Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 74 (8962 total)
126 online now:
PaulK, Tangle (2 members, 124 visitors)
Newest Member: Samuel567
Post Volume: Total: 871,208 Year: 2,956/23,288 Month: 1,147/1,809 Week: 266/313 Day: 7/71 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Did Einstein try to destroy science?
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3318 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 76 of 83 (382531)
02-05-2007 1:33 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Percy
02-04-2007 7:23 PM


Re: God = Divine Being
Percy, anyone reading this thread can see you are dodging the issue. I showed that Spinoza believed and taught that God was a real being, not simply a metaphor. Einstein, according to you, accepted and believed in Spinoza's concept of God, which is a real Being and not a metaphor.

Your claim that Einstein only meant an inanimate universe and rejected belief in an actual God as a Being is therefore wrong. You just don't want to admit it and continue to make up false things about my stance. You bring up side issues like the use of "faith" but clearly I denote Spinozan and Einstein's "faith" and so not Christian or Jewish, as you suggest I am trying to imply. You try to distract by the use of "divine" but it's been clear all along this is just a reference to God.

The bottom line is you are just wrong here to claim Spinoza and Einstein reject God as a real Deity, and they are simply using a metaphor when they talk of God. I showed you where the article you said was accurate describes God as thinking, perfect, possessing an eternal nature and uncreated substance, and creates all things. Your claim God is not conscious or an actual Being in Spinozan theology has been shown to be false since this same God thinks and does things and possesses Intelligence. Consciousness is a prerequisite to thinking and having intelligence.

All of these attributes of God describe an actual, real Being, and not simply a metaphor for an inanimate universe.

I think any objective-minded person can see that you just don't want to admit you were wrong.

Edited by randman, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Percy, posted 02-04-2007 7:23 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Percy, posted 02-06-2007 10:06 AM randman has responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 19435
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 77 of 83 (382896)
02-06-2007 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by randman
02-05-2007 1:33 AM


Re: God = Divine Being
randman writes:

Percy, anyone reading this thread can see you are dodging the issue. I showed that Spinoza believed and taught that God was a real being, not simply a metaphor. Einstein, according to you, accepted and believed in Spinoza's concept of God, which is a real Being and not a metaphor.

Randman, lurkers can clearly see your evasions. I've shown that Spinozan philosophy views God and universe as one, and that God is not a being who exists outside the universe, and especially not as an active player.

Your claim that Einstein only meant an inanimate universe and rejected belief in an actual God as a Being is therefore wrong. You just don't want to admit it and continue to make up false things about my stance. You bring up side issues like the use of "faith" but clearly I denote Spinozan and Einstein's "faith" and so not Christian or Jewish, as you suggest I am trying to imply. You try to distract by the use of "divine" but it's been clear all along this is just a reference to God.

Your insistence that Einstein was confounding science and religion in a scientific discussion is hence incorrect, but you fail to concede and persist in fabricating aspects of my position. Your continuing efforts to portray Einstein's non-traditional religious beliefs in traditional terms is a transparent effort to distort what Einstein really believed.

The bottom line is you are just wrong here to claim Spinoza and Einstein reject God as a real Deity, and they are simply using a metaphor when they talk of God. I showed you where the article you said was accurate describes God as thinking, perfect, possessing an eternal nature and uncreated substance, and creates all things. Your claim God is not conscious or an actual Being in Spinozan theology has been shown to be false since this same God thinks and does things and possesses Intelligence. Consciousness is a prerequisite to thinking and having intelligence.

One can't avoid the conclusion that you're incredibly mistaken to conclude that Spinoza and Einstein saw God as a deity separate from the universe. Your assertion that God is a conscious, thinking being, an active player as it were imposing his conscious will upon the universe, has been disproved.

I think any objective-minded person can see that you just don't want to admit you were wrong.

Any unbiased reader can perceive your unwillingness to concede error.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Typo.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by randman, posted 02-05-2007 1:33 AM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by randman, posted 02-06-2007 1:00 PM Percy has not yet responded
 Message 80 by randman, posted 02-06-2007 2:50 PM Percy has not yet responded

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3318 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 78 of 83 (382950)
02-06-2007 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Percy
02-06-2007 10:06 AM


Re: God = Divine Being
I've shown that Spinozan philosophy views God and universe as one, and that God is not a being who exists outside the universe, and especially not as an active player.

