[quote]
Einstein and the Mind of God
For his entire life, as he delved into the mysteries of the cosmos, Albert Einstein harbored a belief in, and reverence for, the harmony and beauty of what he called the mind of God as it was expressed in the creation of the universe and its laws. Around the time he turned 50, he began to articulate more clearly—in various essays, interviews, and letters—his deepening appreciation of his belief in God, although a rather impersonal version of one.
One particular evening in 1929, the year he turned 50, captures Einstein’s middle-age deistic faith. He and his wife were at a dinner party in Berlin when a guest expressed a belief in astrology. Einstein ridiculed the notion as pure superstition. Another guest stepped in and similarly disparaged religion. Belief in God, he insisted, was likewise a superstition.
At this point the host tried to silence him by invoking the fact that even Einstein harbored religious beliefs.
“It isn’t possible!” the skeptical guest said, turning to Einstein to ask if he was, in fact, religious.
“Yes, you can call it that,” Einstein replied calmly. “Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible laws and connections, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion. To that extent I am, in fact, religious.”
Shortly after his fiftieth birthday, Einstein also gave a remarkable interview in which he was more revealing than he had ever been about his religious sensibility. It was with a pompous but ingratiating poet and propagandist named George Sylvester Viereck, who had been born in Germany, moved to America as a child, and then spent his life writing gaudily erotic poetry, interviewing great men, and expressing his complex love for his fatherland. For reasons not quite clear, Einstein assumed Viereck was Jewish. In fact, Viereck proudly traced his lineage to the family of the Kaiser, and he would later become a Nazi sympathizer who was jailed in America during World War II for being a German propagandist.
Viereck began by asking Einstein whether he considered himself a German or a Jew. “It’s possible to be both,” replied Einstein. “Nationalism is an infantile disease, the measles of mankind.”
Should Jews try to assimilate? “We Jews have been too eager to sacrifice our idiosyncrasies in order to conform.”
To what extent are you influenced by Christianity? “As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene.”
You accept the historical existence of Jesus? “Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life.”
Do you believe in God? “I’m not an atheist. I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. 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 the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws.”
Is this a Jewish concept of God? “I am a determinist. I do not believe in free will. Jews believe in free will. They believe that man shapes his own life. I reject that doctrine. In that respect I am not a Jew.”
Is this Spinoza’s God? “I am fascinated by Spinoza’s pantheism, but I admire even more his contribution to modern thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and body as one, and not two separate things.”
Do you believe in immortality? “No. And one life is enough for me.”
Einstein tried to express these feelings clearly, both for himself and all of those who wanted a simple answer from him about his faith. So in the summer of 1930, amid his sailing and ruminations in Caputh, he composed a credo, “What I Believe,” that he recorded for a human rights group and later published. It concluded with an explanation of what he meant when he called himself religious: “The most beautiful emotion we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead, a snuffed-out candle. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our minds cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly: this is religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I am a devoutly religious man.”
People found the piece evocative, even inspiring, and it was reprinted repeatedly in a variety of translations. But not surprisingly, it did not satisfy those who wanted a simple, direct answer to the question of whether or not he believed in God. For some, only a clear belief in a personal God who controls daily life qualified as a genuine faith. “The outcome of this doubt and befogged speculation about time and space is a cloak beneath which hides the ghastly apparition of atheism,” Boston’s Cardinal William Henry O’Connell said. This public blast from a Cardinal prompted the noted Orthodox Jewish leader in New York, Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein, to send a very direct telegram: “Do you believe in God? Stop. Answer paid. 50 words.” Einstein used only about half his allotted number of words. It became the most famous version of an answer he gave often: “I believe in Spinoza’s God, who reveals himself in the lawful harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.”
It may not have satisfied everyone. But it satisfied many. For like Einstein there are many of us who share an awed intimation of a God, manifest in all that exists, a sense that remains mysterious but real.
________________________
Walter Isaacson, the CEO of the Aspen Institute, has been chairman of CNN and the managing editor of Time magazine. His new book, "Einstein: His Life and Universe," was published last month.
POSTED BY WALTER ISAACSON ON APRIL 27, 2007 9:12 AM
Comments (80)
RUSSELL D.:
Einstein was indeed a brilliant man. That is a very good way to describe being religious. I like it.
POSTED APRIL 27, 2007 10:51 AM
JACOB JOZEVZ ET AL ECLATI-ONS LIKE OUR PROPHET A. EINSTEIN:
Greeting and Hello Brother Walter ISAACSON et al:
Note: Biblicaly ISAAC was the Father of Jacob. Ya!
Some ONE on these Blog said, "Science/Aetheism" similar Conjecture(s). Well lets shine some Photons or Light here under & Beyond. Thank You Cyber Friend(s) and those in the REAL WORLD.
Correction of a great misunderstanding that is almost Sinful like!
WE are about "SCIENCE/E.c.l.a.t.i. O.n."
NOT: Religious/Science and not "Science/Atheism"
Please; You have ZERO-G-d if you are willing to kill or die [blindly & invain or naught] for ANY of your ancient religions or religious hokum Pokus of a scoence coming from the terrible or Holocausts from the "PISCES-AGE" of PRE=Apocalyptic Epechs, ages, and lores back-up by superstitious fights and more SATANIC Behavior's.
Ya Ya. So go smoke that and roll it or put it in your pipe.
Best of all, USE YOUR HUERISTICS MON!
WE are now experiencing a NEW-SONG in the AQUARIUS-AGE that will last or have a 27,000 Year Epoch to go. So enjoy your Photon Finite Essence Mist NOW.
Note: Our Grandma- Sun will die in 8 Billion Years from now.
Yet OUR Sun/Earth "Star System" Rotates and make ONE-REVOLUTION that takes us, on Earth, 225,000 Years to come full circle.
All, this reality [TRANSFINITY in TEMPERATURE a/k/a TIME not clock] happens from the outer spur of our Great Grandpa-Milk man Galaxy .
Note: Scientists are saying that in 3.5 Billion Years from now, because of the "GREAT ATTRACTOR" that, in Fact, WE-WILL and are on our way to Colliding with our nearest neighbor and Cousin Galaxy ANDROMEDIA. This is Not Star Wars, Star track or such fantasy.
ECLATi-Ons see this real "clear headed" with ALL Pre-Apocalyptic Smoke Screen or un reality removed from our Photolytic Heuristic mist of a System via our QUANTUM-ENTANGLEMENTS!
Sholom and watch where you are getting beamed to. Hint: Your rear view mirror, so to speak, is your HISTORY. And Thus OUR Genuine JURY. Ya Ya.
So, From; PISCES-AGE to: "AQUARIUS-AGE" and your APOCALYPSE NOW!
