Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Did Einstein try to destroy science?
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 31 of 83 (378487)
01-20-2007 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Percy
01-20-2007 8:14 PM


Re: I liked Bohrs' comment
So you think that Spinoza and Einstein believed there was a God who created the universe, just like standard Christian theology?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Percy, posted 01-20-2007 8:14 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Percy, posted 01-20-2007 8:55 PM randman has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 32 of 83 (378488)
01-20-2007 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by randman
01-20-2007 7:54 PM


Re: I liked Bohrs' comment
randman writes:
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.
No, you're wrong, I understand that just fine. The universe is just a synonym for everything everywhere.
In other words, Spinoza really has sort of a New Age concept of reality, and Einstein adopting that is really mixing religion and science...
You're going to have to explain how Einstein's adoption of Spinozan philosophy, the friend of atheists, could somehow be construed as mixing religion and science.
He rejects the division of the material and spiritual worlds as different. In other words, he completely rejects your sort of thinking.
Einstein was pretty clear that he held no traditional religious beliefs. He thought the effort to understand the universe a very spiritual experience, and he said this many times in many ways. I see it the same way.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by randman, posted 01-20-2007 7:54 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by randman, posted 01-20-2007 8:52 PM Percy has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 33 of 83 (378489)
01-20-2007 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Percy
01-20-2007 8:35 PM


Re: I liked Bohrs' comment
Uh, have you noticed the title you chose for your thread: Did Einstein try to destroy science?
Yes, you are mind-boggling.
Yes, I did. Did you notice that thing called a question mark at the end of the thread title?
Did you read the OP.
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?
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.
If you conclude that Spinoza believed that first there was a God who then created the universe, then you're wrong. That's the Christian view that Spinoza strongly opposed.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Percy, posted 01-20-2007 8:35 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Percy, posted 01-20-2007 9:04 PM randman has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 34 of 83 (378490)
01-20-2007 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Percy
01-20-2007 8:43 PM


Re: I liked Bohrs' comment
No, you're wrong, I understand that just fine. The universe is just a synonym for everything everywhere.
Uh, isn't that just what I wrote. Everything everywhere is more than just physical things. Understand?
Einstein was pretty clear that he held no traditional religious beliefs.
So? That is relevant how? You think asserting traditional theology into science is wrong, but if you come up with some non-traditional theology, it's OK?
He thought the effort to understand the universe a very spiritual experience, and he said this many times in many ways.
Note the term "spiritual experience." I rest my case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Percy, posted 01-20-2007 8:43 PM Percy has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 35 of 83 (378491)
01-20-2007 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by randman
01-20-2007 8:37 PM


Re: I liked Bohrs' comment
randman writes:
So you think that Spinoza and Einstein believed there was a God who created the universe, just like standard Christian theology?
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?
I was responding to your reference to "the creation". I even quoted the entire paragraph where it appeared, so I'm surprised you couldn't figure out where the question was coming from. It seemed weird in a discussion about Spinozan philosophy, so I asked.
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.
Yeah, this is a pretty good statement of Spinozan belief.
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.
Well, perhaps, but only if you define spirit very loosely. I'm not sure precisely what Spinoza might have meant by spirit, but Einstein was pretty clear. To quote The Expanded Quotable Einstein (page 201), he saw it more as "an attitude of cosmic awe and wonder and a devout humility before the harmony of nature." For Einstein the spiritual was the feeling he got from studying the universe and was not really some kind of actual spirit.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by randman, posted 01-20-2007 8:37 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by randman, posted 01-20-2007 9:01 PM Percy has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 36 of 83 (378494)
01-20-2007 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Percy
01-20-2007 8:55 PM


Re: I liked Bohrs' comment
I think Einstein is more nuanced than that. Yea, he says there is this cosmic feeling that inspires true religious leadership, but at the same time, I don't think he is saying it is as anthrocentric as you suggest. He seems to be saying he discovers a truth that inspires this feeling......in other words, he suggests the divine is real, but must be understood as being in agreement with the truths of science.
Otherwise, he would not continually couch things in religious and theological terms. He really is joining theology and science. He's not saying there is no need for theology because of science.
Keep in mind that Spinoza's God-substance that makes up the universe is not matter and "energy" in the science sense of the term. Matter and energy stem from this substance, and matter and energy are thus a formed by this substance, but this substance also does the same with thoughts, laws, order, etc.....So when Einstein says he has spinozan beliefs, he is saying there is more to the universe than what materialists claim, and really says he believes there is divinity within (and without) the physical world.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Percy, posted 01-20-2007 8:55 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Percy, posted 01-20-2007 9:08 PM randman has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 37 of 83 (378495)
01-20-2007 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by randman
01-20-2007 8:43 PM


