Einstein's Religion

[KnowtheSilence]

Secular Humanism is a sect of atheism? You can’t be a secular humanist without being an atheist?

I’m willing to consider a contrary opinion, but I don’t see how one could be a secular humanist while being a theist. It seems odd that one would believe that a God exists but also believe that God is irrelevant in matters of ethics, etc.

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

Okay.

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.”

No. Atheism is not a doctrine any more than theism is. Atheism in and of itself cannot assert things like “do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” but neither can simple theism. You can, however, subscribe to an atheistic philosophy that asserts the Golden Rule.

The atheist is free to assert any doctrine he likes, such as, “Do unto others before they do it unto you.”

Theists are equally free to assert that. Or not.

 

[robwar]

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.

Hilter did not practice the Catholic faith at all. he was an occultist and believed in a heretical belief system called positive Christianity which is similar to white racist type faiths like the klu klux klan. Hilter and his party killed devout Christians, both Protestant and Catholic. I stand by my statement that science without religion isn’t lame, it is dangerous.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Atheism in and of itself cannot assert things like “do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” but neither can simple theism. You can, however, subscribe to an atheistic philosophy that asserts the Golden Rule.

Theists are equally free to assert that. Or not.

What do you mean by “simple theism”? If you are a theist, you subscribe to a particular God who teaches us particular doctrines. Christianity, for example, is a theism that teaches the Golden Rule, and teaches that it comes from God and therefore has binding force on us all…

An atheist who asserts the Golden Rule can only assert his own authority for it. Or he is free to ignore the Golden Rule and assert its opposite. Or he is free to assert no rule at all for ethical conduct and declare himself an anarchist.

By the way, Einstein was not an atheist. Yet I daresay he was a secular humanist. So I think there can be many secular humanists who are not atheists. They might be agnostics, or deists, or pantheists, or even Unitarian/Universalists. Many of these people won’t call themselves atheists. Just as many may. So secular humanism is not so closely allied to atheism as Christianity is allied to theism.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

wanstronian;12081651:

I stand by my statement that science without religion isn’t lame, it is dangerous.

The development of nuclear weapons was done by science without consultation with the Vatican.

Pope Pius XII later condemned the dropping of bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Einstein himself regretted the role he played in the development of the bomb.

 

[wanstronian]

This is simply wrongheaded. Religion specifically forbids murder because of eternal consequences for the soul.

So the bible is wrong then? Because God advocates murder plenty of times.

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

You’re putting the cart before the horse here - atheism doesn’t *forbid *belief in God, it’s the term for a lack of belief in God. That’s the difference between atheism and religion - religion imposes a set of rules and you can’t make up your own mind. Atheism is a result of being free to make up your own mind.

Secondly, atheism doesn’t allow people to believe they can murder with impunity. There is no correlation, let alone causation, between the two. It’s a preposterous (but from theists, all too common) statement. Are you suggesting that it’s only your belief in God, and your belief that he would punish you, that prevents you murdering people? That’s a scary thought - it would mean that theists are intrinsically more violent than atheists, on the whole.

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.

Yes, I do. The evidence is quite clear, when you’re not just cherry-picking. Hitler was a practising Roman Catholic. He disliked religions as establishments. You need to understand the difference.

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.

So what? Does the fact that other Catholics opposed him, mean that he was somehow not Catholic? Do all Catholics agree on every single thing? Again, the evidence demonstrates amply that they do not.

Learn some history instead the the propaganda you get off atheist websites.

Not a lot of point responding to this because you’re just assuming you know how I get my information. My historical knowledge of this is pretty sound. I guess you just don’t like admitting that you share a faith with arguably the most evil man in the history of the world.

 

[wanstronian]

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.

Citation…?

Really, this just boils down to He said, She said. The guy is dead so we can’t ask him now. So we have to base our speculations on the documentary evidence. That points to Hitler being a Roman Catholic.

To be honest, this only matters because theists insist on blaming Hitler’s actions on his atheism. Not only does atheism not provide any rationale for torture and mass murder (so the claims make no sense anyway), but when it turns out that the guy in question was almost certainly a Christian, you’d think other Christians would have learnt to stop playing this particular card!

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Citation…?

