Einstein's Religion

[Richca]

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.

 

[Ion]

Oreoracle: **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
…
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.

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

Oreoracle: It would seem so, yes.

**

I have to say that we use faith far more than you think. When you drive, it is by faith that you go on while another car comes towards you, you can’t know for sure that it will pass by without crossing into your lane (at something like this I was almost witness to). This faith is supported by reason which tells you that the event it very improbable.The lack of faith makes some people to be unable to drive because they feel anxious. They are not dumb such they do not know what improbable is. But we are not computers guided by numbers as you imply:“These things are not faith, rather, they are conclusions we induce based on previous observations.”
Another example are the people who feel anxious after touching other things because they can’t escape the terror of a possible infection.
About friends, again you have faith in them supported by reason about their character. Even the vocabulary says so.

Do you agree that belief is part of our life and we can’t relate to God without faith ?
Oreoracle: It would seem so, yes.

My opinion is that we know and understand God by faith. When we say He is almighty we understand that anything is possible for Him. We can’t possible experience this “anything and everything” and here comes in our faith. But this faith doesn’t come in without being supported by reason, because we can contemplate our Universe, creation of His hands, and also there were witnesses to His words and great miracles. Their faith was supported by reason.
Another thing God wants from us is to have faith in one another. And in this faith we join the first witnesses. This faith of ours is not blind, but is supported by reason too.

Compare our opinion and faith with your opinion and faith about evolution.
You have faith that the scientist are truthful in what they say (which is proven false because of the many hoaxes), you have faith they have done no mistake (again proven false by many erroneous scientific theories; it’s like going from one error into another to reach the final truth???)
You opinion is based on faith because first of all there is no direct experiment to prove the evolution plus it is absolutely impossible for you to check up everything!
Probably we can add more to the list.
Where is the lower standard?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Einstein’s conception of God included the notion of omniscience. One can logically infer, Einstein believed, that God knows all the laws of the universe or they would not have been created in the way they were. As Einstein said, his God is very much like Spinoza’s God: pure Intellect. This is an altogether too narrow conception of God, but it reflects Einstein’s appreciation of an Intellect vastly more powerful than his reflected in all of Creation.

As Einstein put it:

“I am not an atheist, and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the language in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books, but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God.” (Jammer 48)

 

[Oreoracle]

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.

This would be more convincing if religion hadn’t been spread with the sword rather than the pen. I can’t think of a single example of a scientific theory being proliferated by some conqueror or warlord, as science spreads by intelligent discussion.

Religion owes its prominence not to Einsteins, but to Alexander the Greats.

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.

This is a slightly distorted paraphrase of my position. God could do anything he wants, yes. But insofar as human epistemology is limited by logic, God cannot magically overcome the difficulty of trying to get such feeble-minded creatures to identify him. He has only the options of tweaking our epistemic capabilities or being content with being recognized as merely very powerful.

Again, I’m not here to psychoanalyze God. Why a being would deliberately create a dilemma like this is beyond me. But we can’t just dismiss the situation by whining about how inconvenient our limitations are.

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.

But ask yourself what this act of “revealing” amounts to. A carpenter stops you on the street and tells you he’s the son of God. He shows you that he’s a nice man and he offers some interesting speeches. His mother even claims his birth was a virgin birth. If this happened to you tomorrow, would you believe that man or his mother?

Richca:

This would result in indefensible, incoherent and inexplicable thought such as 2+2=5.

The problem with a statement like “2+2=5” isn’t that it’s indefensible, but rather that it’s contradictory to other theorems. The contradictions are easy to demonstrate. If infinite regression indeed led to such simple contradictions, why didn’t Aquinas or yourself make the argument even more convincing by substantiating the premise that denies infinite regression rather than merely asserting it’s impossible?

These statements makes no sense. The five arguments are meant to demonstrate the existence of God, not everything about God or his nature.