So Humates today are slowly but evidently surely are becoming ECLATi-Ons via their current Mentally morphing experience [Conscience or not knowing now or ever] From" Caterpillar To: Butterfly & beyond. So from Magmatriculation (Star Stuff, not Moses, Jesus, Mohammad et al, story's stuff) and US going towards towards and will be going into the ITSELF again via your PLASMAtriculation at the non gravity Interface of the Entropy Miracle of your Photonic Transfinity. Wow! This is from my, and amny other ASPERINTS disciples of such “Cosmic [Religious] Feeling(s).
Our “Great-Prophet” and Father of Eclati-Unity, knows now, not then about his encounters with that “SPOOKY-STUFF” that WE today are trying to make your real Heuristics see, the Light/Photon, in you and in ALL things as Miracle via thee ECLATi and your mis understood or misaligned Heuristics Zero Man-Made diversions of a superstitious belief system.
Think PHOTONS. Because light/Photons. Is in fact LIFE. So there is life in your Photonic Life of a mist now that was never CREATED nor will you ever be DESTROYED! Just think clear, be clear & do and “try” to be good today! IT's (God) or ITSELF (g-d) is that simple but not too complicated like some of your INFIXUS BOOKS of ancient Lores and Man made Epochs not G-d, Zero YAWAH et al! ONLY the ECLATi in you and in ALL creatures and things known & unknown.
:The MAGMA MADE US. And To PLASMATIC LIGHT we go, in a loop like and Caterpillar to Butterfly experience. So Believe in YOURSELF, not someone else's, AS-IF-G-D, with a “Comic-Pen” had actually and literally wrote the TEN-COMMANDMENTS Himself [Not Women]. Wow!
ECLATi was given each of us in a unique Photon frequency range or string spectrum, and is from OUR great Father/Mother NEBULAE [OUR un-sinful and Just and Loving creator] for ALL HUMATES on this Miraculous Space-Ship Momma/Poppa Earth of O.U.R.S. & YES, for those Be yonder Creatures, known or unknown or never known too.
Vote for O.U.R.S. Via the U.N. {One-Universal-Religion-System}.
Sholom. Ya Ya Mon. : + )/
POSTED APRIL 27, 2007 10:54 AM
HEWITT:
The God of Einstein is awe that there are natural laws underlying the world that we can discover. This is certainly not a personal God, nor the God of Jewish or Christian tradition. It is not even a Deist's God, a great watchmaker who set everying in motion, but does not otherwise get involved.
Einstein went even further than Deism. He considered the natural laws themselves to be God. This is not as odd as it may sound. Mathematicians believe that they discover truths that are valid everywhere in the universe for all time and for all entities. What is the basis for that belief? For Einstein it was a given, which he found awe inspiring.
The main objection to this belief is the question, why believe in a God that is indistinguishable from no God? One can have awe without God. For Einstein, perhaps there was only the awe and a loose definition of God.
POSTED APRIL 27, 2007 11:28 AM
NORRIE HOYT:
Einstein, a great and wonderful human being, was wrong about the quantum universe.
Perhaps he was also wrong about his "religious" universe.
POSTED APRIL 27, 2007 11:48 AM
B-MAN:
The word "God" is problematic in these religious/atheist/science discussions. When someone mentions "God" most people assume you must mean a personal, potentially vengeful diety that controls everything. Some people, however, call the great awe-inspiring and mysterious universe "God". Buddhists believe that "consciousness" is "God".
Just because someone doesn't believe in one of the three Abrahamic traditions doesn't mean that person doesn't believe in "God", they just don't believe in the (IMO) juvenile concept of an anthropomorphic god that looks a lot like daddy does to the average child.
POSTED APRIL 27, 2007 12:02 PM
HENRY JAMES:
A Translation of Einstein's Credo
Here is another way of saying what Einstein believed:
Something I call God exists, but it has no effect on the universe or human beings' lives. To think it answers our prayers or will give us eternal ife is childish.
My God is synonymous with the laws of physics.
We don't understand the richness and complexity of all the laws of physics, so God is the mystery, the paradox, the area beyond our understanding
Henry again: Thomas Mann said that having a religious sensibility consisted in 'having a taste for the infinite."
I think he and Einstein are saying much the same thing.
POSTED APRIL 27, 2007 12:07 PM
ANN O.:
Dear Hewitt,
Einstein does not identify any laws with God -- God is "behind" the laws. Read again:
"To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our minds cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly: this is religiousness."
He insists he is not a pantheist.
And,dear Norrie,
The matter of quantum theory has not been settled. It is not consistent with Einstein's own theories, and he did not accept quantum theory as the last word, even though he himself contributed to its formulation.
Why do so many atheists think that only stupid people believe in God? Why do they think that only scientific intuitions have a chance of being true? They are only one kind of intuition.
Ann O.
POSTED APRIL 27, 2007 12:49 PM
MIGUEL:
Did Abraham exist? who enlightened him and saved him?
Did Moses Exist? how he brought the plagues to egypt?
Did Jesus exist? did he deliver someone from death and made all those miracles?
The lord doesn't play dice; einstein used to say; all is there, in perfect order, waiting to be discovered or reasoned. there's a formula for everything. there are natural laws; which sometimes are broken;these are called miracles, but this happens in science, and tangible physics; not in mathematical calculations. you can't add 1+1 and pray for the result to be 3.
POSTED APRIL 27, 2007 12:55 PM
JOZEVZ:
Att: M.I.G.U.E.L. et al;
Interesting.
Question: What are the MOTHERS-NAMES of both, Moses's "Biblical Character(imagined?)" of Mr. NOAH & Mr. ABRAHAM?
If you know; Then you are Jesus, Mohammad & Mosses in the flesh, him or her or both.
I will bow down to you and throw money at you. Hence you would have cracked the code and Riddle Of the Satan (Good & Bad)!
Please. I'm waiting Cyber friend(s).
Sholom!
POSTED APRIL 27, 2007 1:02 PM
HENRY JAMES; "HEWITT":
Ann O
A little defensive, are we?
You ask
"Why do so many atheists think that only stupid people believe in God?"
There is a subtle difference between the belief I ascribed to Einstein (and that I hold, being of approximately equal intellect to Einstein in the literary realm)
and your characterization.
Einstein believed
"To think it answers our prayers or will give us eternal ife is childish."
Many intelligent (i.e. NOT stupid) people have childish beliefs.
POSTED APRIL 27, 2007 1:16 PM
CANDIDE:
Einstein's God was Spinoza's God, which is the same thing as Nature. It is not a personal God like the biblical God. It does not hear prayer, intervene in human affairs. It is simply the way things work. Einstein is no support for religion as we understand it.
POSTED APRIL 27, 2007 1:17 PM
BILL HUNTLEY:
Albert Einstein definitely knew the Old Testament and the New Testament of the Bible. Malachi 3:6, "For I am the Lord, I change not." and Hebrews 13:8, "Jesus Christ,, the same yesterday, and today, and forever." Since God does not lie, and math does not lie, Mr. Einstein knew that if he got the right formula, he would understand God's mathmatics, the root of all science.
