Did Einstein try to destroy science?

Einstein made the argument in seeking to counter aspects of quantum physics that: Personally I think the statement was just plain wrong in a lot of ways, but I think it was refreshing that a physicist would make such a statement about one potential conclusion of QM and that the physics community would not reject the statement a priori just because God is mentioned.If Einstein made the comment today, what would be the reception? Would you guys on the evo side accuse him of employing the ID wedge, dangerously mixing science and religion? Seeking to destroy modern science? If so, why didn't all the other physicists jump on him for mixing science and religion?

Say what you want. Einstein invoked God, and yes a God of determinism, in a scientific argument. He brought in the idea that God does not play dice because he felt that was true.

Percy, are you saying that Einstein merely asserted that the universe is deterministic a priori?We know Einstein had a lot of religious thoughts, though more personal and not traditional, and considered God and the universe quite a lot. He actually thought of the universe as the handiwork of God and saw the rules and such as something God laid down. Stating he saw nature the same as God is not what he said in that quote. He saw God in nature.So when he was presented with the idea in nature of an indeterminate state (quantum mechanics), he rejected it based on his own intuitions and thoughts of God. To simply say he was only asserting determinism misses the point. He quite plainly asserted a deterministic God.

He was still bringing his theology into science. He could have stated the universe is deterministic due to the data, but he pointed to determinism via God.another interesting comment from Einstein cool Hawkings lecture tooThe page you were looking for doesn't exist (404)Edited by randman, : No reason given.

also http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm

Prove it. Substantiate your point.Einstein was a deeply religious person that argued his religious convictions in the arena of science and vice versa.http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm#RELIGIONI think the point perhaps where we can agree is your statement that Einstein saw a cosmic spirituality as inherent within the universe.However, I think we disagree with what I think is the obvious implication of such thinking; namely he was thus mixing science and religion in his approach to both.Also, keep in mind that by arguing Einstein was referring to a Spinozan idea of God or the Divine, that you are actually conceding the point that Einstein was mixing science and religion. Additionally, Spinoza did not just argue that was the universe, but that God causes the universe.Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

I am glad he didn't berate Einstein for merely mentioning God and his faith, but rather suggested that perhaps Einstein's faith and perception of God were incomplete instead of quantum mechanics.You try to remove Einstein's sense of spirit and mysticism from his faith. I have seen others do that as well, and you miss what Einstein is saying. It is true he didn't believe in a personal God you should pray to, but likewise he believed God was more than matter and energy. He believed matter and energy showed what God was, and that God causes the universe to be.There is a significant difference there, and no matter how you slice it, Einstein brought his personal faith very much into his science and saw the two as inextricably intertwined.To claim Einstein merely used and believed in God as a sort of metaphor grossly misinterprets who Einstein was and what he believed.Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : correcting grammar

What the heck are you talking about? You think Einstein didn't believe in God? He most clearly did. The fact His God was not a personal God you should pray to for favors in no way lessens His belief in a Divine Spirit Creator.

I'd suggest rereading some of the links. He specifies "spirit" for example as something real. Einstein being a scientist was well familiar with the distinction of words like matter and energy, and chose a religious term to describe God, not a scientific one.Moreover, some of the posters here thus far have a misunderstanding of Spinoza and what he and Einstein as well believed. For example, both believed God was supremely intelligent and had divine force, causation and spirit. To say they simply meant the inanimate universe was the same as God and so using the term "God" meant nothing more than a reference to matter and energy is completely and wholly wrong. Thier idea of God encompassed the physical world but every other world as well.

Actually, that's quite wrong. First Spinoza did not just believe the material universe was God as you suggest, but that God caused the material universe. You have some false concepts of Spinoza.Moreover, the quotes already provided amply show that Einstein believed in God as a spirit. He used that exact term, spirit. Moreover, he referred to our connection via that spirit through subjective feeling which he said all true scientists had to connect with, but also suggests can come through objective study of the universe.But hey, I'll give you a chance. Substantiate your claim's on Spinoza. I think what you fail to realize is that by claiming that Nature and God are synnomous, he was presenting a non-scientific perspective of Nature, not as inanimate devoid of spirit and intelligence, but as something that possesses intelligence and spirit. He also claims that God causes the material world, and so does argue for a Creator as does Einstein.The following article on Spinoza may help. Baruch Spinoza (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) Edited by randman, : No reason given.

There is no cherry-picking on my part whatsoever, and it baffles me that you would say so. Here is your quote: What I think you are missing is that Nature here includes spirit, consciousness, intelligence, laws, etc,.....it's not strictly just the physical that Spinoza is speaking of. In fact, part of the immanent aspect of God I discuss as being central to what holds all things together is very similar to what Spinoza is speaking of, and yet you and others are dismissive of that. Spinoza and Einstein are enemies of the sort of thought advanced by most evos here as far as what constitutes real science, and that's because they see the creation as also part of the Divine, and that spirit is real, and not just some religious fantasy.Note the phrase: brought into being by Nature. He does not simply say that what you see is all there is of God, but that what you see is brought into being by God and that God is in everything.