Really, this just boils down to He said, She said. The guy is dead so we can’t ask him now. So we have to base our speculations on the documentary evidence. That points to Hitler being a Roman Catholic.

To be honest, this only matters because theists insist on blaming Hitler’s actions on his atheism. Not only does atheism not provide any rationale for torture and mass murder (so the claims make no sense anyway), but when it turns out that the guy in question was almost certainly a Christian, you’d think other Christians would have learnt to stop playing this particular card!

Hitler (Self declared enemy of the Catholic Church)

“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.”

Stalin (Self declared atheist)

“We guarantee the right of every citizen to combat by argument, propaganda, and agitation all religion. The Communist Party cannot be neutral toward religion. It stands for science, and all religion is opposed to science.”

Mao (Self declared atheist)
“Religion is poison.”

Prieldedi at Catholic Answers said:

If the world of the 20th Century (run by civilians, not priests) is better than previous centuries, how do you account 30-50 million deaths at the hands of Stalin (not a priest), more than 6 million deaths at the hands of Hitler (not a priest), more than 40 millions by Mao Zedong (not a priest), more than 3 million deaths as late as the 1970’s by the Khmer Rouge (not priests), close to 1 million tuttis at the hands of the tutus (not priests) in Rwanda in 1994? Not to mention the little guys like Idi Amin (not a priest), Saddam (not a priest), Mussolini (not a priest)? Should I continue to mention the great accomplishments of the “civilized non-religious” authorities of world of the 20th Century? Two World Wars and countless of revolutions raged by the most “advanced and civilized” countries run by non-religious authorities the history of humankind has ever known, which gave us in excess of 100 million deaths? And we the Church are the bad guys? Be serious.

“In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for support of such views.” Albert Einstein, Einstein and Religion, page 97

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Yes, I do. The evidence is quite clear, when you’re not just cherry-picking. Hitler was a practising Roman Catholic. He disliked religions as establishments. You need to understand the difference.

You need to explain the difference.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I guess you just don’t like admitting that you share a faith with arguably the most evil man in the history of the world.

One thing is for certain:

You share your opposition to the Catholic Church with the most evil man in the history of the world.

 

[wanstronian]

Hitler (Self declared enemy of the Catholic Church)

“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.”

Well, I was asking for an independent verification of your claims, not just a repetition of a cherry-picked Hitler quote. For every one you produce, there are two that say the opposite.

Stalin (Self declared atheist)

“We guarantee the right of every citizen to combat by argument, propaganda, and agitation all religion. The Communist Party cannot be neutral toward religion. It stands for science, and all religion is opposed to science.”

I wasn’t asking about Stalin, but there’s nothing wrong with this statement. Religion is opposed to science, because religions make truth claims that science have demonstrated not to be true. Adam and Eve, for example. Shown not to be true, which undermines the whole orginal sin/resurrection myth upon which Christianity is based.

I’m not saying Stalin was a wonderful guy, but it’s ridiculous to assume that everything he said was wrong and evil. As has been discussed before, Stalin’s oppression of his people was not in the name of atheism, any more that it was in the name of his failure to believe in elves. Atheism simply does not provide any platform or rationale to commit murder or oppression.

Mao (Self declared atheist)
“Religion is poison.”

As above. This is a fair quote, and one I agree with. That doesn’t mean I think that Mao was a swell guy. He just got this right.

Prieldedi at Catholic Answers said:

If the world of the 20th Century (run by civilians, not priests) is better than previous centuries, how do you account 30-50 million deaths at the hands of Stalin (not a priest), more than 6 million deaths at the hands of Hitler (not a priest), more than 40 millions by Mao Zedong (not a priest), more than 3 million deaths as late as the 1970’s by the Khmer Rouge (not priests), close to 1 million tuttis at the hands of the tutus (not priests) in Rwanda in 1994? Not to mention the little guys like Idi Amin (not a priest), Saddam (not a priest), Mussolini (not a priest)? Should I continue to mention the great accomplishments of the “civilized non-religious” authorities of world of the 20th Century? Two World Wars and countless of revolutions raged by the most “advanced and civilized” countries run by non-religious authorities the history of humankind has ever known, which gave us in excess of 100 million deaths? And we the Church are the bad guys? Be serious.