POSTED APRIL 27, 2007 1:27 PM
HENRY JAMES:
Ann corrected a fictional character named Hewitt by saying that
"God is NOT synomymous with the laws of physics."
If she meant to be correcting me, America's greatest literary critic, I would suggest that Ann is being somewhat literal in her surety about God's synonymy in Einstein's mind (The Mind of the God of Science).
Einstein said:
"I believe in Spinoza’s God, who reveals himself in the lawful harmony of all that exists"
in my meagre literary imagination
"the lawful harmony of all that exists"
is equal to
"the instantiation of the laws of physics".
My dictionary defines "synonymous" as "alike or nearly alike in significance," among other definitions.
I would suggest that
God significance
and "the laws of physics'" significance
are nearly alike.
If God is NOT the laws of physics, what is it?
POSTED APRIL 27, 2007 1:29 PM
POWELL:
Quoting Einstein's believes is a ridiculous thing to do to promote any sort of dialog.
Religions people at best can do is take the quotes of a dead person and then twist it to produce some sort of propaganda. Einstein is not the prophet of science and science is not a religion.
I can hardly understand why Washingtonpost is allowing such small talk here.
POSTED APRIL 27, 2007 1:29 PM
DAVID:
Many people have attempted to parse the religious views of Einstein -- with little success. To be honest, I'm not sure why we care what Einstein believed. Is the supposition behind all of this that a smart person must have an illuminating perspective when it comes to religion? That's nonsense, of course. Smart people are wrong all the time.
While we're on the subject, however...
I'd like to point out something scientists see in Einstein's words that a non-scientist might not.
Knowledge in this vast universe of ours is infinite; man's ability to grasp that knowledge, finite.
When Einstein describes this God, it is the remainder of knowledge (the stuff we don't know) that Einstein seems to be describing.
It could be argued Einstein's God is not a god at all but *statistical uncertainty* -- which is a venerable entity indeed!
POSTED APRIL 27, 2007 1:30 PM
INTERESTED:
Einstein says: “I am a determinist. I do not believe in free will. Jews believe in free will. They believe that man shapes his own life. I reject that doctrine. In that respect I am not a Jew.”
And yet our contributor writes: "For some [i.e., in contrast to Einstein], only a clear belief in a personal God who controls daily life qualified as a genuine faith."
And B-MAN writes: "When someone mentions "God" most people assume you must mean a personal, potentially vengeful diety that controls everything."
Einstein accurately reflects Jewish (and Christian) tradition that God does NOT control everything. In Einstein's view of God, God --whether identified with natural laws or 'behind' natural laws or both--does control everything. Einstein was a determinist. Maybe if he had agreed with quantum physics, he would have believed in free will.
POSTED APRIL 27, 2007 1:32 PM
THE POETIC ENCYCLOPEDIA:
Henry James asks portentiously:
"If God is NOT the laws of physics, what is It?"
Heather McHugh, in her wonderful poem "What He Thought," quotes the heretic Giordano bruno who was burned at the stake in the catholic inquisition of 1600 as saying
"If God is not the Soul itself, he is the Soul of the Soul of the world"
and
"God is no
fixed point or central government
but rather is poured in waves, through
all things: all things
move."
POSTED APRIL 27, 2007 1:36 PM
FRANK BURNS:
No life after death, no god looking after, caring for or damning us, no one to pray to, no reason for salvation, no freewill, no heaven, no hell, no life after death. Yet Christians forever repeat that Eistein belived in "God". In reality though, this God is so different from the Chirstian one that it should hardly be called by the same name. Christians, do not fool yoursleves, Einstein rejected your belief system.
POSTED APRIL 27, 2007 1:36 PM
HENRY JAMES:
Powell
My advice to you is to get a good education.
POSTED APRIL 27, 2007 1:37 PM
DDN OP/ED CRITIC:
Richard Dawkins might disagree with you...some of Einstein's quotes from 'The God Delusion':
http://richarddawkins.net/godDelusion
"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."
"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever. This is a somewhat new kind of religion.
I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism.
The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive."
'Cherrypicking' lines is NOT the mark of a good journalist...
POSTED APRIL 27, 2007 1:39 PM
DANIEL:
In Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, God is characterized in a way that leaves much doubt in my heart. In these religious outlooks, little justification is given for the existence of God, other than to state that God is creator of all things. And God is characterized in human terms, as though he is some sort of super-intelligent, all-powerful variation of man. Religious spokesmen often fall into the habit of speaking for God, pointing out what God wants, thinks, likes, and hates. Aside from the impossibility of thinking for God, all of these attributes of intent are purely and transparently human in nature and in no way knowable, with regards to God.
The God of the Bible and the God of my Christian upbringing does not seem plausible. I doubt. I doubt the proof of God, that “he” must simply “be.” And I doubt the simple-minded concept of God, as a superior, human-like being. Yet I can see how many people might fall into this habit of viewing God. We only have our experiences of this world in which we dwell to characterize any conceivable phenomenon; so, when we think of God, it is by way or our very small and limited conceptual abilities.
But by doubting the existence of God, does that mean that I do not believe in God? Not necessarily. What, then, do I believe? It is hard to put into words. I seldom try, because it seems so futile. Yet, in my mind, I have a wordless conception of God.
We have our five senses: touch, taste, smell, vision, and hearing. These senses gather information about the world in which we dwell. Our senses capture information by way of energy impulses; our senses absorb this information through a network of nerves and neurons; our senses soak up this information from the physical world which cradles us, and in which we dwell. This information flows from our senses into a vast and complex processing center in our brains, and it undergoes automatic and autonomic analysis in a sort of “common sense” information processor of which we have no awareness and over which we have no control. It all just “happens.” This information processor produces our consciousness of a seamless and complete world, the world in which we dwell.
It is the world where we stand and walk, where we recline and lie down, where we search and discover, where we hunger and eat, where we work and breathe and sleep and dream, where we commune with our fellows, where we talk and laugh and comfort and love, where we feel sadness and pain and loss and grief. This is the situation in which I find myself: I have appeared from nowhere; I am a thing in the world; I am a manufactured product complete and ready made; I am a sensual animal; I am a thinking and intelligent being; these characterizations describe what I am; this is what we all are.
By what means did this all come to be? By what means was this world of perceived phenomena provided, this world from which we were brought forth, which cradles us, and in which we dwell? By what means were our senses of perception provided? And by what means has our consciousness of worldly phenomena been provided? What is the conveyor of this providing? In reply to these questions, I must choose a word; the word I choose is “Providence.” Perhaps there is some kind of Providence operating in the world, that is the conveyor of perceived phenomena, and of sensory perception, and of conscious impressions of the world. Providence; it is a nice word, like hearing the name of a new friend, for the first time.