Wrong. God is clearly the active player in creating the universe, is a Being, thinks, is perfect, has an eternal nature, etc, etc,......You are confusing Spinoza claiming the universe is formed from God's substance as to claiming no Being called God exists, and that's wrong. The only true statement is the one about God not being outside the universe, but even there, your ideas are wrong because the universe from Spinoza's perspective includes God and God's intelligence, and so when he talks of the universe or nature, he is not referring to the same thing someone like you are talking of, which is the inanimate universe that has no creative Intelligence and Being creating things.

You have been shown to be wrong here. Just admit it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Percy, posted 02-06-2007 10:06 AM Percy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by randman, posted 02-06-2007 2:34 PM randman has not yet responded

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3318 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 79 of 83 (382981)
02-06-2007 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by randman
02-06-2007 1:00 PM


Re: God = Divine Being
note: also to be one with something does not mean there is no distinction between the parts, and this is what you are missing. Spinoza and Einstein see a distinction between the transitory things that show us God's eternal nature, will and intelligence and the things that are created from that. That's why within Spinoza's theology, he refers to these things by different titles as I showed you before.

Some examples for you.....you might say my body is one with me, but that doesn't mean my mind doesn't exist as distinct from my body, or maybe you prefer a physical example? Sunlight is one with the sun, but the sun is bigger than earth's sunlight. Same with UV rays. UV rays are one with sunlight, but nevertheless sunlight is more than just UV rays. You could say the concept of UV rays are distinct from the concept of sunlight despite UV rays not being separate from sunlight.

Within Spinoza's and Einstein's view of God, the universe is part of God, but God is bigger than the observable universe and indeed the invisible side of God, such as his or it's eternal nature and beauty, are seen in their theology in the visible expression of what we can observe and think. We cannot observe directly, for example, God's intelligence, but we can observe it indirectly with what is seen.

So when Einstein says God does not play dice, he is indeed saying "God", an actual Being with a will, does not play dice because He is a perfect Being with a deterministic will, and within that, Einstein does not believe there is room for uncertainty. It's a theological statement, which is evidenced by the fact Einstein uses the word "God", and evidenced by the fact he says he has a Spinozan concept of God, and Spinoza accepted that God has intelligence, will, being, perfection, an eternal nature, and creates everything.

Edited by randman, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by randman, posted 02-06-2007 1:00 PM randman has not yet responded

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3318 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 80 of 83 (382986)
02-06-2007 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Percy
02-06-2007 10:06 AM


for the lurkers: some clarity
that God is not a being who exists outside the universe,

More accurately, the universe is not outside of God's being. God clearly is a Being as he has thought, will, intelligence, an eternal nature, etc,.....

and especially not as an active player.

Wrong. How can God create the transitory things we see, according to Spinoza, if he is not an active player? You are just ignoring the truth, percy. The fact Spinoza believes God's perfection makes his will determinate does not mean God is not the active player. In fact, it means the opposite. Spinoza believes God actively creates everything there is, period, so much so that nothing has free will whatsoever, not even God.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Percy, posted 02-06-2007 10:06 AM Percy has not yet responded

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 81 of 83 (383043)
02-06-2007 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by randman
02-03-2007 7:43 PM


Re: incredible
Randman writes:

With all due respect, you are erring here. First, just because one rejects the personal God of the Bible does not mean one rejects belief in God. The term God means Divine Being, btw.

Spinoza's beliefs actually are more aligned with IDers than evos. He believed God was perfect, had an eternal nature, creates everything, and possessed Intelligence and a mind, and creates out of this eternal nature. Both Einstein and Spinoza argue that one can tell what God is like and what God is to a degree via looking at God's design. Both accept that the universe itself is evidence of God.

http://www.friesian.com/spinoza.htm

Spinoza's God is not the God of Abraham and Isaac, not a personal God at all, and his system provides no reason for the revelatory status of the Bible or the practice of Judaism, or of any religion, for that matter.

Since Spinoza explicitly identifies his God with Nature, it doesn't even seem to be a God at all.

--Kelley L. Ross, Ph.D.

http://www.einsteinandreligion.com/index.html

EINSTEIN THE ATHEIST

The God of Einstein and Spinoza

From a letter to Eduard Büsching, Oct. 25, 1929, Einstein Archive, reel 33-275, quoted in Jammer, p. 51:

When its author sent a book There Is No God to Einstein, Einstein replied that the book did not deal with the notion of God, but only with that of a personal God. He suggested that the book should be titled There Is No Personal God. He added further:

We followers of Spinoza see out God in the wonderful order and lawfulness of all that exists and in its soul as it reveals itself in man and animal.It is a different question whether belief in a personal God should be contested. Freud endorsed this view in his latest publication. I myself would never engage in such a task. For such a belief seems to me to the lack of any transcendental outlook of life, and I wonder whether on can ever successfully render to the majority of mankind a more sublime means in order to satisfy its metaphysical needs.