And he/she misses the point. Atheism was not the *cause *of such deaths - the corrupt ideology of the ruling classes was. There is nothing about atheism that says, “Now thou shalt murder.”

The well-worn, but valid, demonstration of this point is that Hitler was also a vegetarian. Nobody commits murder in the name of vegetarianism; nobody commits murder in the name of atheism. Hitler was a vegetarian - does that make all vegetarians as evil as Hitler?

Prieldedi also commits the fallacy of scale - if an atheist commits 20 people to death and a Christian commits only 10, is the atheist more evil? Only a simpleton would think so, surely?

And finally, he/she compare apples to oranges - at the point where Stalin and Mao and Hitler were in power, the tools to commit efficient mass murders existed; during the time of the Christian-led crusades, for example, they didn’t. Do you really think that if Urban II had had automatic weapons and bombs at his disposal in the 11th century he wouldn’t have used them?

“In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for support of such views.” Albert Einstein, Einstein and Religion, page 97

More cherry-picking. You’re on a hiding to nothing trying to claim that Einstein was religious. But even if he was - so what? It’s not like everything he ever said was right. This an inappropriate argument from authority, just one more fallacious argument.

 

[wanstronian]

One thing is for certain:

You share your opposition to the Catholic Church with the most evil man in the history of the world.

And there’s a strong possibility we share a hatred of olives and a love of red wine, an interest in chess and dislike of rainy days; or an almost infinite amount of other opinions that are utterly irrelevant to the debate. There’s just as much possibility that you have a lot in common with Hitler too. However, Hitler and I also have many differences. I am an atheist; Hitler a Catholic. I do not have an agenda to exterminate an entire race; Hitler did. Hitler was a vegetarian; I am not. And so on.

Picking on one aspect of someone’s personality and associating another person with that same trait, does not mean they share their entire worldview. You are just poisoning the well.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

And he/she misses the point. Atheism was not the *cause *of such deaths - the corrupt ideology of the ruling classes was. There is nothing about atheism that says, “Now thou shalt murder.”

As usual, you miss the whole point of the difference between being a Catholic and being an atheist.

The Catholic is forbidden by God to commit murder.

The atheist is not.

The track record of powerful atheists in the 20th Century is all anyone has to know.

The track record of the Crusades pales by comparison. The Crusades, by the way, were wars, not wholesale slaughter of helpless victims.

Again, you need to regroup and ask yourself, was Hitler really a Catholic?

Did he regard himself as a Catholic?

Do you have proof that after his teen years there was any evidence of religiosity in his life?

Did he go to Mass, confess his sins, perform works of mercy?

Are there any photos of him receiving Communion?

On the other hand, is there a photo of him admiring a bust of the famous atheist Nietzsche when he attend the dedication of the Nietzsche Archives. And what would a Catholic be doing paying tribute to Nietzsche if he was really a Catholic?

counter-currents.com/2012/01/hitler-and-nietzsche/

 

[Richca]

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?

“Science without religion is lame,” this is true. It is not only lame but useless as St Paul says “And if I have the gift of prophecy and comprehend all mysteries and all knowledge; if I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing” (1 Corinthians 13:2).

“Religion with science is blind,” this is completely false. If Einstein is referring to revealed religion here as the Old Testament and New Testament are, it is false because God is the author of both revealed religion and truth and as the creator of the universe, He is the author of any created truth such as the natural sciences. God is the First Truth from which all other truths comes from. Impossible therefore, that the sciences can be in contradiction to revealed truth, though revealed truth contains truths inaccessible to the natural light of the human reason.

Apparently, Einstein had no knowledge of metaphysics which is the highest science attainable by the natural light of reason. Again, his statement, “Religion with science is blind” is false because metaphysics and natural theology deals with the ultimate cause of all which is God. In this sense, “Science without religion is lame,” is more to the point whereas Einstein’s second statement is meaningless. Einstein was no metaphysician as St Thomas Aquinas was, he was a physics scientist which science deals mostly with inanimate substances.

As the history of philosophic and scientific knowledge shows, the human intellect without the aid of God’s revelation is prone to error.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

"“Religion with science is blind,” this is completely false.