Some may reduce this “Providence” to God, but I prefer not to. “God” is a small concept, a corrupted cliché; Providence is a better word. This word carries with it some theological meaning; I think of it in a similar but slightly different way. I feel comfortable with this Providence, to which I can attribute few characteristics, except that it may be some sort of motivating influence that operates in the world. I cannot describe it any more than that.
Providence is what makes “up” up and “down” down. By Providence, we feel joy and sadness, each together, in contrast, and cannot know either without the other. We are aware of pain and pleasure, repose and struggle, light and darkness only because of their contrasting natures. By this Providence and the way it works and operates, and by our simple existence as part of it, we must suffer; suffering is a part of Providence.
Christianity seeks to provide an answer to the suffering of man. Yet, many people cannot accept the concept of a loving God in a world with so much suffering. “Why must we suffer?” is the cry of man. Even I have said, “my God, my God! why hast thou forsaken me.” At the very best, it is a mystery. I do not believe that God has made a world of suffering. Rather, by Providence, we dwell in a world of contrasting experience, and only by this contrasting nature of experience can we experience anything at all.
Providence has brought us forth into a ready-made world, ourselves, each, individually, ready-made, for the experiences that this world must impress upon us. Suffering is a part of this Providential package. We must take it, or leave it. Only we do not even have that choice; we must take it. Part of this Providence we may enjoy; part of it we must endure with existential nerve.
This is my contemplation on the nature of God. My thoughts on God have morphed from God as a super-intelligent, all-knowing, man-like being, to an unexplainable, inexplicable Providence. What then of Jesus, Mohammed, Moses, and Buddha, men whom we know lived on the earth? What of all the many manifestations of religion on a human scale? I call all of this the “setting,” or perhaps, the “stage.” We are free to work out the details of belief, or not, in each setting, on each stage, according to the contingencies of our lives, which Providence delivers to us. We are all bound to reach different conclusions.
POSTED APRIL 27, 2007 1:40 PM
ANONYMOUS:
David
Frank Burns just answered your question:
Believers are forever saying
"..BUT even Einstein believed in God"
it is important to point out that the God he believed in is nothing like the Christian God,
so you Christians out there,
if you are looking for support from Einstein,
forget about it.
POSTED APRIL 27, 2007 1:42 PM
B-MAN:
Interested:
I have to question your claim that the Christian tradition says that God does NOT control everything. I live in a very conservative rural Christian area of the US, and I know many folks who believe that God is responsible for all good things that happen and that "he" does intervene in people's daily lives. Perhaps I would be closer to the point to say that Christians believe their God has the potential to control anything he sees fit.
Here again, we run into trouble with word definitions, as in "control".
If the universe is completely organic in its growth, following the laws of physics and nature, is it "controlled by God"? Certainly, physical laws "govern" it's growth, but can we call this "control", as in divine intervention on a moment by moment basis, as many Christians believe?
POSTED APRIL 27, 2007 1:50 PM
SPEED123:
Frank Burns:
Your bias against Christians is very obvious and blatant.
Are you jewish or atheist? Hard to tell..perhaps both?
Don't fool yourself concerning your motivation you posts - it is hatred with a tinge of superiority complex.
POSTED APRIL 27, 2007 1:52 PM
DUKEHORN:
My father immigrated her in the late 70s with a bunch of very bright graduate students from Taiwan. They all became Christians and they all have PhDs in the hard sciences. Their kids all have advance degrees (I'm a JD and MS, my sis has a PhD, blah blah blah).
The gap between my generation and their generation concerning religion is immense. It seems as folks get older and try to find meaning, they turn to religion--even scientists. This is not a put-down but just an observation on human nature.
I personally don't care in what folks need to believe in order to derive comfort. Just don't force-feed it to me or my children in daily society.
POSTED APRIL 27, 2007 1:53 PM
DEB:
Henry wrote:
"Thomas Mann said that having a religious sensibility consisted in 'having a taste for the infinite.""
That is a truly wonderful quote.
POSTED APRIL 27, 2007 1:55 PM
SPEED123:
Here is Tolkien's take of secular progress vs. Christianity and it is a problem of words:
"You call a tree a tree and you think nothing more of the word. But it was not a "tree" until someone gave it that name. You call a star a star, and say it is just a ball of matter moving on a mathematical sourse. But that is merely how you see it. By so naming things and describing them you are only inventing your own terms about them. And just as speech is invention about objects and ideas, so myth is invention about truth.
We have come from God, and inevitably the myths woven by us, though they contain error, will also reflect a splintered fragment of the true light, the eternal truth that is with God....Our myths may be misguided, but they steer however shakily towards the true harbor, while materialistic "progress" leads only to a yawning abyss and the Iron Crown of the power of evil."
POSTED APRIL 27, 2007 1:55 PM
ZANE:
we can all find what einstein wrote,but how many of know what he MEANT?
since none of us can replicate his thought
processes ,we simply apply them to our own and
hope that the results will honor his genius.
POSTED APRIL 27, 2007 1:57 PM
OVEREDUCATED:
Interesting. Einstein said, "I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist", but the other statements of his beliefs are very similar to those of at least one strain of modern pantheism, which I also identify with. It's also similar to the beliefs that some call "Religious Naturalism". People in these categories are often confusing to both traditional theists and hard-core atheists, because we use language that sounds religious (and is, in a sense), and some of us engage in activities like meditation or ritual/ceremony that are usually associated with traditional religions, but we don't believe in God as understood by most religious people in our society. Our religion is oriented towards the natural world rather than anything supernatural.
POSTED APRIL 27, 2007 1:58 PM
DAN:
I liken Einstein's analogy of a child standing in a library full of books written in different languages to the way an astronomer feels when he looks to the stars or the way a geneticist must feel when he examines the complex simplicity of a DNA strand (it is complex insomuch as it is really an enormous computer program yet simple because it is just a very large number is base-4). We will always seek to understand the full nature and origins of the universe we see around us but we never will fully.
I think Einstein meant that if man cannot understand this complexity, it is only logical to believe that either a greater power created this complexity (i.e. Einstein believed in god) or that such complexity is simply a logical consequence of evolution. In either case, the laws that cause hydrogen to coalesce into stars and the laws that cause DNA to evolve, self-modify, mutate and replicate are one in the same whether they were "engineered" by god or not.
POSTED APRIL 27, 2007 1:58 PM
PATRICK:
Einstein didn't believe in a God anymore than Thomas Jefferson did. Both were men put into a position by their society such that any blanket denials of "the Lord" would have meant career and social suicide. Yet both managed to make very clear over their lifetimes, and especially towards the end, that their use of the word "God" was solely metaphorical, meant to conflate the vast "unknowns" of the Universe into a single, easy to bandy about phrase.