In other words, the actual demonstration of God’s existence depends on the rest of Catholic philosophy, not just the Five Ways. That is exactly what I said before: you have to buy into the whole religion to find the arguments convincing of the larger claim of a Catholic God. If this is your assertion, that I should deal with a whole treatise rather than a few arguments, that’s fine. I will gladly admit that I just don’t have that much time on my hands. I haven’t found the end result (the Catholic faith itself) to be particularly impressive, so I don’t care to waste my time scouring all of Aquinas’ works to similarly be unimpressed by it.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

This would be more convincing if religion hadn’t been spread with the sword rather than the pen. I can’t think of a single example of a scientific theory being proliferated by some conqueror or warlord, as science spreads by intelligent discussion.

Religion owes its prominence not to Einsteins, but to Alexander the Greats.

Religion was spread with the pen long before it was spread with the sword.

Would you mind telling where in the world today Christianity is spread with the sword?

On the other hand, science is spread both by the pen and the sword, both by Einsteins and Alexander the Greats. As, for example, by Einstein and other atomic nuclear physicists whose swords were felt at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The day may yet come when the world will curse the genius of scientists as a far more devastating threat to humans than any religion ever was. We are talking about the possibility that that day is not very far off. And it won’t be the Vatican dropping the bombs, though I expect the Vatican will be eager to condemn anyone who does.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

But ask yourself what this act of “revealing” amounts to. A carpenter stops you on the street and tells you he’s the son of God. He shows you that he’s a nice man and he offers some interesting speeches. His mother even claims his birth was a virgin birth. If this happened to you tomorrow, would you believe that man or his mother?

No. I can hardly believe you are offering this as an argument!

I would say he is an imposter, and the claims he is making for himself are lies because, I would say to him, “There is only one Son of God who has already been here, done what you claim you have done, and a lot more!”

 

[OneSheep]

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.

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.

All the stuff of rationalization/justification when jealousy, competition, condemnation, and xenophobia are in play IMO. Yes, ludicrous.

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.

We can leave it at that. “Convincing” is an existential word.

My Quote:

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?

Well, I suppose a complete personality change is possible, but it is more like Jesus came to clarify some matters. All religions include some kind of expiation for sin (hurt of others or self). People feel guilty about stuff, and they are getting punished by their consciences. I think it is normal for a person who believes in God to equate the conscience with God, and our consciences are far from forgiving, right? They beat us up when we mess up, even for little things like forgetting to send a thank-you note! Then, because our lives can take a turn for the worse (for various reasons) people are certain that they are being punished, and then offer blood, sacrifice, and so forth to appease the angry God equated with the conscience.

The way I see it, Jesus came to show us the God who loves unconditionally, underlying the conscience. It is not we that have to go for God; God came to us to save us from our own slavery to our nature, a nature that includes the capacity to rationalize.

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

Well, no true Muslim, Jew or Christian…. Yes, we can find some contradictions within doctrine, and those contradictions have to be explained in the context of the times. Humans are human. Humans do the best they can to figure out what God is telling them, and sometimes they goof. People decide what they want, react to their fellow man, and then ascertain that God is telling them that they are to act on it. Oops. Atheists make big errors too.

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

That the merits of forgiveness are a human conclusion in all cultures and religions could be described as a result of a “humanism” that underlies all religions too. Did the importance of forgiveness come from a humanistic wisdom or from God? Idea: we should all get really heated about who is right, then forgive, and then rest assured that it is our own philosophical/religious tenets that led us to the importance of forgiveness.

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.

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.

Yes, atheism as the reason is silliness. I think we can both admit that Hitler condemned many people, whole races. He thought the Jews were evil. He needed to forgive “the Jews” and others he thought violated his notion of right and wrong.

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!

Well, I agree with you for the most part, but “impossible” is a bit strong-worded when we are talking about minds (all of ours) that are incorrigibly subjective. If a person sees that people are more capable of murder when they do not see God in the “other”, then they may conclude that atheism is the cause. We can agree that they are incorrect, for the atheist can find great value without labeling such value as coming from God or something like that. However, everyone’s conclusions are “plausible” to them.

Did Einstein have a relationship with the divine? In my opinion, yes, he may have denied it, but many of the things he said and did were reflective of a loving God. Many things that atheists say are reflective of a loving God. Yes, I know that rubs the wrong way (for many!), but it is not meant to be rhetorical. It’s like “this is the way I see it”. My observations are okay, and understandable, and yours are too.

