Einstein's Religion

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_III
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Charlemagne_III

Guest
Isaac Newton are by all accounts the two greatest physicists who ever lived.

We know of Newton that he was a theist and profoundly interested in biblical prophecy.

Of Einstein less is for certain about his religious convictions, except that he certainly did not believe in a personal God.

I’d like to start this thread by getting your reactions to a famous statement of his.

“Science without religion is lame; religion with science is blind.”

On what grounds would you agree or disagree with either part of the sentence or all of it?
 
Einstein was a pantheist. He once said:

“I believe in Spinoza’s God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind”

And Spinoza is one of the classic examples of a pantheist philosophe, so…
 
Einstein’s religion of birth was Jewish, that is why he had to flee Germany. I think he held different views of God and religion throughout his life.
 
I guess my reaction to your quote is science without religion isn’t lame, it is dangerous and he ought to know because he had to flee Nazi Germany which turned it’s back on religion and eventually science because the brightest scientist like him had to flee. Likewise look at atheistic states like communist countries, pretty dangerous places where millions were killed in the name of atheism.
 
I guess my reaction to your quote is science without religion isn’t lame, it is dangerous and he ought to know because he had to flee Nazi Germany which turned it’s back on religion and eventually science because the brightest scientist like him had to flee. Likewise look at atheistic states like communist countries, pretty dangerous places where millions were killed in the name of atheism.
The totalitarian Communist ideologies responsible for those deaths were atheistic, but I don’t think it’s accurate to say that they killed “in the name of atheism.” It would be like saying that victims were “killed in the name of theism” when members of one religion execute members of rival sects. Theism and atheism are not ideologies in and of themselves, so the blame should fall on the individual philosophies that motivate the atrocities.
 
The totalitarian Communist ideologies responsible for those deaths were atheistic, but I don’t think it’s accurate to say that they killed “in the name of atheism.” It would be like saying that victims were “killed in the name of theism” when members of one religion execute members of rival sects. Theism and atheism are not ideologies in and of themselves, so the blame should fall on the individual philosophies that motivate the atrocities.
I am not sure what the difference is, whether in the name of or because of, millions of people were killed under communism which is an atheistic philosophy. I want to point out that all atheists are certainly not this way but when there is an underlying idea or philosophy that denies God or even absolute truth and morality then all bets are off and people are not seen as individuals but cattle to be eliminated if not useful. When science does not have an underlying meaning derived from some kind of religion or absolute truth and morality, human beings become another experiment for body parts and basic human rights and dignity go out the door. That is why Dr. Megdel could used children held captive in a concentration camp for sick experiments all done in the name of science. That is why I say, science without religion is not lame, it is dangerous.
 
“Science without religion is lame; religion with science is blind.”
Hi Charlemagne,

I think the quote should read

“Science without religion is lame; religion withOUT science is blind.” 🙂

My thoughts on this revolve around the development of superstitions when science is not applied to religious theologies and on the converse, to materialism when religion is not applied to scientific advancements.

Please read this article:

info.bahai.org/article-1-5-3-1.html (feel free to question anything contained therein)

God bless you 🙂

.
 
I guess my reaction to your quote is science without religion isn’t lame, it is dangerous and he ought to know because he had to flee Nazi Germany which turned it’s back on religion
This is a well-known theist canard. Nazi Germany did not “turn it’s [sic] back on religion.” Hitler was a Roman Catholic, he just didn’t like the church as an establishment. It was his religion that led him to want to exterminate the jews - because the official RC doctrine until relatively recently had been that Jews were the killers of Christ. This is no longer the official doctrine of the RC Church.

Nazi soldiers wore belts with “Gott mit uns” - “God with us” on the buckle. To state that Nazi Germany “turned it’s [sic] back on religion” is demonstrably false. For some reason it doesn’t stop theists trotting it out. I guess it’s easier to just believe something that reinforces your worldview, than to investigate and find out you might be wrong?
and eventually science because the brightest scientist like him had to flee. Likewise look at atheistic states like communist countries, pretty dangerous places where millions were killed in the name of atheism.
Nobody was killed in the name of atheism in communist countries. This is another theist canard. KnowtheSilence has this right in his first sentence:
The totalitarian Communist ideologies responsible for those deaths were atheistic, but I don’t think it’s accurate to say that they killed “in the name of atheism.”
So although Communist Russia (for example) was run according to an ideology that excluded religious belief, the countless murders did not occur “in the name of atheism.” That would be like saying that if Stalin were a vegetarian, then those murders were committed in the name of vegetarianism.