It boggles my mind that the Post would continue to allow wholly misleading opinion pieces whose quotes and facts are not contextually accurate.
I am an athiest, but no religion hater. Dialog
and debate is wonderful, so long as the facts remain facts and participants aren't permitted to wholly fabricate and redesign the personalities of historical figures. The author of this article has clearly not spent much time reading Einstein's work, or personal letters, or interviews.
Moreover, the author should understand the fallacy of arguing from false authority, i.e. "Einstein thought this, Einstein was smart, therefore if I think this I am smart." Plenty of smart people have been wholly wrong about the way things work due to lack of evidence or proper perspective. Intelligent folks go by the evidence, and the evidence strongly suggests that A) There is no God or any remotely "supernatural" force in the universe, and B) Einstein believe in God as a metaphor for the darkness of ignorance and lack of understanding.
POSTED APRIL 27, 2007 1:58 PM
ATHENA:
This is actually very informative. I had always assumed that Einstein was a "cultural Jew". The idea that God is an infinite library, and we're just in the children's section is a good allegory. Human beings need to get past the concept of the Divine as "Big Daddy" or "Big Mommy" if we are to grow to our full potential.
I think that the purpose of this article was to prove that science and faith are not mutually exclusive. As Frank Burns said earlier, Einstein may have believed in God, but he didn't believe in the Big Parent who granted your wishes, protected you from harm, etc.
POSTED APRIL 27, 2007 1:58 PM
REISPACE:
It sounds to me if Einstein were alive today he would consider himself "spiritual" not "religious". The distinction being that religious today generally means adhering to the tenets/dogma of a formal religion. My question, which I'm sure is not an original thought, is why the distinction between science and spirituality? Where is it written that "GOD" cannot be mathematically proven? Perhaps this is the same as the "God is the laws of physics" argument above.
POSTED APRIL 27, 2007 2:06 PM
DANIEL:
Einstein was a very intelligent man, but there are many very intelligent men and women, whose opinions we might seek. He became famous, not because he was very intelligent, but because of his theoretical work on relativity, which ultimately lead to the atomic bomb and the realization of nuclear energy. This does not make him an expert on religion or philsophy, but just gives his intelligent discourse some credibility. I think I understand his thinking on "God," as I have commented earlier (above). I wish I could have met him, and discussed the topic with.
POSTED APRIL 27, 2007 2:08 PM
FISCH, BN, GERMANY:
Well, it this trivial sense I am religious too, who is not, but what does it matter? Nothing. What matters is what we do. Nothing but the outcome counts.
POSTED APRIL 27, 2007 2:14 PM
JACOB JOZEVZ:
Att: Who is "Benedict SPINOZA"?
POSTED APRIL 27, 2007 2:14 PM
ANONYMOUS:
Patrick wrote:
"I am... no religion hater," and "Intelligent folks go by the evidence, and the evidence strongly suggests that A) There is no God or any remotely "supernatural" force in the universe."
So, you don't hate religious people, but you apparently think they are stupid.
POSTED APRIL 27, 2007 2:14 PM
INTERESTED:
To Henry James:
"Lawful harmony of all that exists" seems to include a value judgment that is not present in "instantiation of the laws of physics." "Lawful harmony" is a semantically rich phrase that points to more than "instantiation of laws."
Is that "more" an aesthetic judgment, is it awe? Maybe, but I don't know. It seems important merely to note that Einstein posited "more." (Or "behind" as Ann O. emphasized.)
POSTED APRIL 27, 2007 2:14 PM
DEB:
Henry James:
I'm sorry to bring this up, but I have to mention one tiny little point that bothers me about your discussion regarding Einstein and Spinoza's God. You wrote:
Einstein said:
"I believe in Spinoza’s God, who reveals himself in the lawful harmony of all that exists"
in my meagre literary imagination
"the lawful harmony of all that exists"
is equal to
"the instantiation of the laws of physics".
You then wrapped up with :
"If God is NOT the laws of physics, what is it?"
My problem lies in the fact that Einstein said that God reveals himself IN the lawful harmony of all that exists; he did not say that God reveals himself TO BE the lawful harmony of all that exists. Because of that, I don't think you can equate his statement with your agreement that God IS the law of physics.
Just a tiny observation.
POSTED APRIL 27, 2007 2:23 PM
SJOERD:
Einstein was a great physician. But that does not make his religious beliefs, or the absence of them, important. He was not necessarily a religious genius. For that I would go to Jesus or M. Ghandi.
POSTED APRIL 27, 2007 2:27 PM
MR MARK:
Christians quoting Einstein and trying to posthumously recruit him to their cause. What a hoot!
Einstein's "god" in no way resembles the Xian/Judeo god.
The fact is, the world would be a much better place if the religious abandoned their imaginary gods and embraced Einstein's god.
POSTED APRIL 27, 2007 2:27 PM
BELIEVER:
"Christianity seeks to provide an answer to the suffering of man. Yet, many people cannot accept the concept of a loving God in a world with so much suffering. “Why must we suffer?” is the cry of man. Even I have said, “my God, my God! why hast thou forsaken me.” At the very best, it is a mystery."
Daniel,
You obviously write very well and you did a great job of expressing your thoughts and feelings. I'm sorry you have fallen into doubt so deep that you can't see the light of truth.
The "Providence" that you proclaim is a sense of God. Every civilization from the beginning of time has displayed this same sense of the divine. Is that coincidence. What do you think?
You insinuate that "Providence" put us here. Why would that "Providence" then abandoned what it wrought to be left alone in such a cruel and seemingly unjust creation.
Thanks be to God, that is not the case. Jesus Christ is the answer to all of man's suffering. The question is not "Why do we suffer?" The question is "Why did he suffer for us?"
Jesus said in John 15:9
"Just as the Father has loved Me, I have also loved you; abide in My love."
and in John 16:33
"These things I have spoken to you, so that in Me you may have peace. In the world you have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the world."
I gladly place my hope and my life in His love and in His power to overcome the evil of this world. He has all the answers to all of your questions. Keep seeking and you will find.
POSTED APRIL 27, 2007 2:28 PM
JACOB JOZEVZ:
"For Einstein et al, Spinoza, Baruch was his most influential (not Buddhaism) Philosopher via his "WORLD-VIEW"
Spinoza equated Eclat (g-d as infinite substance/stuff in all things) with NATURE.
This folks, is consistent with ALBERT Einsteins [Cosmic-feeling) belief in an Impersonal Eclati (diety so to speak) and using one HEURISTICS to see the TRUTH IN PHOTONS as US!
Att: there is NO difference between Theism & Pantheism.
- Moses Mendal.
SHOLOM!
-Jacob Jozevz
From Coney Island Live , the fun place to be and forgetabout IT (g-d) for a while.