Oops. Watch, now I am going to be accused of being a “relativist”, and I will have to enlighten a new group. Oh well.

 

[OneSheep]

I apologize to the reader for dragging this from the archives of this thread. I promised I would respond to Wanstronian, and I have been away a few days.

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.”

Interesting translation. In context, Jesus was talking about the divisiveness of His teachings among friends and family:

10:35 For I have come to turn

“‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’

Jesus was very controversial.

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.

I go round and round with a foreign affairs guy on the matter, but I am still convinced that oil is only a small part of the reason. Iraq started trading oil for Euros, which was a threat to the dollar, and IMO that let our nations’ central bank conclude that funding the war was worthwhile. In the mean time, Saddam was “active” in the Palestinian war against Israel, giving money to the families of suicide bombers. The pro-Israel-expansionist lobby is very powerful in our Capitol, and they have a way of pushing just one side of the story. Bush was no monster, pushing war to solve an currency/resource problem. He had the safety of Israel in mind, I think. That is why I would have done what he did, given his knowledge of the matter.

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.

Well, when a person finds a way of living and believing that works for them, they think that everyone else should live and believe the same way. That their way is the only good way to live and believe is a matter of ignorance, is it not? We are all a bit ignorant, I think. But when people are “pushing” love, forgiveness, and helping those who suffer, for example, is there any harm in saying that we have an “obligation” to love and forgive? I suppose it depends on how it is done. “Obligation” has a way of being a turn-off.

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.

Well, that is just it, the “evidential basis”. Different people have different views of “evidence”.

My quote:

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?

Even if we examine their behaviors and find them irrational, if our own resentment remains then we have gone nowhere. To me, we can find all behaviors “rational” in the context of the individual. If we are to promote “brotherly love”, which is a good thing, then forgiveness is key because in my observation we essentially, at a mature level, love everyone we do not resent. So, if we could have gotten the Nazis to forgive “the Jews” and others, if we could get the Palestinians to forgive the Israelis, etc. etc., then we would be making big strides, no? “Let there be peace on Earth, and let it begin with me.” Right?

Theology as I subscribe to has no conflict with cold hard scientific fact, I agree with the Einstein quote in that respect. Faith, to me, is a choice. It is not a choice based in hard fact. It is a commitment to love and service; it is a seeing of oneness in all that is (and a relationship with a divine within). It comes from a respect and gratitude for nature, including human nature, and my own is set on a foundation of optimism about an afterlife. And actually, an atheist could have the same such faith, perhaps labeled differently, if there is that “relationship” I am talking about. I present this approach as an alternative to stricter views, such as “believe, or you go to hell” or something like that. I think that you can see there are different ways of approaching faith.

 

[Oreoracle]

I have to say that we use faith far more than you think. When you drive, it is by faith that you go on while another car comes towards you, you can’t know for sure that it will pass by without crossing into your lane (at something like this I was almost witness to).

I don’t think that’s a matter of faith. We require people to pass a test before they are allowed to drive. Most drivers on the road, even those in their early 20s, already have a good deal of experience. It seems justifiable to take it that, most of the time, drivers have sufficient skill to avoid accidents. And of course it is in their best interest to use this skill unless they are suicidal and homicidal.

As I said previously, there seems to be this notion that something must be a matter of faith just because it isn’t a certainty. Everything besides logical truths would be faith-based if that were the case. To have faith means to disregard evidence or the lack thereof for the sake of a belief. If I gave a gun to a toddler who doesn’t understand gun safety and has no appreciation for life and death, then expecting this scenario to have no repercussions would be more akin to faith than your example. If I assume I will win a lottery in which hundreds of thousands participate, that would be faith.

This faith is supported by reason which tells you that the event it very improbable.The lack of faith makes some people to be unable to drive because they feel anxious. They are not dumb such they do not know what improbable is.

Again, if you have a reason to believe something, such as a probabilistic argument, then you can’t possibly be using faith. Faith means to believe without any care for the evidence, including arguments in favor of the position.

