Einstein's Religion

[Charlemagne_III]

No. As I’ve argued, God cannot be known because he has essentially been defined to be unknowable, at least to human intellects. People have ascribed to him qualities that cannot be demonstrated to humans, even if God himself wanted to do the demonstrating.

As I mentioned before, perhaps he could adjust the human intellect to make his qualities demonstrable, but that’s an entirely different matter. We would no longer be humans after such an adjustment has been made. It takes an omniscient being to recognize an omniscient being, so we would practically have to become gods ourselves for that to work.

As you must know, the Catholic view is that God did make himself knowable in the person of Jesus Christ.

You are free to believe that is impossible, but you’ve already allowed that the existence of God is possible. With God surely all things are possible.

If you allow that it’s possible God exists, you’d probably also allow it’s possible that Christ is the person of God in the flesh. Since you’re an agnostic, you cannot know for a certainty that this is impossible. If you did know it for a certainty, you could no longer claim to be agnostic.

 

[Ion]

No. As I’ve argued, God cannot be known because he has essentially been defined to be unknowable, at least to human intellects. People have ascribed to him qualities that cannot be demonstrated to humans, even if God himself wanted to do the demonstrating.

As I mentioned before, perhaps he could adjust the human intellect to make his qualities demonstrable, but that’s an entirely different matter. We would no longer be humans after such an adjustment has been made. It takes an omniscient being to recognize an omniscient being, so we would practically have to become gods ourselves for that to work.

I do not need any adjustment.
Unfortunately there is no adjustment for you either, while your expectations are to know God like you know any other human person. You are no equal with God
He come in human flesh and you do not want to know Him!

 

[Richca]

No. As I’ve argued, God cannot be known because he has essentially been defined to be unknowable, at least to human intellects. People have ascribed to him qualities that cannot be demonstrated to humans, even if God himself wanted to do the demonstrating.

As I mentioned before, perhaps he could adjust the human intellect to make his qualities demonstrable, but that’s an entirely different matter. We would no longer be humans after such an adjustment has been made. It takes an omniscient being to recognize an omniscient being, so we would practically have to become gods ourselves for that to work.

St Thomas Aquinas has sufficiently demonstrated by the natural light of reason the existence of God and many of His attributes such as his eternity, immutability, the infinity of his being which corresponds to his infinite knowledge and power, his immateriality, love, etc.

 

[Oreoracle]

As you must know, the Catholic view is that God did make himself knowable in the person of Jesus Christ.

And if it is enough for you to hear someone say they’re the son of God to convince you that a god exists, that’s your prerogative. That’s nowhere close to being good enough evidence for me. Lots of people have asserted the same, and I trust you are aware that the basic skeleton of the Jesus story has been told for millennia, before Christianity came about? There are many religions, now defunct, that begin with someone prophesied to be a savior, born of a virgin during December 25, who performed miracles, had 12 followers, resurrected someone, was martyred, was resurrected himself after 3 days, all for the sake of forgiving mankind of its sins. There are so many variations of this story that some Christians believe they chronicle separate messiahs at different points in history and that Jesus is just the most recent one.

You are free to believe that is impossible, but you’ve already allowed that the existence of God is possible. With God surely all things are possible.

I hope you will agree that even gods must be bound by logic. As I’ve argued, given our epistemic limitations, it is logically impossible for humans to know everything. And if we can’t know everything, we can’t tell when another being knows everything, which means we can’t identify omniscient beings.

If you allow that it’s possible God exists, you’d probably also allow it’s possible that Christ is the person of God in the flesh. Since you’re an agnostic, you cannot know for a certainty that this is impossible. If you did know it for a certainty, you could no longer claim to be agnostic.

The notion of the Trinity really doesn’t make logical sense, and the proof is in the pudding. I’ve seen multiple discussions concerning the Trinity on these forums, and they always end with a Catholic admitting the trio’s relationship is beyond logic. “Beyond logic” is of course just a way of saying “My belief system stops making sense at this point, so let’s stop asking difficult questions.”