Have a great Sabath. Ya Ya Mommas Poppas Monsa Mon, : + )/ Nathans Hot Dogs are the Best!
POSTED APRIL 27, 2007 2:32 PM
LOOK WITHIN:
Dear Friends,
Some might suggest that trying so hard to convince another that they are wrong, childish, naive, stupid, etc. shows that the person you are trying to convince is acting as a mirror for you, showing you something that you really don't like about yourself. Perhaps your time would be better spent thinking about that, rather than repeating your own thoughts about religion and/or trying to disavow another of their's. What might your life be like if you looked at why you are so angry, or need to make someone else wrong, or feel the need to judge or put others down?
Good luck and peace!
POSTED APRIL 27, 2007 2:32 PM
HENRY JAMES:
thank you M Interested,
as a literary critic, i am interested in the difference in connotation you see between
"lawful harmony of all that exists."
and
"instantiation of the laws of physics."
Is your differention aesthetic? To me the two phrases have the same "reference," in the philosophical sense that my brother William and Frege use it.
I believe that the laws lead to harmony in all that exists when they are instantiated.
We can and should experience wonder and awe and mystery when we see the instantiations/lawful harmonies, that i agree on.
POSTED APRIL 27, 2007 2:34 PM
MANNBHUPINDER:
So!? He gave his opinion and if you want to hug him and make a big deal of his belief in God--go ahead: his belief or disbelief proves not a thing. Because it is a belief and an opinion. My view: This God you keep talking about was created by human mind, and this God and the promise of Heaven have been exploited by the organized religion (of all sorts) for several millenia. The Economist wrote the obituary of some God in 2000.
POSTED APRIL 27, 2007 2:36 PM
GLEN BROEMER:
If the soul and body are one then the soul deteriorates at death. Other than that it's perfect!
POSTED APRIL 27, 2007 2:39 PM
B-MAN:
It seems to me that Einstein is as good a person as any to put forth his views on religion. Don't all organized religions make rather preposterous truth claims about how the universe works? Well, who better understood the physical workings of the universe better than Einstein? Einstein seems to me to be eminently qualified to discuss the subject of Religion.
POSTED APRIL 27, 2007 2:41 PM
GOD'S CHARACTER:
The great debate continues....God is science, He has perfected it. God is nature, as He created and sustains it. God is justice, as He regulates it. God is All Knowledge, that encompasses math, language, and the heavens. As for the mention of ones senses earlier: touch, taste, smell, vision, and hearing, these are very limited and imperfec. What many feel to aquint with the concept of God is one's soul, heart, and mind which is the mystery of our creation. Clearly Einstein felt that God created us for some reason. And he clearly felt that God isn't the refere of humanity, rather He has the ordained/divine creed of all.
POSTED APRIL 27, 2007 2:51 PM
CHOUK BOLDEN:
There is God. Somethings don't come from Nothing!
POSTED APRIL 27, 2007 2:51 PM
FRANKLIN:
I want to thank Walter Isaacson for this wonderful piece on Einstein's spiritual philosphy that appears to rattle the sensibilities of both theistic and secular fundamentalist. Unfortunately, there are sectors amongst secular thinking individuals that reduce God, and those who beliefe in God, to a bare and childlike simplicity that ridicules the believers. They, like religious fundamentalists, adhere to a view of a very brutal and vengeful God. Views of God among the theists vary from Maimonides rationalism to Bachya Pakuda's heartfelt God. Jews, Christians and Muslims have a rich variety of views for something as ineffable and mysterious as God.
That Einstein had his own view should be cherished and appauded by theist and athiest alike. Yes, some fundamentalist theists might also object to Einstein's version of God for not being a personal entity. Must we be so narrow minded? Rabbi Irwin Kula once was also questioned by a scientist on his view of God. Rabbi Kula responded that he didn't believe in the same God this scientist didn't believe in either.
In the end, I hope that we don't become fundamentalist around Einstein's religious and spiritual philosophy either. Whether we like it or not, most people throughout the world seemed to be wired to believe in a higher power also. Could they all be wrong?
POSTED APRIL 27, 2007 2:52 PM
B-MAN:
To CHOUK BOLDEN:
Then who created God?
POSTED APRIL 27, 2007 2:53 PM
HENRY JAMES:
Deb
I appreciate your queestion. I think these "little points" can be quite illuminating..
invoking my philosopher brother William again, we need to acknowledge that we are in Never Never land when we start any sentence with the words
"God is..."
and then we complete the sentence
except perhaps when we say
"God is something that is impossible to put into words."
So, I am aware of the poverty of my saying
"God is The Laws of Physics"
Einstein seemed to be saying he saw what HE called God "reflected" in the harmony of the laws of physics.
Reminds us of Plato's Cave: we don't see the Ideal Form (God?), we see the shadow reflected on the wall.
It is like what poetry does: try to express the inexpressible.
POSTED APRIL 27, 2007 2:54 PM
FAYE KANE:
The simple answer for simpleminded people is: no, Einstein did not believe in god.
Okay?
In the sense you yokels talk about it, he was an atheist. He was also being charitable and polite.
The other thing he was doing was trying, unsuccessfully it seems, to give you a hint that time and space are vaster, more complex, and more mysterious than you dimwits, with your pat, simpleminded, anthropocentric answers, can ever imagine.
POSTED APRIL 27, 2007 2:57 PM
ZACH:
To ask more than what Einstein believed is to be guilty of something called the sin of hubris.
And even more, a belief in the existence of a platonic universe is a sign of hubris.
A grand article in a recent issue of New Yorker titled The Interpreter shows that even the concepts of number and recursion are not necessary for human intelligence and consciousness to exist.
To be satisfied with a profound sense of awe and a yearning to learn and understand reality is a sign of maturity. To demand more is selfish and presumptive.
POSTED APRIL 27, 2007 2:57 PM
OMAR HARVEY:
so what's your point? is that what your down to? he did so we should to. if there is a god you really debase the whole thing. but you have no proof, which is what's required.
POSTED APRIL 27, 2007 2:59 PM
TERRA GAZELLE:
Jacob,
OK I am starting to understand you...should I be afraid?
Yes Nathans are the Best!
Have a great time at Coney Island...I loved Alantic City and Boardwalk Fries. ; )
terra
POSTED APRIL 27, 2007 2:59 PM
OVEREDUCATED:
Baruch/ Benedict Spinoza: 17th century Dutch philosopher. In some ways a follower of Rene Descartes but ended up at very different conclusions. I'm sure Wikipedia has lots more.
He wrote a lot of dense stuff that's hard to understand, but some of his statements make good epigrams. For example:
"I have striven not to laugh at human actions, not to weep at them, nor to hate them, but to understand them." -Spinoza
POSTED APRIL 27, 2007 3:04 PM
JOZEVZ ET AL:
Hello Cyber Brothers and sisters & beyond:
There is a "Secular Litigation Case" being argued in Americas Federal Court.