Einstein's View of God — and Spinoza's

From a letter to Murray W. Gross, Apr. 26, 1947, Einstein Archive, reel 33-324, Jammer, p. 138 - 139:

When question about God and religion on behalf of an aged Talmudic scholar, Einstein replied:

It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropomorphic concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near to those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order and harmony which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem — the most important of all human problems.

No Personal God

This quote from Einstein appears in Science, Philosophy, and Religion, A Symposium, published by the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941.

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.

To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot.

But I am convinced that such behavior on the part of representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress.

In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests. In their labors they will have to avail themselves of those forces which are capable of cultivating the Good, the True, and the Beautiful in humanity itself. This is, to be sure, a more difficult but an incomparably more worthy task…

A Statement Against the Church and a Personal God

About God, I cannot accept any concept based on the authority of the Church. As long as I can remember, I have resented mass indocrination. I do not believe in the fear of life, in the fear of death, in blind faith. I cannot prove to you that there is no personal God, but if I were to speak of him, I would be a liar. I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil. My God created laws that take care of that. His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking, but by immutable laws.

—W. Hermanns, Einstein and the Poet—In Search of the Cosmic Man (Branden Press, Brookline Village, Mass., 1983), p.132, quoted in Jammer, p.123.

Non-existence of the soul.

On 17 July 1953 a woman who was a licensed Baptist pastor sent Einstein in Princeton a warmly appreciative evangelical letter. Quoting several passages from the scriptures, she asked him whether he had considered the relationship of his immortal soul to its Creator, and asked whether he felt assurance of everlasting life with God after death. It is not known whether a reply was sent, but the letter is in the Einstein Archives, and on it, in Einstein's handwriting, is the following sentence, written in English:

I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it.

The ball is in your court, Randman.

Ray

Edited by Herepton, : No reason given.

Edited by Herepton, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by randman, posted 02-03-2007 7:43 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by randman, posted 02-06-2007 9:54 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3318 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 82 of 83 (383091)
02-06-2007 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Cold Foreign Object
02-06-2007 7:19 PM


Re: incredible
Hey got on finally. For awhile I could not log on. There was something about another user using the site from the same email address.

Ray,

I think this can be cleared up quite easily. Einstein goes to great lengths to say he does not accept a PERSONAL GOD. He is very careful to stress he rejects the concept of a PERSONAL GOD that intervenes and judges people morally, etc,....

I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil. My God created laws that take care of that. His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking, but by immutable laws.

What you seem to miss here is that by doing so he advocates an impersonal God. For example, he states:

His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking, but by immutable laws.

Now if Einstein were an atheist, as you seem to believe, he would just say there isn't any God, period. He wouldn't have all this stuff just about rejecting a personal God, and how his version of God does such and such. He'd say there isn't any God at all, period.

Einstein doesn't do this. He reaffirms belief in God and religion, but rejects traditional theology.

Also, whether one believes in the permanence of the human soul is a different issue. There is a whole school of Jewish thought that thinks when you are dead, you are gone, and yet believes very much in God, even a personal God. So that's sort of a red herring, as is the whole issue of a personal God.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-06-2007 7:19 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3318 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 83 of 83 (384104)
02-10-2007 2:41 AM


insight into Einstein's mind
One positive from this discussion, imo, is the insight gained into Einstein's insistence on causality and determinism. I had not fully considered and realized this was basically a religious conviction of Einstein's first and foremost, and shaped his science, and not the other way around. Note the following:

"I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent been placed in doubt by modern science.

Consider the train of thought here in these 2 sentences in a letter from Einstein. He pointedly rejects a personal God, and then oddly says he does this even though "mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent been placed in doubt by modern science."

One wonders why the 2 thoughts are connected. What's the reason for the "in spite of the fact" comment. Clearly Einstein thinks the concept of causality being violated diminishes the argument against a personal God.

Why would this be?

The reason is amply clear when you consider that he followed Spinozan theology, which considered God's perfection such that God Himself and by extension the universe, is completely deterministic. So God could not play dice because it's not God's nature.

If in Einstein's world mechanistic causality is violated, then his idea of God must be changed.

Edited by randman, : No reason given.


Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020