Einstein's Religion

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_III
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
And if excessive evidence does come it comes in the form of misconceptions as you have said. Misconceptions without any basis on fact or reason at all. Just ignorance. It’s a cycle.

Ironic since some irreligious people regard this kind of thinking as “rational”, “tolerant” and “free thought”.
 
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.
:clapping:

Well put.
 
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.

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.

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

That’s what he said, yes.

That’s what he said, yes.

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

**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:
Your scholarship is virtually nil. You can’t even provide one photo of Hitler meeeting a Pope?

Keep digging this hole you’re in. 😉
 
“Science without religion is lame; religion **without **science is blind.”
To start with, Albert Einstein made this quote within the context of his own “religious” belief, which as others have pointed out verged on pantheism, although I think he thought there was an active intelligence behind the universe.
 
Your scholarship is virtually nil. You can’t even provide one photo of Hitler meeeting a Pope?

Keep digging this hole you’re in. 😉
You forgot to mention that there is a significant number of Catholics who resisted against Hitler during his regime. In fact Sophie Scholl, part of the famous Weiße Rose (White Rose) resistance group was inspired by a sermon by the Bishop of Münster Blessed Clemens August Graf von Galen to join the White Rose.

In fact Pope Puis XII himself collaborated with the German resistance during World War II - albeit in secret. And there’s no evidence that the Pope met Hitler face-to-face. 😛
 
So the bible is wrong then? Because God advocates murder plenty of times.

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.
Actually, Jesus uses the example of the Samaritan, who were despised by His people, in giving the example of who is “good” in the parable He told.

It is understandable to conclude that God commands the destruction of enemies based on the OT. What Jesus does is defy xenophobia by hanging out with Romans and Samaritans and all sorts of ostracized; He defies our natural tendency to ingroup/outgroup thinking.

Yes, I will go so far to say that when it comes to genocide, of which the ancient Jews were just as capable of as any other people, they got the wrong message, it was not specifically God who commanded them to carry it out. Instead, it was their nature that commanded such, their own need to survive. They saw a resource they needed, and they took it away. Nations still do it today, do they not? Oh, except nowadays nations go raid other ones “for their own good”;).
I don’t know. What difference does that make? Are you playing the No True Scotsman now?
“No True Scotsman” is not a blanket fallacy. There is such thing as Catholic in Name Only, just as there are Atheists in Name Only. Affiliation does not mean adherence. Christians are commanded to love one another, and when we do not, we are not “True Scotsmen” so to speak. To err is human. To rationalize is human. To lump one Scotsman with the rest, is human.
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.
Some of this discussion is a bit superficial, but I think this article may be worth a quick look:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_Nazi_Germany

Excerpt:
In early 1931, the German Bishops issued an edict excommunicating all Nazi leadership and banned Catholics from membership.

This is hardly “Vatican support”. And the 1800 priests from Poland who died in Nazi concentration camps, well, don’t you suppose it is a bit insulting to imply that there was some kind of collaboration going on between the Vatican and Nazi Germany? If there was money being sent, perhaps that was more a matter of protection, and it certainly did not work.

I am gathering that you are feeling a bit of resentment toward theism. I have none for atheism, but I understand the emotional reactions in both directions. Generally speaking, I am not very fond of philosophy because our minds are so heavily influenced by our guts, and gut reactions are the core of so much argument. I understand and respect your gut reactions. The rest of what we construct, well, it is on the foundation of the gut.

I am interested in your reaction to my post #13. I know, it is not near as much fun to engage in discussion with someone who is open-minded to your posts, but there is a lot to be gained by really getting to the root cause of people’s sins. When we understand and forgive people’s sins, including murder, we can gain a better grasp on the value of all people, which is an understanding that people like Hitler and Stalin sorely lacked.

Can you forgive “theists” for rationalizing their behaviors?
 
Your scholarship is virtually nil. You can’t even provide one photo of Hitler meeeting a Pope?

Keep digging this hole you’re in. 😉
The problem is not that I can’t find a picture. The problem is which of the hundreds I should choose.

I simply love your denial! Because I don’t really believe that you believe what you say.
 
Your scholarship is virtually nil. You can’t even provide one photo of Hitler meeeting a Pope?

Keep digging this hole you’re in. 😉
Also amusing that you don’t answer any of the points I have made, just pick one comment and turn it into a straw man. And even that fails!
 