See: "Lemon Vs. Kurtzman" et al:
also known as "Suggesting Vs. Compelling" et Seq.
And this case holds, "RELIGION MUST HAVE A SECULAR PURPOSE..." ?
The "Establishment Clause" not the "Quantum Entanglement" Clause is the guiding factor or controller in this "Secular as religion" case is evolving.
Note: I'm sure Albert et al would jump in on this case on a "Class Action" angle. Because people have insulted our "Cosmic Feeling" beliefs!
Yet this is almost prescisely a GOG Vs. MAGOG type of arena. So put on your Heuristic battle gear and roll out your mighty pens my Ancient thinking fols. a/k/a HUMATES
Nice interesting case that makes that "INTELLIGENT DESIGN" Case look childish, when it come to applied Physics as Science and not religion.
I got to go light candles tonight for OUR Great Father of R.E.L.A.T.I.V.I.T.Y. and "MY GREAT PROPHET" [not Moses, Jesus, Mohammad, Krishna etc..].
SO; "Let there be Photons and never have Sexualt Guilt complexes." Life is beautiful indeed and zero SIN about being born from MAGMA, not a blood clot, molded by clay or wood or beamed to Space-Ship Earth from an imagined Heaven and or a Hell.
LIFE IS MIRACLE! There is ZERO APOLOGY and ZERO FOREGIVENESS unduly due. : + )/ Ya Ya.
Praise the real LORD G-D Almighty the ECLATi in my Me Me and in ALL animate and inanimate stuff & things.
SHOLOM again!
POSTED APRIL 27, 2007 3:08 PM
DAN:
This quote from Dr. Einstein comes shortly before his death and show clearly the intent of the religious to pilfer the good name of a brilliant man for their political purposes.
"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."
POSTED APRIL 27, 2007 3:08 PM
INTERESTED:
To B-MAN:
I just wanted to point out how stereotypes cause us to misconstrue things. Both you and the guest contributor contrast Einstein with people who believe that God controls everything. But this seems to be the reverse of Einstein's own understanding.
Einstein distinguishes himself from Jewish tradition, specifically because Jewish tradition affirms free will. Hence, in Einstein's view of Jewish tradition (and he is basically correct about this) God does not determine everything. God may be capable of doing so, but God does not.
Einstein says that "God ... reveals himself in the lawful harmony of all that exists" and calls himself a determinist, rejecting free will. It seems that in Einstein's view, God determines everything.
Whether God is personal or impersonal, concerned about human affairs or not, identical with the laws of nature or not--those are separate questions. You and the contributor used the word "control," but we can use Einstein's own term "determine." You and the contributor trotted out a straw man--"those traditional religious people who believe that God controls everything." But in Einstein's view (as given in the article), those traditional religious people are the ones who believe in free will and are not determinists. Einstein contrasts himself with them by saying he's a determinist.
Your rural neighbors reflect popular American Christianity, probably the conservative Protestant variety. Please don't interview them and walk away saying "That's the view of Christianity." But if they believe that God "intervenes" in their lives/history/whatever, they believe that God intervenes in a something. That something requires intervention and is not wholly determined ahead of time. Hence, they are not determinists and probably believe in free will.
POSTED APRIL 27, 2007 3:12 PM
HENRY JAMES:
Zach
i fear that you may oversimplify a bit when you write
"And even more, a belief in the existence of a platonic universe is a sign of hubris."
Many interesting and productive thinkers have taken Plato's writings very seriously, even if they did not "literally" believe in what you call a "platonic universe," whatever you mean by that.
Philosophically speaking, the nature of "reality" is problematic.
According to quantum physics, it is even more problematic.
Then add Heisenberg. And complementarity. Oy vey?
POSTED APRIL 27, 2007 3:15 PM
DANIEL:
I think Zach has a good handle on this.
Saying that God is "the laws of physics" does not make much sense. It is definitley not very satisfying, and besides, what are "the laws of physics?"
The "laws of physics" is really a misnomer. It is a way to speak about things that are difficult to characterize. In science, we make observations, and in our minds, we relate them in ways that make sense to us. We may call these relationships "laws." It is a metaphorical reference to laws or rules which we must live by in society. But these "physical laws" do not have any reality in themselves. They are only categories of realtionships in our minds, which we feel impelled to call laws. We should always be aware that there may be some broader relationship, as yet, unknown, that may someday become known, that will show all of these immutable laws to be just our imaginings.
The world in which we dwell impresses us with its order, the origin of which, is a mystery. Some people call these impressions of order "laws of nature" but we have no basis for believing in any such laws. "God" as a concept, is beyond conception. Any effort to conceptualize this "God" reduces and circumscribes the concept of "God." The three letter word G-O-D is a sort of place holder for all that we may infer about our impressions of order in the world.
POSTED APRIL 27, 2007 3:19 PM
JOZEVZ:
Hello: T.E.R.R.A. and other great Cyber Lady's & Gentlemen:
Did you know TERRA is the Fathers name of the biblical "Abraham" character?
Tera stands, in translation, or eponymously and not anonymously, as 1st TERRORIST, besides the "Sara Prostitution Story's and the "Jacob Ultimate Swindles" and the "Hagar Rejection" story's et al.
Terra, if we are going to Nathans, we are going "DUTCH." Note: Coney or cooney is a Dutch word and was once surrounded by water.
And the "Russian American" Community, In Brighton Beach coney Island, a/k/a "Little Odessa By The Sea" besides the "Side Show by the Sea" are drinking and saying, Na ZDA Roe VIA and LA CHAIM to Boris Yeltsin in his Photofinite Poof-Time and journey to Absolute Freed & Beyond. WoW. Enjoy Ya Da Can!
POSTED APRIL 27, 2007 3:20 PM
BOBBYG:
Is there a "Supreme Being"?
Is that not utterly obvious upon the briefest clear reflection?
Some "thing" supremely "be." Some infinite "Is-ness" surely, supremely "is."
e.g., "Even that which is not is part of that which IS." (Zakov, "The Dancing Wu Li Masters")
None of which mandates the existence of some anthropomorphic "Deity" habitually irritated over the moral shortcomings of "His" "subjects."
POSTED APRIL 27, 2007 3:22 PM
WILLIAM KALBACHER:
The problem is science doesnt recognize the existence of God. Science actually says there is no God. With all gratitude and respect,
science is ignorant.
POSTED APRIL 27, 2007 3:38 PM
NEO:
I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." - Copy to Clipboard
-- Mahatma Gandhi
POSTED APRIL 27, 2007 3:39 PM
E:
i find this discussion of beliefs and the nature of God fascinating, but i have to admit that the best quote of the day so far--no offense to daniel, whose treatise was well written and interesting, and will cause me to send this link to myself so i can read it again later--is this one:
"Let there be Photons and never have Sexualt Guilt complexes."
jacob has given me much amusement in this serious conversation. ya ya, indeed, brother!