However, it goes wrong from there:
It would be like saying that victims were “killed in the name of theism” when members of one religion execute members of rival sects.
I think it’s fair to say that nobody is killed “in the name of theism” (in its broadest sense). However it **is **fair to say that people were (and still are) killed in the name of [insert religion here].

This is where religion differs from atheism. Where theocratic regimes have existed, their extermination of their enemies has always been “supported” by the firm conviction that their God endorses their actions. The crusades were a perfect example of this.
Theism and atheism are not ideologies in and of themselves, so the blame should fall on the individual philosophies that motivate the atrocities.
This is true. However, atheism does not provide any rationale by which to commit murder. Religion, unfortunately, does.
 
Einstein also wrote that after age 12:
*
“Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true.”*

In answer to your question, tho:
I don’t think that science without religion is lame. In fact, I can’t see how they could possibly go together at all when one is based on evidence and the other is based on faith–two opposing ends of the spectrum.
I wonder if his rationale was that religion provides the morality necessary to avoid abusing the power of science.

Which we now know to be demonstrably false, of course - morality doesn’t come from religion. But Einstein may have believed it had some part to play!?
 
This is a well-known theist canard. Nazi Germany did not “turn it’s [sic] back on religion.” Hitler was a Roman Catholic, he just didn’t like the church as an establishment. It was his religion that led him to want to exterminate the jews - because the official RC doctrine until relatively recently had been that Jews were the killers of Christ. This is no longer the official doctrine of the RC Church.
Hello wanstronian. I think it may be a bit of an overstatement to say that Hitler’s religion led him to want to exterminate Jews. Some Jews were killers of Christ, and the Romans had a part in it too. That is history. However, the Lord’s prayer and central teachings of the Church call for us to forgive, in fact, we are “required” to forgive.

Hitler had a build-up of resentment and hatred toward Jews, especially those who had great power in Germany. He was xenophobic, and he saw the presence of Jewish wealth as a territorial contamination. He was blind.
I think it’s fair to say that nobody is killed “in the name of theism” (in its broadest sense). However it **is **fair to say that people were (and still are) killed in the name of [insert religion here].
Religion is way over-stated in terms of causation. When you study the lives of suicide bombers, their actions are based on resentment, hatred, and the desire to be heroes. There is no religion that encourages people to act on resentment and hatred. All religions encourage forgiveness, in one way or another.
This is where religion differs from atheism. Where theocratic regimes have existed, their extermination of their enemies has always been “supported” by the firm conviction that their God endorses their actions. The crusades were a perfect example of this.
The crusades were an example of human territorial behavior rationalized by religious leaders. All people are capable of error, theists and atheists alike.
However, atheism does not provide any rationale by which to commit murder. Religion, unfortunately, does.
Stalin was an atheist, and he had “rationale”. Of course, we are not talking about “atheism leading to the rationale”. People behave out of fear, resentment, and hatred, and they rationalize their behaviors to suit themselves and society. This is a psychological issue.

However, it behooves people of all faiths, or no faith, to encourage forgiveness, agreed? All of us get angry at some time or another, and all of us come to see some segment of the population as a threat. There is a place for understanding and forgiveness.

I think it was Einstein who famously asked, “Is the universe friendly?”. When we behave as friends, we will project such friendliness from the universe, from God, from wherever we project.
 
This is true. However, atheism does not provide any rationale by which to commit murder. Religion, unfortunately, does.
This is simply wrongheaded. Religion specifically forbids murder because of eternal consequences for the soul.

Atheism forbids nothing except the belief in God, which certainly allows men to believe they can murder with impunity.

As for the rest of your post alleging that Hitler was simply a good Catholic:

Hitler said:

“The religions are all alike, no matter what they call themselves. They have no future – certainly none for the Germans. Fascism, if it likes, may come to terms with the Church. So shall I. Why not? That will not prevent me from tearing up Christianity root and branch and annihilating it in Germany.”

There was an early preiod when Hitler pretended to be a Christian. That was for the purpose of deceiving the German public about his ultimate goals. The Germans believed him.

Apparently you do too.

Many Catholics opposed Hitler right from the start, and he made it clear once he got in power that the Catholic Church would be in jeopardy if Catholics dared to stand up to him.

Many did, and they ended up in concentration camps or mysteriously disappeared.

Learn some history instead the the propaganda you get off atheist websites.
 
Hitler was against all religion. Any biography of him will prove this. What he said in *Mein Kampf *did not represent his true thinking, as he later on several occasions repudiated Christianity altogether and expressed his admiration for the atheist “God is dead” philosopher Nietzsche, going so far as to have himself photographed with a bust of Nietzsche. In *Mein Kampf *he presented himself as a Christian so as not to offend Christians by his real hatred of religion.