That quote from Einstein wan an error. What he really said is:

“Religion without science is blind.”

But I would affirm that he was still wrong.

Religion does not require science to see. Religion sees with its own eyes by its own light which comes directly from God. I wish he could have supplied an example of the blindness of religion without science. But he did not. Religion does not require Evolution or the Big Bang or any other discovery to justify or explain itself. The root source of religious principles is directed to the salvation of our souls, not to the nature of the universe.

 

[oldcelt]

That quote from Einstein wan an error. What he really said is:

“Religion without science is blind.”

But I would affirm that he was still wrong.

Religion does not require science to see. Religion sees with its own eyes by its own light which comes directly from God. I wish he could have supplied an example of the blindness of religion without science. But he did not. Religion does not require Evolution or the Big Bang or any other discovery to justify or explain itself. The root source of religious principles is directed to the salvation of our souls, not to the nature of the universe.

And religions see so many different things.

 

[CatholicWhovian]

That quote from Einstein wan an error. What he really said is:

“Religion without science is blind.”

But I would affirm that he was still wrong.

Religion does not require science to see. Religion sees with its own eyes by its own light which comes directly from God. I wish he could have supplied an example of the blindness of religion without science. But he did not. Religion does not require Evolution or the Big Bang or any other discovery to justify or explain itself. The root source of religious principles is directed to the salvation of our souls, not to the nature of the universe.

I think what Einstein was saying is the penchant for people to take religious truth as hard core scientific truth - much like those who are supporting creationism and intelligent design. Religion is obviously not blind since it is God’s revelation to mankind. There is a distinction between scientific and religious truth. Scientific truth is observable truth; truth about the world which God created; truth about the observable world through experimentation and method. Religious truth is revealed truth; truth revealed to by God; truth about our condition as human beings beyond that of biological description; truth about our relationship with God and others. Seek observable truth needs a different way of looking into it. Same basic principle with revealed truth.

Simply put what I think Einstein was saying is that science and religion should complement each other. And I have to agree with his statement. A scientist can consult religion when it comes to valuing life and the wonders of the universe as things which are incredibly precious and delicate. A priest can consult science when it comes to understanding the workings of the universe and the laws of nature established by God as being observed by human eyes.

 

[Ion]

Communist atheists killed priests in the name of atheism, churches were demolished and some were killed some were sent in prison, where the vast majority died because of abuse, exhaustion and prison conditions. They were labeled “enemy of the people/state” but it was the faith that they wanted to destroy. There was an interdiction to teach any kind of religion.
Atheists killed other pure atheists in the name of atheism too, as it is proven that all the atheist revolutions turned their leaders into a fight to death for absolute power.
Many people who decide to be atheists really do not know what it is “running under the hood” so to speak. I think that in the same circumstances as their predecessors, they will do the same.

 

[CatholicWhovian]

Communist atheists killed priests in the name of atheism, churches were demolished and some were killed some were sent in prison, where the vast majority died because of abuse, exhaustion and prison conditions. They were labeled “enemy of the people/state” but it was the faith that they wanted to destroy. There was an interdiction to teach any kind of religion.
Atheists killed other pure atheists in the name of atheism too, as it is proven that all the atheist revolutions turned their leaders into a fight to death for absolute power.
Many people who decide to be atheists really do not know what it is “running under the hood” so to speak. I think that in the same circumstances as their predecessors, they will do the same.

If you would look at it atheists are no better at committing acts of violence and crimes against humanity than Christians, Muslims, or any people who adhere to a particular religion. An atheist is not immune to acts of evil. The devil targets anyone. Evil is blind when it comes to choosing its victims.

But why do some atheists think of themselves as “morally better” than religious people? Is it because they don’t believe in God that they have the right to be morally relativistic? Why can’t they admit that they can do evil as well? It’s a kind of stuck-up attitude that’s the result of pride, ignorance and hatred. Yeah one can say that only atheists with ideologies are only capable hurting others. But from my experience on the Internet those atheists who attack religion don’t adhere to any ideology.

We’re all the same when it comes to our capacity to do evil. But we’re also all the same when it comes to our capacity to good and to live out God’s will.