POSTED APRIL 27, 2007 3:41 PM
MIGUEL:
Jozevz:
Interesting.
Question: What are the MOTHERS-NAMES of both, Moses's "Biblical Character(imagined?)" of Mr. NOAH & Mr. ABRAHAM?
Did attila the hun exist? what was his mother's name? and cleopatra's? how about china's first emperor?
100% certain proof of god for every person is different. it's called faith . your personal experience defines that.
Is faith physical? measureable?
btw: are you so skeptical towards religion only or to yourself, to your neighbours,to your country; to science, history, etc?
Are your parents really your parents? were you adopted? are your grandparents really your grandparents? this doesn't end, it's an existential question.
POSTED APRIL 27, 2007 3:42 PM
NEO:
The Greeks said it all many years before Christ and Shakespeare but it into English: "The fault dear Brutus is not in our stars but in ourselves..."
POSTED APRIL 27, 2007 3:43 PM
DEB:
Henry James, I absolutely love the way you write.
I think the problem we run into here is with the use of the word "religion". Religion does not strictly mean a belief in a God; it can more loosely be used to mean something that is pursued with great devotion or zeal. So when Einstein states "Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion," he might very well have been talking about his love for seeking the truths behind the workings of our universe, not the worship of a deity. This is why we have the problem of him saying at one time that he is "religious", and at another "I don't believe in God".
Of course, I could be wrong. I never met him.
POSTED APRIL 27, 2007 3:44 PM
QUESTION TIME:
Beliver writes:
"I gladly place my hope and my life in His love and in His power to overcome the evil of this world. He has all the answers to all of your questions. Keep seeking and you will find."
That's not the point. Once you answer all the questions, the questions become boring. Einstein's 'religiousity' was in the questions he knew he couldn't answer. I'm glad you think you've found your answer, just don't let that stop you from asking more questions. Keep seeking, and may you never find.
POSTED APRIL 27, 2007 3:49 PM
YOGUSTUS:
if anyone is interested (i'm sure u all are), i have found the most comprehensive and scientific explantion of the concept of God defined by the word "Brahman". Google it.
POSTED APRIL 27, 2007 3:53 PM
ANONYMOUS:
Yogustus,
Whoa.
POSTED APRIL 27, 2007 3:57 PM
JIM CARLSON:
I agree with Einstein's notion of an impersonal god. And his imagery about a child in a library with books in many languages probably best describes humankind's limited ability to ultimately comprehend god.
However, I think we may be worse off than that. A library at least offers a chance at understanding for those studious and intelligent enough to learn the languages and read the books.
In a more apt analogy, I think the books extend forever in all directions. But that doesn't matter, because someone has neglected to turn on the lights.
POSTED APRIL 27, 2007 4:06 PM
ANONYMOUS:
Re: Brahman:
So the Hindus take all our jobs, then it turns out they had the God-thing figured out too?? DOH!!
POSTED APRIL 27, 2007 4:08 PM
ROB L.:
God is an infantile concept. Santa for adults.
POSTED APRIL 27, 2007 4:11 PM
RICHARD:
We only have five senses. It is apparent that five is not enough to apprehend the universe, be it expanding, contracting, static or multiple.
Further, when pressed hard, it is just as impossible to imagine nothing as something. Both conditions are implausible.
I don't know. Nor do you. The only ones who know with absolute certainty are those of "faith". I am ignorant, but they are wrong.
POSTED APRIL 27, 2007 4:14 PM
ROB L. :
Yes, God is a idea that is used for advantage, rolled out whenever convenient, in whatever form the deluded need for the moment.
I do like to ask Bible Thumpers just what exactly their God is doing right this minute, how is he manifesting his glory?
The answers are comical.
There is no god. Never was. Myths are cool though.
POSTED APRIL 27, 2007 4:15 PM
YOGUSTUS:
Few quotes to ponder over...
Try to be pure and unselfish -that is the whole of religion.
Each soul is potentially divine. To be religious is to manifest this Divinity within, by controlling nature, external and internal. Do this either by work, or worship, or psychic control, or philosophy... and be free. This is the whole of religion. Doctrines and dogmas, rituals and forms, books and temples are but secondary details.
ROB ADAMS:
We have Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Wiccans, Atheist, Muslins, independents (like myself) and other faiths represented on this site whether they are panelists or posters.
Dogma and scripture debates are one thing. I think one of the most basic questions is the definition of what/who God is?
The answer:
a) The pantheist version of God
b) The God of Abraham
c) Hindu Definition of God(s) “"the belief in or worship of one God without denying the existence of others."
d) other definitions used for God.
e) All of the above
f) none of the above - this is for the atheists in the crowd
We all have our opinions, but who is actually right? Since we can not agree on a,b,c,d the logical explanation is E) All of the above.
Dogma and scripture we will likely dispute for the next 1000 years. That is a separate topic.
My belief is that God is infinite and grander than we imagine thus he could be everything. I always see on this site that we can’t all be right. However when we talk about the big picture perhaps we are all correct in that God is all of the above.
Thoughts?
POSTED APRIL 27, 2007 4:16 PM
YOGUSTUS:
Another quote from a speaker in the Parliament of Religions in Chicago 1853...
He who says day and night, ‘I am a sinner, I am a sinner’, verily becomes a sinner... Why should one only talk about sin and hell, and such things?
Ye are the children of God, the sharers of immortal bliss, holy and perfect beings. Ye divinities on earth - sinners! It is a sin to call man so; it is a standing libel on human nature. Come up, lions! and shake off the delusion that you are sheep; you are souls immortal, spirits free, blest and eternal
POSTED APRIL 27, 2007 4:22 PM
REGNES:
I know that I exist.
POSTED APRIL 27, 2007 4:24 PM
ANONYMOUS:
Richard said:
"We only have five senses. It is apparent that five is not enough to apprehend the universe, be it expanding, contracting, static or multiple."
I believe that we dwell in a world of providence and our five senses enable us to perceive this world as seamless and complete. Yet extending beyond the limitations of our senses, we can perceive no more, although much more may exist.
POSTED APRIL 27, 2007 4:24 PM
BELIEVER:
Question Time:
If I believe in a God who created everything that is in existence, who loves us so much he sent his Son to this earth to walk among us, then I think I would be insane not to believe that this same God knows the answers to whatever questions we could possibly conjure.
Do I know all the answers? No.
Do I have enough questions to keep me occupied to the end of my days on this earth? Yes.
Do I believe that God will provide us all with the answers we need to find Him, if we will just take the time to seek Him? An emphatic YES!
Why, because Jesus said so.
"Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will