 

[Oreoracle]

I do not need any adjustment.
Unfortunately there is no adjustment for you either, while your expectations are to know God like you know any other human person. You are no equal with God
He come in human flesh and you do not want to know Him!

As I said in a previous post, it’s not that the religious have mental powers others lack, it’s just that they have lower standards of evidence.

I can respect a religious person who admits that their belief is due to faith. I can’t respect someone who insists that they know something I don’t, and that the evidence simply can’t be reproduced for me. It’s as ridiculous as a child asserting his imaginary friend exists but chooses not to appear to others. It must be quite the ego trip to believe the most powerful being in the universe has revealed something to you that may never be revealed to others.

St Thomas Aquinas has sufficiently demonstrated by the natural light of reason the existence of God and many of His attributes such as his eternity, immutability, the infinity of his being which corresponds to his infinite knowledge and power, his immateriality, love, etc.

There are several problems with Aquinas’ arguments, some of which he himself admitted. Firstly, he recognized that his arguments did not establish the existence of a particular god, and that in order to convince someone that the “proven” god is the Catholic one, the person one’s trying to convince must already be Catholic. In other words, the arguments are mostly the product of confirmation bias by Aquinas’ own admission.

I admit it has been a while since I’ve reviewed the Five Ways, but at least 3 of them go like this: “1) Here is some logical or causal chain. 2) I don’t see how an infinite regression is possible, so the chain must begin somewhere. 3) That beginning is God.”

There are two major issues with such arguments. Firstly, one could reject the premise that infinite regression is impossible. Secondly, one could say that these arguments amount to redefining God, since clearly they underdetermine him as far as his traditional properties are concerned. For example, the cosmological argument doesn’t establish that the Prime Mover must be sentient/intelligent, so the argument doesn’t demonstrate a “god” in the usual sense of the word.

 

[Ion]

As I said in a previous post, it’s not that the religious have mental powers others lack, it’s just that they have lower standards of evidence.

I can respect a religious person who admits that their belief is due to faith. I can’t respect someone who insists that they know something I don’t, and that the evidence simply can’t be reproduced for me. It’s as ridiculous as a child asserting his imaginary friend exists but chooses not to appear to others. It must be quite the ego trip to believe the most powerful being in the universe has revealed something to you that may never be revealed to others.

Lets take it one step at a time.
God want us to believe in Him.
Why doesn’t this look logical to you? He is almighty, we are not. If you do not believe Him, he will not prove to you his mightiness because this world is finite, created for us. No matter the proof, you will still have a question unanswered an a pin in your eyes. What if …? Anyway, you have to believe in Him to know Him in as much as you, as a finite being, can.
What do you think?

 

[Oreoracle]

No matter the proof, you will still have a question unanswered an a pin in your eyes. What if …? Anyway, you have to believe in Him to know Him in as much as you, as a finite being, can.
What do you think?

You’re changing the topic here. I wasn’t attempting to psychoanalyze God. But you seem to agree that, as finite beings, God cannot fully demonstrate his qualities to us.

Why a god would choose to create beings who cannot, by virtue of their limitations, appreciate his qualities to the fullest is beyond me. I don’t know why Hera chose to stay with Zeus in spite of all his cheating either. But since I don’t believe in those characters, the questions don’t make me lose any sleep.

 

[Ion]

You’re changing the topic here. I wasn’t attempting to psychoanalyze God. But you seem to agree that, as finite beings, God cannot fully demonstrate his qualities to us.

Why a god would choose to create beings who cannot, by virtue of their limitations, appreciate his qualities to the fullest is beyond me. I don’t know why Hera chose to stay with Zeus in spite of all his cheating either. But since I don’t believe in those characters, the questions don’t make me lose any sleep.