Compare our opinion and faith with your opinion and faith about evolution.

You go on to criticism evolutionary biologists. You seem to think that, like a religious person, my belief rests on my trust in particular persons, as if they are prophets or something. No, evolutionary theory is the consensus of the scientific community as a whole. Yes, I do trust that the average scientist is competent and honest just as you trust the same for doctors when you get a prescription. We have this division of labor because we can’t possibly be well-versed in every field, so instead we trust the specialists of the field in question.

 

[Oreoracle]

Religion was spread with the pen long before it was spread with the sword.

Would you mind telling where in the world today Christianity is spread with the sword?

It doesn’t need to be spread that way now. Once Christianity had conquered Europe, it pretty much coasted from there. The biggest predictor of someone’s religion is the religion of their parents. So once a substantial portion of the population has been converted, all that’s necessary is to prevent schisms within the group. That’s why the Protestant Reformation was probably the most devastating thing that’s ever happened to the Church.

On the other hand, science is spread both by the pen and the sword, both by Einsteins and Alexander the Greats. As, for example, by Einstein and other atomic nuclear physicists whose swords were felt at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

…You’ve got to be kidding. If you seriously believe that World War II was about spreading science, I would suggest that you invest in a history book. Using science=/=propagating science.

No. I can hardly believe you are offering this as an argument!

I would say he is an imposter, and the claims he is making for himself are lies because, I would say to him, “There is only one Son of God who has already been here, done what you claim you have done, and a lot more!”

You think this scenario would somehow be more convincing if the same thing happened 2000 years ago using the same standard of evidence you have now?

 

[Ion]

…
As I said previously, there seems to be this notion that something must be a matter of faith just because it isn’t a certainty. Everything besides logical truths would be faith-based if that were the case. To have faith means to disregard evidence or the lack thereof for the sake of a belief.

Absolutely not. When you say “belief that is not based on proof” that is the case of the driver, where you do not and can’t have the evidence that the oncoming driver will keep his lane. You have faith he will keep his lane, based on the improbability of the contrary event. As soon as you discover he’s not driving normal, you pull out of the street because you lose that faith in him.

If I gave a gun to a toddler who doesn’t understand gun safety and has no appreciation for life and death, then expecting this scenario to have no repercussions would be more akin to faith than your example. If I assume I will win a lottery in which hundreds of thousands participate, that would be faith.
Again, if you have a reason to believe something, such as a probabilistic argument, then you can’t possibly be using faith. Faith means to believe without any care for the evidence, including arguments in favor of the position.

YOU WANT TO BELIEVE THAT FAITH IS SOMETHING ILLOGICAL!
Where did you get this idea from?

You go on to criticism evolutionary biologists. You seem to think that, like a religious person, my belief rests on my trust in particular persons, as if they are prophets or something. No, evolutionary theory is the consensus of the scientific community as a whole. Yes, I do trust that the average scientist is competent and honest just as you trust the same for doctors when you get a prescription. We have this division of labor because we can’t possibly be well-versed in every field, so instead we trust the specialists of the field in question.

Yes indeed, truth by agreement. I do not trust them not only because of their overall record of lies/mistakes but more because they do not want to consider possible creationist alternatives. This is absolutely anti-scientific.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

…You’ve got to be kidding. If you seriously believe that World War II was about spreading science, I would suggest that you invest in a history book. Using science=/=propagating science.

You think this scenario would somehow be more convincing if the same thing happened 2000 years ago using the same standard of evidence you have now?

World War II was partially about spreading science. There was virtually no nuclear technology before then. Many other new applications of science were invented, most of them for war purposes. The Vatican was never consulted, of course. Only scientists.

If the same scenario you described happened to me 2000 years ago, I would be seriously interested in the claim, especially if it was accompanied by miracles and the resurrection of Jesus, which you forgot to mention in your modern account. Obviously, many others were seriously interested, and without their serious interest, there would be no Christianity. Even today, people who are not seriously interested in the fate of their immortal souls will not be Christians for the same reasons you suggest … nothing would convince them, they are so hellbent against worshiping anything but maybe their own egos.

