Einstein's Religion

[wanstronian]

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?

I don’t have a problem - you do, if you think that argument stands up to any kind of scrutiny.

If God “defines what justice is,” do you then think slavery, infanticide, genocide etc. is okay? Cos that’s what he did. If what he does defines justice, then presumably you attempt to murder anybody you meet that doesn’t share your faith?

Or, is it only okay when God does it? If so, why isn’t it okay when anybody else does it? Why is God given a free pass? Oh, I know - because he’s God. Talk about special pleading!

 

[wanstronian]

Or maybe a picture with Hitler and you.
But why would Hitler make a picture with you? Your are Mr. Bigmouth Nobody…

Well, with incisive and intelligent arguments like that, you are a credit to your faith.

 

[wanstronian]

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.

Perhaps that’s true. There are a number of possible reasons why Hitler was violently anti-semitic - but the only one that applies to “all Jews” is their culture and religion. I’m struggling to think of any non-religious wars where the end-goal was the elimination of an entire race.

Some Jews were killers of Christ, and the Romans had a part in it too.

Wasn’t Christ also a Jew? It seems ludicrous to want to kill every Jew in the world, because some of them killed one of their own.

That is history.

Careful now. There is no convincing historical evidence for the existence of Jesus; much less that he was the son of God, performed miracles, and rose from the dead.

However, the Lord’s prayer and central teachings of the Church call for us to forgive, in fact, we are “required” to forgive.

And this is clearly at odds with the Old Testament. So which is right? Did God undergo some sort of complete personality change at 1CE?

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 don’t disagree with this, but there is a lot of controversy about whether this was the sole reason for his actions.

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.

Again, I’d dispute this. Both the Bible and the Koran engender judgement and hatred of outgroups, for example.

The crusades were an example of human territorial behavior rationalized by religious leaders. All people are capable of error, theists and atheists alike.

Agreed - and as I said in a previous post, where religion is involved it may not be the primary driving force - but it’s always used as justification. Atheists can’t point to a non-deity and claim that they were acting on its non-existent authority.

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.

Agreed.

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.

Of course - forgiveness is not a product of religion or of atheism, but of humanism.

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.

Sorry but I find this statement a little bit Chopra-esque! But if I’ve got it right, you’re promoting “love thy neighbour?” With which I whole-heartedly agree. This is a human evolved societal behaviour, not a mandate from God.

All of which makes for an interesting discussion (and for what it’s worth, I have found this particular discussion far more interesting than trying to tackle the vacuous non-sequiturs of some theists on this forum, and indeed in this thread), but it’s something of a rabbit hole. In my opinion, the groundswell of evidence points towards Hitler being a Roman Catholic. So when theists declare that his “atheism” was the reason for the mass murders he committed, it makes me ask why they’re setting themselves up. It’s like stating that the Queen’s addiction to kite-surfing is the cause of her posh accent.

But the real point is this: even if Hitler had been an atheist, there can be no possible aspect of atheism that leads people to commit murder. The whole argument is logically bankrupt. Unfortunately such debates inevitably result in an argument about his religious affiliations; and I admit I’m guilty of it too, as we’ve seen in this thread! It’s very easy, and tempting, to see causality in correlation; but whereas there is a plausible causal link between Catholicism and persecution of Jews (even if it’s not proven), there** can be none** between atheism and murder. It’s not just implausible, it’s impossible!

 

[wanstronian]

That you can’t provide one photo of Hitler meeting the Pope calls all your scholarship into question.

The fact that you equate “didn’t” with “couldn’t” is far more damning.

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.

Oh, right, you think there are none? I genuinely didn’t realise you thought that. So here you go:
dalewrites.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/pope-pius-meets-hitler.jpg?w=357&h=281

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!

Gladly. The Hitler Catholic/Atheist thing is a red herring anyway. Glad to get away from it!

 

[Charlemagne_III]

For anyone interested, there is a book titled Einstein and Religion (1999) by Max Jammer.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Oh, right, you think there are none? I genuinely didn’t realise you thought that. So here you go:
dalewrites.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/pope-pius-meets-hitler.jpg?w=357&h=281

Wanstronian, you have to start leveling with us. How does that picture depict Hitler with a pope? It doesn’t. Do you know who a pope is or even looks like? Popes are always dressed in white.

Moreover, you have been asked before to get off the subject. Start your own thread if you really think there is proof that there are oodles of photos of Hitler and the Pope. It will be a short-lived thread!