I have already provided them, and in fact everything quoted thus far only supports my view. You have created a straw man, erroneously claiming I assert Einstein believed in a personal God, and so continually argue against a fantasy of your own making.You also seem to suggest that Spinoza and Einstein rejected intelligence and spirit as a property of God, and that is wholly false. I don't know what to say, except words have meanings. If they viewed the material world as the only thing God is, they wouldn't really be using the term "God."You are just wrong here, percy. You hurl baseless accusations and make senseless posts such as the following: I have never in my life said such a thing, nor do I believe it. The absurdity of your comment is mind-boggling.Let's look at the quotes more closely. That's true, but you fail to see the significance of that. You fail to realize that by claiming this Spinoza specifically claims intelligence and spirit are part of Nature. His view of Nature is wholly different than the materialist's view. For example, read again the quote you implore me to read. Is this a materialist position? Do you, for example, percy accept spirit, mind, ideas and matter to all be of the same substance? What you fail to realize is that by rejecting the supernatural, he is also elevating the natural to include things like love, principles, soul, consciousness, spirit, etc,.....He is not advocating atheism or strict materialism, but is doing exactly what you preach against, stating that the spiritual, mental, and physical worlds are all one and the same. Try reading Spinoza, and if we are going to be insulting, brother, I can guess actually where your idiocy and refusal to accept truth stems from.Here is another quote of Spinoza: What do you think he saying percy? He is saying the substance of the universe is uncaused and is God Himself. He also says, as I provided earlier, that everything is caused by God....Heck, this part is not really so different from Paul's statement "In Him we live and move and have our being" except Paul's theology, of course, moved way beyond immanent theology.Let's put it this way. Intelligence, matter, and all things that are stem from this God, this substance, according to Spinoza. He suggests though a more organic, non-teleological growth of the universe, and that the universe consists of God, but to pretend he is asserting a materialist notion where the universe has no consciousness, but is strictly matter and energy is absurd. There is no division within Spinoza between the world of thought, soul, will, spirit, and matter and energy. It is the modernist world that splits these things into separate matters and claims we cannot see the workings of God, say, in something like quantum mechanics, because somehow God is so separate as to be indecipherable.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

The problem is you don't seem to grasp what Spinoza means by Nature or the universe. He is not just talking of things like matter and energy. Sure, he thinks those things stem from the substance of God and so are God in a sense, an outgrowth of God, but the material world is not the whole of God. That's not what he says, and you have provided nothing to show that. In fact, one of your quotes shows the exact opposite, that Spinoza viewed the non-material world as of the same substance. Ideas, love, spirit, consciousness, intelligence, morals, ethics, law, order, principles, soul, beauty, etc,....and all non-material things are equally God and Nature.Perhaps though, your hatred of me clouds your ability to agree with me here. Let's look at something another poster has stated so you know these are not my weird ideas, but actually the ideas of people educated on this subject. This comes from anglehard's post. In other words, Spinoza really has sort of a New Age concept of reality, and Einstein adopting that is really mixing religion and science, and doing unabashedly. He sees distinctions between the 2, but believes they must work together, affecting each other's fields of study even.He rejects the division of the material and spiritual worlds as different. In other words, he completely rejects your sort of thinking.

Is this a real question from you percy? You didn't read any of the following comments before, but actually believe I have been arguing Einstein and Spinoza accept standard Christian theology?What you are missing is that it doesn't matter what theology they are arguing. They are arguing theology in science, and science in theology, and that's the whole point.Geesh!Just in case you still haven't grasped it. In answer to your question, no, neither is arguing standard, Christian theology, but they are arguing that Nature and God are more than inanimate matter and energy, and actually are arguing that this inanimate matter and energy really isn't, but is an entity called God, and Nature, and that this entity encompasses all things, but also brings all things and holds all things into existence.They would say the things in the universe do originate, and are in that sense created, but they are created from and in some sense an extension of uncreated substance, called God, which is also the same substance of thoughts, emotions, principles, beauty, laws, and everything there is.One big difference between Spinoza and traditional Christian and Jewish thought is that Spinoza saw God Himself as bound by determinism and not possessing free choice, but neither Spinoza nor Einstein deny spirit is real, as a materialist would.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Yes, I did. Did you notice that thing called a question mark at the end of the thread title?Did you read the OP. How could you have missed that I suggest or ask if evos would think this is wrong, but that I thought it was refreshing.Part of my frustration with you, percy, is stuff like this. You say you rebutted me, but in reality, you just aren't reading plain English. More of the brainwashing effect? I really don't know, but I find it hard to beleive an intelligent person would think I take the side of evos as far as suggesting mixing theology and science, and I would think after all these discussions, you would accept I was more like Einstein in thinking theology and science actually have to be harmonized. I suggest you start listening to what people write instead of assuming you know what they are saying. Let's take your life. Do you acknowledge that there was a time or spot in space-time on earth before you were born?Spinoza would say God or Nature originated you, correct? So the things of the universe are in a sense created by God, but not by free will, and so there is no teleology. They are an extension of God's creative substance.....really, this is sort of standard New Age mysticism, but let's go on.Now, God did not create the universe, but if you define the universe as merely the physical things in the universe, perhaps you could say Spinoza would argue that God created those things, but to Spinoza, the whole universe is God, but that's not just the whole physical universe. It's everything, period.Edited by randman, : No reason given.