 

[Oreoracle]

World War II was partially about spreading science. There was virtually no nuclear technology before then. Many other new applications of science were invented, most of them for war purposes.

Yes, we developed new weapons for self-defense. I’m not sure how that equates to spreading science. Self-defense was the intention, not education-by-force. Science was also not the justification for the conflict. Contrast this with the crusades.

The Vatican was never consulted, of course. Only scientists.

That’s because praying for your enemy not to strike you down doesn’t seem to work so well.

If the same scenario you described happened to me 2000 years ago, I would be seriously interested in the claim, especially if it was accompanied by miracles and the resurrection of Jesus, which you forgot to mention in your modern account.

Alright, I’ll adapt my original question to this. Suppose a carpenter came up to you with twelve young men following him and said he was born of a virgin. He brought a prop with him: a person he claims is blind. He “heals” her in front of you. He produces a bottle of water and appears to turn it into wine. He claims all of this proves he is the son of God, and that the only moral thing for you to do is “take no thought for the 'morrow”; that is, abandon your family and possessions and devote the remainder of your life to him.

And to put this in the ancient setting: Imagine that you’ve never heard anything like the Jesus story before. This is all completely new to you and possibly conflicts with other religious convictions you may have.

Would you find his claims convincing?

Obviously, many others were seriously interested, and without their serious interest, there would be no Christianity.

Lots of people believe whatever most entertains them. Some people insist that the moon landing never happened. Some people think they can survive without food by filtering the air. Never underestimate human stupidity.

Also, note that most of the witnesses of the Jesus story were uneducated. Many were hysterical women. Note that God chose to reveal his son not in China or Greece, which were highly developed at the time. No, it had to be in a society which would be least critical of the claims being made. Does any of this sound remotely suspicious to you?

Even today, people who are not seriously interested in the fate of their immortal souls will not be Christians for the same reasons you suggest … nothing would convince them, they are so hellbent against worshiping anything but maybe their own egos.

I don’t think you’ve ever actually talked to atheists about their de-conversion stories, because you seem profoundly ignorant on this point. I’m sure what you’re saying applies to some small subset of atheists who are just trying to rebel against their parents or something, but that does not a generalization make.

 

[OneSheep]

Yes indeed, truth by agreement. I do not trust them not only because of their overall record of lies/mistakes but more because they do not want to consider possible creationist alternatives. This is absolutely anti-scientific.

Hello Ion, and pardon my cutting in. When you say “they”, are you referring to all scientists, or did you mean “those scientists who…”

It is understandable, even predictable, for some scientists to resent ideas coming from religious people when the “proof” comes from uncontrolled experimentation. The problem is, that since God’s power is omnipresent, we cannot do an experiment to show what creation is like without God.

Many (if not all) scientists have a deep sense of awe and wonder. It is awe and wonder that motivates the scientist, discovery of how it all works and the incredible beauty of it all. I think most of us can relate to that. Some scientists, such as Einstein, conclude that there is a creator, an intelligence behind it all. In contrast, some scientists resent the political and social behaviors of religious people and institutions, and are therefore closed-minded about anything coming from that direction. Yes, for those individuals, it is anti-scientific, but scientists are people too.

When we resent (fail to forgive) a group, institution, followers of a political mindset, etc., we are very suspicious, even closed-minded about any ideas coming from those directions. It is a manifestation of our nature, is it not? We are all subject to the phenomenon.

But what we can do, as Christians, is forgive those who are guilty of “lies and mistakes”. It is our calling, is it not? It is not the “calling” of those who do not recognize the call.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Yes, we developed new weapons for self-defense. I’m not sure how that equates to spreading science. Self-defense was the intention, not education-by-force. Science was also not the justification for the conflict. Contrast this with the crusades.

I’m afraid you haven’t made a convincing case that science was not a willing participant in the creation of the Bomb following the discovery of nuclear physics. Einstein and other scientists urged Roosevelt in several letters to make a bomb that would have massive powers of destruction. It was Einstein, not the Vatican, that urged the creation of a weapon which, in sufficient numbers down the road, could possibly annihilate the human race along with other life forms, and may yet do so. The Crusaders at least met the enemy on open battlefields. They could never have been a threat to the whole world, as science has made possible.