Just my :twocents:. And I really just want to throw off my thoughts on the matter.

 

[wanstronian]

As usual, you miss the whole point of the difference between being a Catholic and being an atheist.

The Catholic is forbidden by God to commit murder.

The atheist is not.

And yet, we do not!

So what you’re saying is that Catholics (and presumably other Abrahamic religionists) have no intrinsic morality - they’re prevented from doing bad things only by the threat of punishment from their deity. If that’s the case, then I’m very glad you are a Catholic, otherwise I dread to think how many people may have died at your whimsy.

And of course, this exposes your fallacious argument utterly. If atheism promotes murder, and (as we agree) atheists are not held back by the prospect of punishment by a deity, then all or most atheists would be murdering people all over the place, every day. I myself would have racked up two or three murders already today.

But of course, this doesn’t happen. It didn’t happen before Christianity, and won’t happen after Christianity fades.

The track record of powerful atheists in the 20th Century is all anyone has to know.

And of powerful theists, of course.

However, you are failing to acknowledge an important point. Your bible states that anybody of a different religion (or none) is an enemy that must be destroyed. Your holy book advocates the murder of these people.

Atheists have no such book, no such mandate. There is no possible link between atheism and murder, any more than there is between vegans and murder. You are inferring a causation from a correlation - and a weak correlation at that. Your arguments are transparently, palpably fallacious.

The track record of the Crusades pales by comparison. The Crusades, by the way, were wars, not wholesale slaughter of helpless victims.

Holy wars, yes. Wars sponsored and initiatied by religious greed.

Again, you need to regroup and ask yourself, was Hitler really a Catholic?

That’s what he said, yes.

Did he regard himself as a Catholic?

That’s what he said, yes.

Do you have proof that after his teen years there was any evidence of religiosity in his life?

Did he go to Mass, confess his sins, perform works of mercy?

Are there any photos of him receiving Communion?

I don’t know. What difference does that make? Are you playing the No True Scotsman now?

On the other hand, is there a photo of him admiring a bust of the famous atheist Nietzsche when he attend the dedication of the Nietzsche Archives. And what would a Catholic be doing paying tribute to Nietzsche if he was really a Catholic?

counter-currents.com/2012/01/hitler-and-nietzsche/

Wow. You have a picture of Hitler looking at a bust of Nietszche. I wonder if there are any pictures of Hitler meeting a Pope? WOW! There are loads of them!! Why would an atheist be fawning all over a pope if he was really an atheist?

And of course, it’s well known that the Vatican supported the Nazi party.

Dude, you’re digging yourself a hole with this line of reasoning. It’s demonstrably wrong.

I also note that having declared that religion forbids murder, you didn’t respond to this:

So the bible is wrong then? Because God advocates - and commites - murder plenty of times.

 

[Ion]

If you would look at it atheists are no better at committing acts of violence and crimes against humanity than Christians, Muslims, or any people who adhere to a particular religion. An atheist is not immune to acts of evil. The devil targets anyone. Evil is blind when it comes to choosing its victims.

But why do some atheists think of themselves as “morally better” than religious people? Is it because they don’t believe in God that they have the right to be morally relativistic? Why can’t they admit that they can do evil as well? It’s a kind of stuck-up attitude that’s the result of pride, ignorance and hatred. Yeah one can say that only atheists with ideologies are only capable hurting others. But from my experience on the Internet those atheists who attack religion don’t adhere to any ideology.

We’re all the same when it comes to our capacity to do evil. But we’re also all the same when it comes to our capacity to good and to live out God’s will.

Just my :twocents:. And I really just want to throw off my thoughts on the matter.

There is a saying, like: the road to Hell is paved with good intentions…
They did not think in this therms, like “morally better”. Somehow, they accepted the idea that all religions were created, or at least financed, by the rich in order to control the poor. In their view The Church was only a social structure which was not really necessary. They created a mechanism of power, the Party, which was in conflict with the church. The church was to be eliminated. Hitler was not a practicing Catholic, probably was only baptized.
After reading atheistic comments on the internet, my feeling is that atheists suffer of lack of religious culture. They have misconceptions about the Church and faith because of poor education.They always ask for excessive evidence.