation? The Protestant Reformation case in point. In the protestant mindset, the Catholics were wrong about God, so they broke with Church. In the Catholic mindset, protestants were wrong, so they excommunicated most of them for being heathens. But were they? They might not have agreed with the Catholics, but does that mean they loved God less? In that same token, Martin Luther could have been called agnostic, simply because his beliefs were not doctrine, just like Einstein's belief in Spinoza's pantheistic God.
@ LewWaters
Einstein was indeed an agnostic. My comment on his not being a theologian was a misspeak (I'm studying to be a Democrat). I mean that we should not base our personal beliefs on what others say.
ROFL Lew... Add a Comment
|
 |
|
|
Email
Print
Share
Op-Ed: Atheists Forget Einstein's Views in Light of New Letter