Now, if you have some thoughts about Einstein’s religion, that would be relevant to this thread.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

“I regret that I cannot accede to your request, because I should like very much to remain in the darkness of not having been analyzed.” - Albert Einstein (On a request from an analyst that Einstein allow himself to be psychoanalyzed)

 

[Charlemagne_III]

“I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own—a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms… Science has therefore been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death. It is therefore easy to see why the churches have always fought science and persecuted its devotees.” Albert Einstein

Aside from a degree of arrogance that pervades these remarks, the final sentence seems plainly false. The churches have not always fought science and persecuted its devotees. To the contrary. A history of science through the Middle Ages and the Renaissance right up to modern times shows that some of the greatest pioneers of science were Catholic and that their work was honored by the Church with few rare exceptions. The only times that the churches took on science were when science first took on the churches. The most spectacular of those times was the period following Darwin, when many scientists in Europe took evolution to be an explanation for life that precluded the presence of God’s role in Creation. The blow-back from the churches was significant because science had overstepped its bounds. The blowback is still significant because science, through scientists like Dawkins and Hawking, are still drawing upon the wellsprings of science to belittle religion and the virtually universal impulse to worship a Being higher than ourselves.

The case of Galileo is altogether different. The personal feud between the Pope and Galileo, while it partly rested upon the science, did not originate with the attempt to suppress Galileo’s discoveries, but rather with the attempt by Galileo to promote his own work when it was not decisively proven. In fact, the Protestant Churches were less respectful of Galileo’s work than the Catholic Church was.

Moreover, to the extent that science has been decidedly deterministic about human nature, this was a deliberate assault on free will. So the attacks came first from people like Freud and B.F. Skinner before the Church was obliged to resist psychologies that were undermining both religion and morality.

 

[Oreoracle]

I want to point out that the fact that most prominent scientists were religious doesn’t prove that religion supported science. I would concede that, in those days, if you were a scientist, you were probably religious. But that’s because anyone who wasn’t religious was ostracized or executed. If you weren’t religious, you had very little chance of spreading your research, because people would disqualify you as a heathen from the outset.

So it’s not that the religious were particularly inclined toward science, it’s just that they were essentially the only people allowed to pursue it and offer their insights. It’s like the more modern argument that Christians give the most to charities. Of course they do–they make up about 80% of the U.S. population and most charities have ties to religious institutions. That wouldn’t make Christians inherently anymore humanitarian than any other group just because they have greater opportunity for it.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I want to point out that the fact that most prominent scientists were religious doesn’t prove that religion supported science. I would concede that, in those days, if you were a scientist, you were probably religious. But that’s because anyone who wasn’t religious was ostracized or executed. If you weren’t religious, you had very little chance of spreading your research, because people would disqualify you as a heathen from the outset.

So it’s not that the religious were particularly inclined toward science, it’s just that they were essentially the only people allowed to pursue it and offer their insights. It’s like the more modern argument that Christians give the most to charities. Of course they do–they make up about 80% of the U.S. population and most charities have ties to religious institutions. That wouldn’t make Christians inherently anymore humanitarian than any other group just because they have greater opportunity for it.

No, I think it’s like the more modern fact that today many scientists avoid religion, not because they really don’t believe in it, but because they know if it gets out that they do believe in it they will be taken for dunderheads. You know, the Richard Dawkins syndrome. So they have nowhere to go but away from religion, rather than toward it.

 

[Ion]

I don’t have a problem - you do, if you think that argument stands up to any kind of scrutiny.

If God “defines what justice is,” do you then think slavery, infanticide, genocide etc. is okay? Cos that’s what he did. If what he does defines justice, then presumably you attempt to murder anybody you meet that doesn’t share your faith?

Or, is it only okay when God does it? If so, why isn’t it okay when anybody else does it? Why is God given a free pass? Oh, I know - because he’s God. Talk about special pleading!

Do you believe God exists or not?

 

[Oreoracle]

No, I think it’s like the more modern fact that today many scientists avoid religion, not because they really don’t believe in it, but because they know if it gets out that they do believe in it they will be taken for dunderheads. You know, the Richard Dawkins syndrome. So they have nowhere to go but away from religion, rather than toward it.

From what I’ve read, about a third of U.S. scientists are Christian (though the proportion varies by discipline). There are actually highly respected scientists who are religious. They are respected because they accept scientific consensus and don’t let religion intrude in their research. In short, they do their jobs, just like atheist scientists.

Now if you show me a scientist who believes in a young Earth or doubts the basic premises of evolutionary theory (not the particulars), then of course he’ll be mocked. It’s a bit like a mathematician insisting that algebra is incorrect.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

From what I’ve read, about a third of U.S. scientists are Christian (though the proportion varies by discipline). There are actually highly respected scientists who are religious. They are respected because they accept scientific consensus and don’t let religion intrude in their research. In short, they do their jobs, just like atheist scientists.

Now if you show me a scientist who believes in a young Earth or doubts the basic premises of evolutionary theory (not the particulars), then of course he’ll be mocked. It’s a bit like a mathematician insisting that algebra is incorrect.

I probably did not make myself clear in earlier posts.

I think there are many scientists who are religious and who do not let religion interfere with their science, but also don’t let science interfere with their religion.

But that’s one side of the coin. The other side I believe is that some scientists abandon religion for one of two reasons: they have become victims of scientism; or they have decided that the chances of survival, and opportunities for advancement, in the scientific community are enhanced by distancing themselves from the religious life (not that there was much religious life to be distanced from if for those reasons).