This is how we are in this finite world. We can’t live without belief. The more faith you have the more proficient you are. The moment you have to check everything (either because of the environment either because of the lack of faith) you start wasting time and resources.Faith works together with reason, having blind faith in your own imagination will lead to disaster.
Do you agree that belief is part of our life and we can’t relate to God without faith ?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

And if it is enough for you to hear someone say they’re the son of God to convince you that a god exists, that’s your prerogative. That’s nowhere close to being good enough evidence for me. Lots of people have asserted the same, and I trust you are aware that the basic skeleton of the Jesus story has been told for millennia, before Christianity came about? There are many religions, now defunct, that begin with someone prophesied to be a savior, born of a virgin during December 25, who performed miracles, had 12 followers, resurrected someone, was martyred, was resurrected himself after 3 days, all for the sake of forgiving mankind of its sins. There are so many variations of this story that some Christians believe they chronicle separate messiahs at different points in history and that Jesus is just the most recent one.

I hope you will agree that even gods must be bound by logic. As I’ve argued, given our epistemic limitations, it is logically impossible for humans to know everything. And if we can’t know everything, we can’t tell when another being knows everything, which means we can’t identify omniscient beings.

The notion of the Trinity really doesn’t make logical sense, and the proof is in the pudding. I’ve seen multiple discussions concerning the Trinity on these forums, and they always end with a Catholic admitting the trio’s relationship is beyond logic. “Beyond logic” is of course just a way of saying “My belief system stops making sense at this point, so let’s stop asking difficult questions.”

Well, here’s the rub. You want God’s “logic” to be no better than your own. Sounds a trifle presumptuous to me. Could you figure out how to create a universe? Two hundred years ago nobody knew that a single atom could contain three elements: electron, proton, neutron. The fact that they hadn’t figured that out doesn’t mean that atoms did not contain three “personalities.”

 

[Charlemagne_III]

As I said in a previous post, it’s not that the religious have mental powers others lack, it’s just that they have lower standards of evidence.

As I said earlier, your standard of belief in God is that he must prove himself by being subject to scientific confirmation. So I put it to you that your own standard of evidence is way too low to describe or prove the existence of God.

Also, as pointed out earlier, you don’t deny the possibility of God. How then would you relate to God if there is a God but you deny knowledge of God because he will not submit himself to your low standard of evidence. The higher standard of evidence was certainly the performance of miracles, and especially his rising from the dead. Since this only happened once, you cannot ask that it be proven over and over and verified by crucifying him over and over and watching him rise from the dead over and over.

I’m sure you realize how irrational a demand for proof that would be. Yet, of course, people keep trying to crucify Christ, and they can’t seem to keep him buried in that tomb!

 

[Oreoracle]

The more faith you have the more proficient you are. The moment you have to check everything (either because of the environment either because of the lack of faith) you start wasting time and resources.

If you can never have too much faith, why bother to check anything? Why care about science or logic at all if I suddenly become more proficient by not verifying what I believe?

Faith works together with reason, having blind faith in your own imagination will lead to disaster.

But reason tells us that there’s no a priori reason that something should be true just because it’s intuitive, so trusting intuitions could lead to misinformation. And acting on misinformation could lead to disaster. So it seems that our reason would tell us that faith is in fact very dangerous and should be avoided unless it’s somehow necessary.

I should mention that there’s a common misconception that what one can demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt is science and all else is faith. I’ve heard pastors use the example of trusting friends or your spouse’s fidelity as faith. I’ve heard people cite being confident that the sun will rise tomorrow as faith. These things are not faith, rather, they are conclusions we induce based on previous observations. I don’t arbitrarily select my friends, for example. They have earned my trust through their past actions, so trusting them isn’t “faith”.

I can’t think of a single instance off the top of my head in which faith is absolutely necessary for the human experience. There are things we aren’t absolutely 100% certain about, sure, but that’s not the same thing as throwing all evidence out the window and just having faith.

Do you agree that belief is part of our life and we can’t relate to God without faith ?

It would seem so, yes.