What Martin Niemöller said, a Lutheran pastor in Germany who spent several years in one of Hitler’s concentration camps, appears in the Congressional Record, 14, October 1968, page 31636, as:

“When Hitler attacked the Jews I was not a Jew, therefore I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the Catholics, I was not a Catholic, and therefore, I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the unions and the industrialists, I was not a member of the unions and I was not concerned. Then Hitler attacked me and the Protestant church — and there was nobody left to be concerned.”
 
Hi Charlemagne,

I think the quote should read

“Science without religion is lame; religion withOUT science is blind.” 🙂

My thoughts on this revolve around the development of superstitions when science is not applied to religious theologies and on the converse, to materialism when religion is not applied to scientific advancements.

Please read this article:

info.bahai.org/article-1-5-3-1.html (feel free to question anything contained therein)

God bless you 🙂

.
Thank you for the correction. The first post quote from Einstein should read:

“Science without religion is lame; religion withOUT science is blind.” 🙂

How is it possible that religion without science is blind?
 
Nobody was killed in the name of atheism in communist countries. This is another theist canard. KnowtheSilence has this right in his first sentence:"
So fare so good.
So although Communist Russia (for example) was run according to an ideology that excluded religious belief, the countless murders did not occur “in the name of atheism.” That would be like saying that if Stalin were a vegetarian, then those murders were committed in the name of vegetarianism.
No, it wouldn’t be like your vegetarian example, unless you’re saying that vegetarianism was a part of Stalin’s Communist ideology, as atheism was.
However, it goes wrong from there:

I think it’s fair to say that nobody is killed “in the name of theism” (in its broadest sense). However it **is **fair to say that people were (and still are) killed in the name of [insert religion here].
So where did I go wrong?
I agree that it’s fair to say that nobody is killed killed in the name of theism in its broadest sense. I also agree that people are killed in the name of religions; I’m not sure what I said to make you think I though otherwise.
This is where religion differs from atheism. Where theocratic regimes have existed, their extermination of their enemies has always been “supported” by the firm conviction that their God endorses their actions. The crusades were a perfect example of this.
Of course atheism differs from atheism. Religion is an ideology; atheism (like theism) is not an ideology, but it can be a feature of an ideology.
This is true. However, atheism does not provide any rationale by which to commit murder. Religion, unfortunately, does.
True, but it’s a mistake to compare atheism writ large to a particular religion that way. That’s been my point all along.
 
This is simply wrongheaded. Religion specifically forbids murder because of eternal consequences for the soul.

Atheism forbids nothing except the belief in God, which certainly allows men to believe they can murder with impunity.
As you say, religion (most religions, at least) forbids murder for varying reasons. But theism in and of itself does not.

And as you say, atheism in and of itself does not forbid murder, or anything else. But certain atheistic philosophies and ideologies do forbid all kinds of things, including murder.
 
As you say, religion (most religions, at least) forbids murder for varying reasons. But theism in and of itself does not.

And as you say, atheism in and of itself does not forbid murder, or anything else. But certain atheistic philosophies and ideologies do forbid all kinds of things, including murder.
The theism called Christianity certainly forbids murder.

Since atheism is a single doctrine all by itself, it cannot forbid murder. All it can forbid is theism.

It stands to reason and common sense that any theism that forbids murder because there are eternal consequences is better than any atheism that does not forbid murder and allows that if you get away with murder there will never be consequences in this life nor in the next (there being no next).
 
The theism called Christianity certainly forbids murder.

Since atheism is a single doctrine all by itself, it cannot forbid murder. All it can forbid is theism.

It stands to reason and common sense that any theism that forbids murder because there are eternal consequences is better than any atheism that does not forbid murder and allows that if you get away with murder there will never be consequences in this life nor in the next (there being no next).
The atheism called Secular Humanism certainly forbids murder.

Since theism is a single doctrine all by itself, it cannot forbid murder. All it can forbid is atheism.
 
The atheism called Secular Humanism certainly forbids murder.

Since theism is a single doctrine all by itself, it cannot forbid murder. All it can forbid is atheism.
Secular Humanism is a sect of atheism? You can’t be a secular humanist without being an atheist?

Theism is not a doctrine all by itself. It asserts God, and God asserts all kinds of doctrines.

Atheism is a doctrine all by itself. It asserts only no God. It therefore cannot assert things that God asserts, such as, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

The atheist is free to assert any doctrine he likes, such as, “Do unto others before they do it unto you.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top