Also amusing that you don’t answer any of the points I have made, just pick one comment and turn it into a straw man. And even that fails!
That you can’t provide one photo of Hitler meeting the Pope calls all your scholarship into question. I don’t feel obliged to answer all your points because I think I’ll just get the same lack of scholarship with you no matter what you say. Provide a photo of the Pope and Hitler and maybe I’ll change my mind, since you’ve said there are oodles of photos to choose from. You’ve had several days to find just one.

I don’t think so.

Aside from that, this thread is not supposed to be about Hitler and the Pope, so can we move on?

Thanks! 😉
 
Actually, Jesus uses the example of the Samaritan, who were despised by His people, in giving the example of who is “good” in the parable He told.

It is understandable to conclude that God commands the destruction of enemies based on the OT. What Jesus does is defy xenophobia by hanging out with Romans and Samaritans and all sorts of ostracized; He defies our natural tendency to ingroup/outgroup thinking.
And if ever there were a set of stories contrived to dispel the tyrannical nature of God espoused in the OT, it’s the NT. But even in the NT they can’t help themselves. Matthew 10:34: “Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” Translation: “I’m nice now, honest… but I’ll still **** you up if you mess with me.”
Yes, I will go so far to say that when it comes to genocide, of which the ancient Jews were just as capable of as any other people, they got the wrong message, it was not specifically God who commanded them to carry it out. Instead, it was their nature that commanded such, their own need to survive. They saw a resource they needed, and they took it away. Nations still do it today, do they not? Oh, except nowadays nations go raid other ones “for their own good”;).
Yes, this is very true. Then, as now, theocratic powers use their faith as an endorsement of tyrannical actions. They convince themselves that God wants them to commit atrocities.

Such actions are usually driven by greed, but justified otherwise. The US invasion of Iraq was arguably more about control of the oil than about toppling the regime, for example.
“No True Scotsman” is not a blanket fallacy. There is such thing as Catholic in Name Only, just as there are Atheists in Name Only. Affiliation does not mean adherence. Christians are commanded to love one another, and when we do not, we are not “True Scotsmen” so to speak. To err is human. To rationalize is human. To lump one Scotsman with the rest, is human.
Indeed. My point was to query whether the great and wise philosopher, Charlemagne III, was attempting to evict Hitler from Catholicism simply because he did a few things that the great and wise philosopher, Charlemagne III, considered “un-Catholic.” So I think the questions stands. But of course, the great and wise philosopher, Charlemagne III, declined to answer the question and built a straw man instead.
Some of this discussion is a bit superficial, but I think this article may be worth a quick look:
Excerpt:
In early 1931, the German Bishops issued an edict excommunicating all Nazi leadership and banned Catholics from membership.
This is hardly “Vatican support”. And the 1800 priests from Poland who died in Nazi concentration camps, well, don’t you suppose it is a bit insulting to imply that there was some kind of collaboration going on between the Vatican and Nazi Germany? If there was money being sent, perhaps that was more a matter of protection, and it certainly did not work.
What you infer is different from what I do, or do not, imply. I never stated nor implied “collaboration.”
I am gathering that you are feeling a bit of resentment toward theism.
Not for the beliefs - they are your own business. Any resentment I feel is for the way that theists feel they have the right, even the obligation - to make other people live by their rules.
I have none for atheism, but I understand the emotional reactions in both directions. Generally speaking, I am not very fond of philosophy because our minds are so heavily influenced by our guts, and gut reactions are the core of so much argument. I understand and respect your gut reactions. The rest of what we construct, well, it is on the foundation of the gut.
I have no aversion to philosophy per se - it prompts many fascinating discussions. What I dislike is people using it to assert a truth which has no evidential basis; and to then impose that “truth” upon others who do not subscribe to it. Theology is, to my mind, the worst kind of philosophy, because not only does it not lead to truth but worse, it presupposes its conclusions and twists the discussion to arrive at those conclusions.
I am interested in your reaction to my post #13. I know, it is not near as much fun to engage in discussion with someone who is open-minded to your posts, but there is a lot to be gained by really getting to the root cause of people’s sins. When we understand and forgive people’s sins, including murder, we can gain a better grasp on the value of all people, which is an understanding that people like Hitler and Stalin sorely lacked.
Apologies, I just realised I did not reply. This was an oversight, I will re-read and respond!
Can you forgive “theists” for rationalizing their behaviors?
Well the alternative is to examine their behaviours and see if they are indeed rational. That is an uncomfortable proposition, and would possibly lead to some sort of existential crisis in the minds of many theists. So much of theology is contrary to cold hard scientific fact; so to embrace an empirical worldview leads inevitably to a questioning of one’s faith, no?