Re: I liked Bohrs' comment
randman writes:
How could you have missed that I suggest or ask if evos would think this is wrong, but that I thought it was refreshing.
Sorry, wasn't clear to me. Most people here, including myself, consider you anti-science, and so combining your "refreshing" comment with the title sounded to me like an argument that Einstein was trying to destroy science.
Part of my frustration with you...
Oh, heck, I'm flattered! Just one of the many millions you find frustrating. You have such difficulty discussing with anyone that you find an exchange of a couple civil messages with Mick something to crow about.
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.
I would never say that "Spinoza would argue that God created those thigns" because he didn't see God as an active player but as an essential nature that was expressed thereby causing things to come into being. But as to the last part about the Spinoza universe including everything, period, yes, I agree.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by randman, posted 01-20-2007 8:43 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by randman, posted 01-20-2007 9:14 PM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 38 of 83 (378496)
01-20-2007 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by randman
01-20-2007 9:01 PM


Re: I liked Bohrs' comment
randman writes:
...in other words, he suggests the divine is real...
How are you defining divine?
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by randman, posted 01-20-2007 9:01 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by randman, posted 01-20-2007 9:19 PM Percy has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 39 of 83 (378498)
01-20-2007 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Percy
01-20-2007 9:04 PM


Re: I liked Bohrs' comment
Most people here, including myself, consider you anti-science
That's because, imo, of your projections of your belief that assumes if someone rejects evo models that they must be anti-science. I am not anti-science at all. I just think the field of evo biology is ignoring science, particularly the science of quantum mechanics, but also good, reasonable principles of data analysis.
You have such difficulty discussing with anyone that you find an exchange of a couple civil messages with Mick something to crow about.
Actually, I don't have problems discussing things with people. Evo advocates in general have an extremely difficult time talking with their critics, not just me, and always blame their critics when really most of the time the evos have never even taken the time to understand what their critics have to say.
I would never say that "Spinoza would argue that God created those thigns" because he didn't see God as an active player but as an essential nature that was expressed thereby causing things to come into being.
Semantics. Created or originated....same thing really, except the free will part, but if there is no free will, then all creations are just originations anyway.
But as to the last part about the Spinoza universe including everything, period, yes, I agree.
Then you ought to agree that Einstein was taking a very complex theological system and mixing it with science and vice versa. In fact, it was really his theological beliefs that God Itself or metaphysical Nature was deterministic that stopped him from accepting quantum mechanics. He was making a theological argument against a scientific theory.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Percy, posted 01-20-2007 9:04 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Percy, posted 01-21-2007 9:34 AM randman has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 40 of 83 (378499)
01-20-2007 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Percy
01-20-2007 9:08 PM


Re: I liked Bohrs' comment
For Einstein and Spinoza, it was the Substance that orinates or creates everything in every sphere, and so possesses everything, not just matter, but intelligence, originating the principles and laws, etc....and so everything we observe in science gives us glimpses into this larger truth of God or metaphysical Nature.
Divine is the uncreated Substance (note: includes spirit and intelligence).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Percy, posted 01-20-2007 9:08 PM Percy has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 41 of 83 (378586)
01-21-2007 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by randman
01-20-2007 9:14 PM


Re: I liked Bohrs' comment
randman writes:
Then you ought to agree that Einstein was taking a very complex theological system and mixing it with science and vice versa. In fact, it was really his theological beliefs that God Itself or metaphysical Nature was deterministic that stopped him from accepting quantum mechanics. He was making a theological argument against a scientific theory.
I see it as a soundbite, not a theological statement, though at this point it seems our differences over Spinozan philosophy have somehow dissipated. But how you can see mixing Spinozan philosophy with science as somehow significantly theological in any traditional religious sense, one that the scientific community might find inappropriate, is beyond me. And if you don't see it as having any significance in any traditional religious sense, then it doesn't really seem worth mentioning or discussing.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by randman, posted 01-20-2007 9:14 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by randman, posted 01-21-2007 3:41 PM Percy has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 42 of 83 (378717)
01-21-2007 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Percy
01-21-2007 9:34 AM