This is not an easy position to prove. Few people would be willing to admit that they (consciously or unconsciously) exerted pressure on their colleagues to distance themselves from their religious principles. And perhaps even fewer would be willing to admit that they had been influenced by such peer pressure in that direction.

Paul Vitz is a psychologist and author of Faith of the Fatherless. He describes his own experience as an atheist in academia to be the result of peer pressure. He is one of the rare individuals who has come out of the closet to admit that peer pressure exists and that it is exercised against religious scientists to a significant degree. How significant, as I said above, it is impossible to prove because hardly anyone wants to testify either way.

From my own experience as an academician, I was witness to many of my colleagues exercising undue influence on their students both in their lectures and in the grading of their papers. You might ask how I know this. Two ways: students complain to some professors about their other professors. I got an earful. Students also complain about grades received on papers or tests for remarks they made that were decidedly more religious than secular (in other words, they were punished for letting their Christian identities slip into the paper). This can easily happen when a professor words an essay question, for example, in such a way as to elicit a Christian or a secular humanist answer.

This was, of course, one of the reasons for the development of the parochial school system in the United States in the 19th Century. The American bishops quickly caught on that the public school systems throughout the country were dominated by humanist anti-Catholic education principles.

 

[Oreoracle]

So we have two options. We can believe that one-third of scientists are silenced for fear of the majority’s prejudice, a position for which we have little evidence. Or we can believe that the few people who do complain are trying to get publicity by being professional victims.

Given that Christianity was practically founded on exaggerated martyrdom, I have a hunch about which is more likely.

 

[Ion]

So we have two options. We can believe that one-third of scientists are silenced for fear of the majority’s prejudice, a position for which we have little evidence. Or we can believe that the few people who do complain are trying to get publicity by being professional victims.

Given that Christianity was practically founded on exaggerated martyrdom, I have a hunch about which is more likely.

But you do have evidence!
What do you think the lie of the Piltdown Man was used for almost 50 years?
It was used as evidence against those who disagreed with evolution.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

So we have two options. We can believe that one-third of scientists are silenced for fear of the majority’s prejudice, a position for which we have little evidence. Or we can believe that the few people who do complain are trying to get publicity by being professional victims.

Given that Christianity was practically founded on exaggerated martyrdom, I have a hunch about which is more likely.

What is your evidence that Christianity was founded on exaggerated martyrdom?

It was certainly founded on something very impressive.

Even an agnostic scientist can see that.

“No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates every word. No myth is filled with such life.” Albert Einstein

 

[Oreoracle]

But you do have evidence!
What do you think the lie of the Piltdown Man was used for almost 50 years?
It was used as evidence against those who disagreed with evolution.

This is a non sequitur. The existence of a hoax doesn’t prove that there’s some trend of silencing Christian scientists anymore than the existence of pedophile priests proves the Catholic Church conspires toward molestation. There are a few bad apples in every bushel.

What is your evidence that Christianity was founded on exaggerated martyrdom?

I’m assuming the “exaggerated” part is the point of contention, since it’s abundantly obvious that martyrdom is important to the religion.

An example in which the martyrdom is exaggerated is the crucifixion stories. Yes, Christians were crucified. Other minorities were as well. There was nothing especially gruesome about the treatment of Christians compared to other groups. And this exaggeration lives on to this day. Christians make up an 80% majority in the U.S. but still complain about being oppressed. Unfortunately for those Christians, it’s harder to depict oneself as a martyr when one is part of the most dominant group. It was easier to get sympathy when Christianity was still in its formative stages.

Even an agnostic scientist can see that.

I have no interest in engaging in a quote war, because quotes prove nothing; quoting amounts to arguing from authority. But it does amuse me to think that, if I gave you a contrary quote from another scientist, you would say that scientists have no expertise in religion, so their opinion doesn’t count. But when the scientist agrees with you, suddenly their quote is supposed to be convincing.

 

[atheistgirl]

How is it possible that religion without science is blind?

Religion: The sun rotates around the earth.

Cosmology: No it doesn’t.

Religion: Cosmology is wrong! We’re the center of the universe and the sun rotates around us! God said so!

Blind!

Religion: OK. That’s cool. Who knew . We’ll encourage adherents to read the science.

Not Blind!

Sarah x

 

[Ion]

This is a non sequitur. The existence of a hoax doesn’t prove that there’s some trend of silencing Christian scientists anymore than the existence of pedophile priests proves the Catholic Church conspires toward molestation. There are a few bad apples in every bushel.

Maybe you can entertain us and explain us the reason was kept there as proof of evolution?

 

[Ion]

Religion: The sun rotates around the earth.

Cosmology: No it doesn’t.

Religion: Cosmology is wrong! We’re the center of the universe and the sun rotates around us! God said so!

Blind!

Religion: OK. That’s cool. Who knew . We’ll encourage adherents to read the science.

Not Blind!

Sarah x

Maybe you can tell us more about the scientific opinion on the relative positions of sun vs earth, before Copernicus.