Well, here’s the rub. You want God’s “logic” to be no better than your own.

Well, suppose that God could suspend the laws of logic in the same way that Christians believe God can suspend the laws of physics to cause miracles. We will call this a “logical miracle”. What this would mean is that, where the logical miracle is concerned, the effectiveness of deductive reasoning is uncertain. So a simple question one might ask is how often such miracles occur. I don’t want to be in the middle of a math proof and suddenly have God tease me by making two plus two equal five, now do I? I need to know when logic will start acting wonky so I know to avoid using it on those occasions.

Here’s where it gets interesting. Imagine that God’s logical miracles were entirely predictable in frequency and that my 2+2=5 example is the miracle in question. Suppose God enacts this miracle if and only if it’s Tuesday. Obviously this would be highly confusing for everyone, but, in principle, logic will work. What we have is actually two different logics: one for Tuesday, and one for every other day. Now we introduce a higher logic, which I shall call a superlogic. The superlogic says that the correct way to think is to use those different logics during their appropriate days. So basically, when humans refer to logic, they would actually be referring to our superlogic. God has replaced one logic with another with the miracle, and hasn’t truly precluded the use of deductive reasoning.

But suppose God likes being a trickster and doesn’t make his logical miracles predictable. All of deductive reasoning for all people at all times can be called into question, because who can know when logic will stop working? So in such a scenario, people won’t be able to tell up from down anyway. This would be to logic what nihilism is to morality: complete and utter destruction of the concept. In fact, if God is such a trickster, nothing you say nor anything I say is really making sense now, because there is no such thing as “sense” without a logic in place.

Two hundred years ago nobody knew that a single atom could contain three elements: electron, proton, neutron. The fact that they hadn’t figured that out doesn’t mean that atoms did not contain three “personalities.”

As far as I know, no scientists assert that protons are really electrons. Catholics believe that Jesus really is God.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

IAs far as I know, no scientists assert that protons are really electrons. Catholics believe that Jesus really is God.

You are the one who raised the illogic of the Trinity (three in one). I was only pointing out that 200 years ago the atom (three in one) would have been illogical to people. So that also is why we cannot understand the Trinity. The inner nature of God, while knowable, may be very contrary to our own nature and our own limited powers of reasoning. You have been saying as much right along when you insist that if there is a God, God cannot be knowable. But it’s quite a different thing to say we cannot know God as opposed to saying we can know something about God, whatever God wishes to reveal to us.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Here’s where it gets interesting. Imagine that God’s logical miracles were entirely predictable in frequency and that my 2+2=5 example is the miracle in question. Suppose God enacts this miracle if and only if it’s Tuesday. Obviously this would be highly confusing for everyone, but, in principle, logic will work. What we have is actually two different logics: one for Tuesday, and one for every other day. Now we introduce a higher logic, which I shall call a superlogic. The superlogic says that the correct way to think is to use those different logics during their appropriate days. So basically, when humans refer to logic, they would actually be referring to our superlogic. God has replaced one logic with another with the miracle, and hasn’t truly precluded the use of deductive reasoning.

I agree that here is where it gets interesting, but not for the reasons you give. There is in a very real sense a miracle going on every day rather than every other day. The Creation is a miracle (creating something from nothing). So every day we are constantly in the middle of a miracle!

 

[Oreoracle]

As I said earlier, your standard of belief in God is that he must prove himself by being subject to scientific confirmation. So I put it to you that your own standard of evidence is way too low to describe or prove the existence of God.

There seems to be some confusion about what is meant by a standard of evidence being low. Lower standards of evidence admit more competing claims than higher standards of evidence, since higher standards require that a position have more evidence from the outset before it will even be entertained.

Religions have a notoriously low standard, which is exemplified by the fact that several religions all have the same amount of evidence: usually there’s a holy book that’s been cobbled together by several authors over a large period of time filled with testimonies by (notably uneducated) witnesses asserting that miracles or revelations have transpired. There are members of each sect appealing to their intuition to argue that their religion just feels right–it seems that God has revealed himself to me, so I must be correct.