Re: I liked Bohrs' comment
But how you can see mixing Spinozan philosophy with science as somehow significantly theological in any traditional religious sense, one that the scientific community might find inappropriate, is beyond me.
1. Just to make sure you understanding my stance...... no one is claiming Spinoza follows traditional Judaism or Christianity.
2. Spinoza though is a theologian and a philosopher. To pretend otherwise is frankly absurd. He has a theory about who God is, what God is, how God works, etc, etc,.....There are lots of theological views.....there are all sorts of various ideas within each religion whether Judaism, Christianity, Pantheism, Hinduism, Buddhist, Islam, voodoo, etc, etc,.....Spinoza is a religious theologian. There is simply no denying that.
There is no denying Einstein advocated using one's religion in science and vice versa. He felt religious beliefs should be tempered with science, but also that true science should be religious in nature, seeking an experience and understanding of the Divine Spirit.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Percy, posted 01-21-2007 9:34 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Percy, posted 01-22-2007 7:14 AM randman has not replied
 Message 44 by sidelined, posted 01-22-2007 7:57 AM randman has not replied
 Message 46 by Percy, posted 01-27-2007 2:41 PM randman has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 43 of 83 (378874)
01-22-2007 7:14 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by randman
01-21-2007 3:41 PM


Re: I liked Bohrs' comment
randman writes:
There is no denying Einstein advocated using one's religion in science and vice versa.
If by this you're implying that Einstein might have thought creation science was a valid way to conduct science, then no, he would not. If you're in some way implying that Einstein would have thought the kind of evidence of the spiritual that you're advancing is valid scientific evidence, then no, he would not.
He felt religious beliefs should be tempered with science, but also that true science should be religious in nature, seeking an experience and understanding of the Divine Spirit.
Once again you have misinterpreted the words of someone who doesn't agree with you as somehow agreeing with you. Einstein didn't have religious beliefs or believe in a Divine Spirit in the sense that you're using those terms here. He equated religious beliefs to the wonder and awe one gets from studying the universe. If all you're saying is that Einstein believed the pursuit of science should be tempered by the wonder and awe of the universe, then while I wouldn't phrase it that way myself I guess it's acceptable.
But by removing from your description of Einstein's beliefs any hint that his religious beliefs were non-traditional in the extreme, rejecting a personal God and Biblical myth in everything he said and wrote on the subject, you've implied that he would have found acceptable the highly inappropriate way creationists mix religion with their science. This he would never have done.
Can you provide an example of where Einstein used religion in science?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by randman, posted 01-21-2007 3:41 PM randman has not replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 44 of 83 (378878)
01-22-2007 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by randman
01-21-2007 3:41 PM


Re: I liked Bohrs' comment
randman
randman writes:
There is no denying Einstein advocated using one's religion in science and vice versa. He felt religious beliefs should be tempered with science, but also that true science should be religious in nature, seeking an experience and understanding of the Divine Spirit.
It would appear that the divine is not within the realm of Einsteins thinking either.
The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exists as an independent cause of natural events.
Nor did he ascribe to the afterlife
An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls.
Nor an efficiency of prayer
Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the actions of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a
wish addressed to a supernatural Being.
Just how much of the notions that Einstein professed do you wish to use as a basis for supporting your own beliefs to the contrary?
Edited by sidelined, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by randman, posted 01-21-2007 3:41 PM randman has not replied

Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 45 of 83 (379681)
01-25-2007 1:53 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by randman
01-19-2007 7:16 PM


At Answers in Genesis's "Arguments we think creationists should NOT use"
Arguments to Avoid Topic | Answers in Genesis
Under the subheading "Which arguments should definitely not be used?"
quote:
“Einstein held unswervingly, against enormous peer pressure, to belief in a Creator.”
Using the normal meaning of these terms, Einstein believed no such thing. See also Physicists’ God-talk.
From the "no such thing" link:
quote:
Einstein and 'God'
Albert Einstein was not a Christian. He had no concept of the God of the Bible or trust in Jesus Christ as his Lord and Saviour. His views on religion and 'God' were evolutionary and pantheistic.
He wrote, 'I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts.
Moose

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith
"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by randman, posted 01-19-2007 7:16 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by randman, posted 02-01-2007 5:10 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024