Yes, religion starts wars. It also prevents wars.

“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” “Love one another.”

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Alright, I’ll adapt my original question to this. Suppose a carpenter came up to you with twelve young men following him and said he was born of a virgin. He brought a prop with him: a person he claims is blind. He “heals” her in front of you. He produces a bottle of water and appears to turn it into wine. He claims all of this proves he is the son of God, and that the only moral thing for you to do is “take no thought for the 'morrow”; that is, abandon your family and possessions and devote the remainder of your life to him.

And to put this in the ancient setting: Imagine that you’ve never heard anything like the Jesus story before. This is all completely new to you and possibly conflicts with other religious convictions you may have.

Would you find his claims convincing?

I think I would have, unless I had been a Sadducee.

But I’d have been compelled to believe if I had seen him after the resurrection, as Thomas did…

That would have been a jaw-dropper!

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Albert Einstein
Old Grove Rd.
Nassau Point
Peconic, Long Island

                                         August 2nd 1939

F.D. Roosevelt
President of the United States
White House
Washington, D.C.

Sir:

  Some recent work by E.Fermi and L. Szilard, which has been com-

municated to me in manuscript, leads me to expect that the element uran-

ium may be turned into a new and important source of energy in the im-

mediate future. Certain aspects of the situation which has arisen seem

to call for watchfulness and, if necessary, quick action on the part

of the Administration. I believe therefore that it is my duty to bring

to your attention the following facts and recommendations:

  In the course of the last four months it has been made probable -

through the work of Joliot in France as well as Fermi and Szilard in

America - that it may become possible to set up a nuclear chain reaction

in a large mass of uranium,by which vast amounts of power and large quant-

ities of new radium-like elements would be generated. Now it appears

almost certain that this could be achieved in the immediate future.

  This new phenomenon would also lead to the construction of bombs,

and it is conceivable - though much less certain - that extremely power-

ful bombs of a new type may thus be constructed. A single bomb of this

type, carried by boat and exploded in a port, might very well destroy

the whole port together with some of the surrounding territory. However,

such bombs might very well prove to be too heavy for transportation by

air.

                             -2-

  The United States has only very poor ores of uranium in moderate

quantities. There is some good ore in Canada and the former Czechoslovakia.

while the most important source of uranium is Belgian Congo.

  In view of the situation you may think it desirable to have more

permanent contact maintained between the Administration and the group

of physicists working on chain reactions in America. One possible way

of achieving this might be for you to entrust with this task a person

who has your confidence and who could perhaps serve in an inofficial

capacity. His task might comprise the following:

  a) to approach Government Departments, keep them informed of the

further development, and put forward recommendations for Government action,

giving particular attention to the problem of securing a supply of uran-

ium ore for the United States;

  b) to speed up the experimental work,which is at present being car-

ried on within the limits of the budgets of University laboratories, by

providing funds, if such funds be required, through his contacts with y

private persons who are willing to make contributions for this cause,

and perhaps also by obtaining the co-operation of industrial laboratories

which have the necessary equipment.

  I understand that Germany has actually stopped the sale of uranium

from the Czechoslovakian mines which she has taken over. That she should

have taken such early action might perhaps be understood on the ground

that the son of the German Under-Secretary of State, von Weizsäcker, is

attached to the Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institut in Berlin where some of the

American work on uranium is now being repeated.

                                        Yours very truly,
                                         signature
                                        (Albert Einstein)

 

[Ion]

Hello Ion, and pardon my cutting in. When you say “they”, are you referring to all scientists, or did you mean “those scientists who…”

It is understandable, even predictable, for some scientists to resent ideas coming from religious people when the “proof” comes from uncontrolled experimentation. The problem is, that since God’s power is omnipresent, we cannot do an experiment to show what creation is like without God.

Many (if not all) scientists have a deep sense of awe and wonder. It is awe and wonder that motivates the scientist, discovery of how it all works and the incredible beauty of it all. I think most of us can relate to that. Some scientists, such as Einstein, conclude that there is a creator, an intelligence behind it all. In contrast, some scientists resent the political and social behaviors of religious people and institutions, and are therefore closed-minded about anything coming from that direction. Yes, for those individuals, it is anti-scientific, but scientists are people too.