Contrast this with science. We have one theory to account for disease (germ theory), one theory to account for gravity (general relativity), one theory to account for the other three fundamental forces (quantum mechanics), one theory of biodiversity (evolutionary theory), and one cosmological model (the Big Bang theory). Usually there aren’t multiple theories in a single discipline because each successive theory must perform better than the one it replaces. There is a high price for entry as far as evidence is concerned.

Someone can correct me if I’m wrong, but the last time we’ve had two serious contenders competing for the same discipline was when the Big Bang Theory overthrew Steady State Theory, which was decades ago. The String Theory vs. Loop Quantum Gravity debate doesn’t count, because scientists will even admit that these aren’t theories in the traditional sense, since they aren’t amenable to experiment (yet).

 

[Oreoracle]

You are the one who raised the illogic of the Trinity (three in one). I was only pointing out that 200 years ago the atom (three in one) would have been illogical to people.

If you tried telling them that electrons are protons, as Catholics insist that Jesus is God, then yes, it would be confusing. If you said that they are both particles that combine to make up atoms, that would have been quite approachable.

We can use a more mundane example. It would be confusing for someone to assert that lawyers are really taxi drivers just because both are human beings. This is because, when you say “lawyer”, the equivalence class people have in mind is one’s occupation, not one’s species. If you’re using a broader equivalence class such as “species”, it’s clearer to just say that that’s what you’re doing. This isn’t beyond human logic at all. Toddlers can understand equivalence classes. This is just a case of people misusing language.

But it’s quite a different thing to say we cannot know God as opposed to saying we can know something about God, whatever God wishes to reveal to us.

I’m not denying that we can know particular qualities of gods, but we have to at least know they have all of the qualities characteristic of gods to call them gods. For example, knowing that God knows something is quite different from knowing that he knows everything. Knowing that God is omniscient is different than knowing he is both omniscient and omnipotent. You have to know all of that to deem something a god.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I’m not denying that we can know particular qualities of gods, but we have to at least know they have all of the qualities characteristic of gods to call them gods. For example, knowing that God knows something is quite different from knowing that he knows everything. Knowing that God is omniscient is different than knowing he is both omniscient and omnipotent. You have to know all of that to deem something a god.

And here is where scientism comes up short. What claim does scientism have to require that we know all the qualities of God in order to know God? As Bishop Fulton Sheen said after Einstein set himself up as an authority on whether a personal God exists, “If the thinking processes of Professor Einstein were not keener in the field of science than they are in the field of philosophy, then he has made me a skeptic of relativity.”

To say you have to know all of the omniscience and omnipotence of God “to deem something a God” sounds presumptuous. Do you mean to say we have to know God’s omniscience and omnipotence up close and personal to know that God exists? Then we are back to a very low standard for proving that God exists, since only a God very lacking in omniscience and omnipotence could be known up close and personal by us. Again, that would have to be a God you can see through a telescope or floating on a petri dish. Hardly omnipotent and omniscient.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Religions have a notoriously low standard, which is exemplified by the fact that several religions all have the same amount of evidence: usually there’s a holy book that’s been cobbled together by several authors over a large period of time filled with testimonies by (notably uneducated) witnesses asserting that miracles or revelations have transpired. There are members of each sect appealing to their intuition to argue that their religion just feels right–it seems that God has revealed himself to me, so I must be correct.

I don’t agree with this. There is no religion in existence today, other than Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, that makes claims to have a common source … Abraham … who it is believed received direct revelations from God; and this direct revelation has been continued through centuries of historical figures from Abraham to Moses to David to Jesus Christ. The other religions may claim to be divinely inspired, but their theologies are distinctly lacking in the kind of evidence of revelation one might expect from a true God. This God never appears to the pagans in the form of a burning bush or in agony on a cross for their sins. Whatever mythologies have been built up around their gods, they have only vague speculation buried in antiquity and long since abandoned in the cases of Egypt, Greece, Rome, and Scandinavia, for examples. Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism, and Islam is a heretical offspring of Christianity, falsely tracing its actual hereditary roots back to Abraham.