The alternative is to deny the evidence, as per this statement from good ol’ WLC:
William Lane Craig:
Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter.
And this is common practice amongst theists when their truth claims are held up to scrutiny.
 
And if ever there were a set of stories contrived to dispel the tyrannical nature of God espoused in the OT, it’s the NT. But even in the NT they can’t help themselves. Matthew 10:34: “Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” Translation: “I’m nice now, honest… but I’ll still **** you up if you mess with me.”
Tyrannical:
Marked by unjust severity or arbitrary behavior
Characteristic of an absolute ruler or absolute rule; having absolute sovereignty

God has Absolute sovereignty, weather you like it or not.
Unjust severity? Can’t be, He is the Judge, He defines what justice is.
Arbitrary behavior? Never, God is most holy.

So, what is your problem?
 
“For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts or relationships between facts.” - Einstein

This makes it abundantly clear that, to Einstein, religion shouldn’t be in the business of making claims about the universe or anything “factual”. It seems that Einstein saw religion as mostly the set of goals that motivate human behavior.
 
“For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts or relationships between facts.” - Einstein

This makes it abundantly clear that, to Einstein, religion shouldn’t be in the business of making claims about the universe or anything “factual”. It seems that Einstein saw religion as mostly the set of goals that motivate human behavior.
Yes, his views betray certain elements of ambiguity so far as the realm of religion is concerned.

But he allows to religion that its legitimate realm is values. He also allows to God the origin of all laws, and freely uses the term God without ever implying that God has a personal interest in our fate. As he said, his God was more like Spinoza’s God.

Personally, I see this as a kind of willing bias one genius has toward admitting the existence of a higher genius (God).

Beyond that he was not willing to give God credit for much else. 🤷
 
I think Einstein was a Deist.

I heard somewhere, but I can’t remember where. He said something like “I am neither atheist or pantheist”.
 
It always seemed strange to me that Einstein could grant God intelligence but no other personal attribute.

Well, maybe not so strange. 🤷
 
It always seemed strange to me that Einstein could grant God intelligence but no other personal attribute.

Well, maybe not so strange. 🤷
I imagine it was important to him not to grant God anything that would make him interested in human affairs. He lived to see his people persecuted during the Holocaust, after all. So take the usual doubt that the average person faces due to the Problem of Evil and consider it a million-fold stronger. That’s what he had to reconcile his beliefs with.

Sure, we know about the Holocaust now, but that will never have the same gravity as actually living through it.
 
I imagine it was important to him not to grant God anything that would make him interested in human affairs. He lived to see his people persecuted during the Holocaust, after all. So take the usual doubt that the average person faces due to the Problem of Evil and consider it a million-fold stronger. That’s what he had to reconcile his beliefs with.
I was thinking more along the lines that Einstein was projecting his own personality on God.

His dominant trait was intellect, so he could see in the complex ordered laws of the universe a powerful intellect at work that it was acceptable to him to call God. As to any other aspect of Einstein’s personality, we find little that stands out. I have read somewhere of Einstein’s reflection that his own preference was to be withdrawn from society and the world. That would certainly explain why he immediately refused the offer to become the first President of Israel. But it might also mirror a kind of internal reluctance to embrace the world, an attribute that of all attributes surely belongs to God.
 
I was thinking more along the lines that Einstein was projecting his own personality on God.

His dominant trait was intellect, so he could see in the complex ordered laws of the universe a powerful intellect at work that it was acceptable to him to call God. As to any other aspect of Einstein’s personality, we find little that stands out.
Yes, I know what you meant. I just disagree with the stereotype that smart people are somehow deficient in traits other than intellect. You are right that Einstein’s intelligence was what made him remarkable, but he should be regarded as at least average in other respects, and we wouldn’t accuse the average person of skimping out on God’s other qualities due to shortcomings of their personality.

But of course we are merely speculating here. Einstein’s reasons for not believing in a personal god could have been very mundane, and perhaps we are the one’s projecting our own theological/metaphysical bias onto him.
 
The problem is not that I can’t find a picture. The problem is which of the hundreds I should choose.

I simply love your denial! Because I don’t really believe that you believe what you say.
Or maybe a picture with Hitler and you.
But why would Hitler make a picture with you? Your are Mr. Bigmouth Nobody…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top