When we resent (fail to forgive) a group, institution, followers of a political mindset, etc., we are very suspicious, even closed-minded about any ideas coming from those directions. It is a manifestation of our nature, is it not? We are all subject to the phenomenon.

But what we can do, as Christians, is forgive those who are guilty of “lies and mistakes”. It is our calling, is it not? It is not the “calling” of those who do not recognize the call.

I do not trust them (evolutionary biologists/scientists), meaning I do not think their conclusions can be trusted, but do not take it like “watch your pockets”.
I think their work should be considered in the realm of philosophy rather than science.
There is no direct experiment to prove it.
The abuse of logic goes like this, random example taken after google it, from rationalwiki(???)About the argument from ignorance fallacy:
"Another form that this fallacy can take is the form that of an argument from incredulity (also known as argument from personal belief or argument from personal conviction) which is that one’s personal incredulity or credulity towards a premise is a logical reason for acceptance or rejection. This incredulity can stem from ignorance (defined as a lack of knowledge and experience) or from willful ignorance (defined as a flat out refusal to gain the knowledge). The concept of irreducible complexity is based entirely around this idea of personal incredulity. One person (Michael Behe) cannot see how something evolved naturally, therefore it can’t possibly evolve naturally. "
Who in this world have ever seen something evolving into a different species? Where is the experiment? Even if some think is true, it is pure imagination without the experiment.
They accuse the creationists of incredulity
You need to much credulity to believe it!

 

[Charlemagne_III]

You need to much credulity to believe it!

The evolutionist does ask for a degree of credulity, since, as you say, the experiments are not there to prove it all.

By the same token, the evolutionist ironically has no credulity when you show him the irreducibly complex organism as something that could not have just popped into existence on its own (abiogenesis).

You would think abiogenesis as intelligently designed would be even more credible than evolution, since we can detect design when we see it. We have not seen evolution, so much as theorized about it. There is even a case to be made that evolution itself is intelligently designed, but of course evolutionists want no part of that!

Getting back to Einstein, it was the presence of apparently intelligently designed laws that led him to believe in the existence of a Deity of some sort. He could never have been an atheist just for that reason alone. His heirs in the astronomical community seem to be divided on that score, but I attribute that to the desire to keep God out of all equations, a bias that Einstein did not possess.

 

[OneSheep]

The abuse of logic goes like this, random example taken after google it, from rationalwiki(???)About the argument from ignorance fallacy:
"Another form that this fallacy can take is the form that of an argument from incredulity (also known as argument from personal belief or argument from personal conviction) which is that one’s personal incredulity or credulity towards a premise is a logical reason for acceptance or rejection. This incredulity can stem from ignorance (defined as a lack of knowledge and experience) or from willful ignorance (defined as a flat out refusal to gain the knowledge). The concept of irreducible complexity is based entirely around this idea of personal incredulity. One person (Michael Behe) cannot see how something evolved naturally, therefore it can’t possibly evolve naturally. "
Who in this world have ever seen something evolving into a different species? Where is the experiment? Even if some think is true, it is pure imagination without the experiment.
They accuse the creationists of incredulity
You need to much credulity to believe it!

“one’s personal incredulity or credulity towards a premise is a logical reason for acceptance or rejection”

If this is a fallacy, then every human on Earth is guilty of its violation, and for good reason. If something doesn’t make sense to us, do we ordinarily believe it? I don’t.

If a premise is unbelievable to someone, that person would need more evidence in order to establish its truth. Outright refusal to listen to view evidence, well, that has to do with obstinance. Should there be an “obstinance fallacy”. Sheesh.

That the “ignorance fallacy” is a fallacy is unbelievable to me, I therefore reject it.

FYI: I think we are supposed to avoid talking about evolution on this forum. The Church does not take issue with evolutionary theory anyway. ET says “how” and “when”. The Church says “why” and “who”. I leave it at that. I respect all other positions. It has no effect on my faith.