 

[Oreoracle]

And here is where scientism comes up short. What claim does scientism have to require that we know all the qualities of God in order to know God?

To say you have to know all of the omniscience and omnipotence of God “to deem something a God” sounds presumptuous. Do you mean to say we have to know God’s omniscience and omnipotence up close and personal to know that God exists?

To change one’s standard of evidence is to effectively redefine what “know” means. You may “know” something by one standard of evidence but not know it by another. So if you want to say you know God exists by your standard, that’s perfectly fine, but other religions are going to ask why you don’t buy into their gods that are equally (un)supported by the evidence, and then where will you be?

I am using the same standard of evidence that has led to all of our modern conveniences. It is the same standard of evidence you rely on when you eat vegetables with pesticides on them. It is the same standard of evidence you rely on when you get the newest flu shot or get a routine checkup at a clinic. It is the same standard of evidence you rely on when making a payment electronically, or using your computer at this very moment.

By using modern conveniences, everyone is implicitly supporting this standard of evidence. We use it because it works. The religious standard of evidence has led to mythology and myriad competing religions with claims that cannot be settled and contradictions that can’t be ironed out. There has been no noticeable progress on the religious front. Christians have had two millennia to gather evidence, yet they still need faith for even their most fundamental claims. Where religion has progressed, it is only by conforming to shifting social norms or scientific discoveries. In short, religion’s successes are either non-existent or borrowed.

The other religions may claim to be divinely inspired, but their theologies are distinctly lacking in the kind of evidence of revelation one might expect from a true God.

This is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. But there is no way to test your claim because revelation is, by definition, personal. If I claim a god has revealed something to me, there is absolutely nothing you can do to contradict me. That is why the scientific method requires evidence to be reproducible. I can’t say “I know something you don’t, but too bad I can’t show it to you.”

 

[Charlemagne_III]

In light of what I said above, it’s wrong to claim that Christianity is just another religion cobbled together like all the others, and then claim that this compares poorly with competing scientific theories of which one will emerge triumphant. In fact, Blaise Pascal wrote a book titled Pensees, in which he assembled a voluminous case for why, if there is a God, Christianity should be the religion he gave his creatures.

Yes, science does hone its competing theories to the point where one emerges superior to most of the others, just as Christianity has done. So your analogy that it’s otherwise is not convincing. Too many of the old religions have gone the way of all flesh, as have many of the old scientific theories. Those that survive, still in competition with Judaism, Christianity and Islam, do not generally claim to be a special revelation from God. Rather, they have all the hallmarks of a religion thought up rather than bestowed by a loving and merciful God.

As our resident Buddhist rossum has so often said, even the gods of Buddhism (for those Buddhists who still believe in them) may be “safely ignored.”

 

[Charlemagne_III]

This is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. But there is no way to test your claim because revelation is, by definition, personal. If I claim a god has revealed something to me, there is absolutely nothing you can do to contradict me. That is why the scientific method requires evidence to be reproducible. I can’t say “I know something you don’t, but too bad I can’t show it to you.”

The bottom line is this. You have allowed the possibility of God. You do not allow the possibility that if God exists God would reveal himself through the prophets and Jesus Christ.
So that is where our differences reside, as I see it. You think not only that God must show himself to you up close and personal to believe in God, as if through a telescope or floating on a petri dish. But then you know this kind of evidence is not possible. So should God choose to reveal himself not as the subject of a scientific experiment, but by a manner that is more in person, more up close and personal as was the Incarnation, you say that standard of proof also does not satisfy. So I take it that what you are saying is that even if God exists, there is no way God could or would reveal himself to us. Is that how we should leave it?