Atheism V's Theism.

http://www.skeptically.org/thinkersonreligion/id8.html

Einstein was an agnostic, but for a public face he--for practical reasons--wished to keep his lack of faith from the public. The press and the church wanted people to believe that he was a man of faith, and they succeeded.

One must distingush the public face from the private reality. His comments on god said in public are quite different from his personal writings. One such example:

"From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.... I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our being."

 

By the way, Einstein describes me perfectly in that quotation. I am one such "atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth."

 

Did I say anything about Einstein being a theist? No? Oh well... Einstein was not a theist, yet Einstein acknowledged God and how he envisioned God viewing mankind. That says a lot about what scientists of world acclaim will iterate regarding God. Which in my analysis says more and holds more credibility than what you would say crosses the minds of the great scientists of the world. (past or present).

 

Please do provide such a quote minus the paraphrasing. Also show how those quotes can be translated into the paraphrase that you suggested.

 

I already have. See above.

 

Thanks yguy... it seems that I have overlooked that most infamous quotation. Love it.

 

Then providing verbatim quotes to that effect will surely be no problem at all.

Seeing how not a syllable of this indicates that he was not a theist, I'd say you're going to have to make it infinitely more plain.

Since he very plainly affirmed a belief in God, those affirmations would not constitute mere reticence, but rather outright lying.

Which of course he was:

Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason.

I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.​

Who gives a damm?

 

LOL, pot meet kettle.

Perhaps you should read about what is meant by "Spinoza's god". It's basically pantheism, which is to say, god is nature. That is NOT theism.

 

I don't know who in Hell you think you're kidding. Anyone who believes in a god or gods is a theist, and Einstein made his belief clear in that regard. So stop acting like a bloody moron, TIA.

 

Huh? The very purpose of the quote you posted was for Einstein to say that he was NOT a theist.

 

it is kind of hard to see the difference between saying the universe is god and there is no god seems like your describing the same thing unless you saying there’s some kind of cosmic will

 

Wrong. Deists, pantheists etc. believe in a god, but they aren't considered theists. Reason?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism

Theism, in the broadest sense, is the belief that at least one deity exists. In a more specific sense, theism is a doctrine concerning the nature of a monotheistic God and God's relationship to the universe. Theism, in this specific sense, conceives of God as personal, present and active in the governance and organization of the world and the universe. As such theism describes the classical conception of God that is found in Christianity, Judaism, Islam and some forms of Hinduism. The use of the word theism to indicate this classical form of monotheism began during the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century in order to distinguish it from the then-emerging deism which contended that God, though transcendent and supreme, did not intervene in the natural world and could be known rationally but not via revelation.

 

You evidentlyly have me confused with someone else, as I never posted any such quote.

 

Eh, it depends on how you are using the word. That's the problem with these semantic games, because definitions ebb and flow constantly.

 

I would say it means people need to put some care into understanding the terms they throw around.

 

This is why I think we need, especially atheists, need to place less reliance on these titles and deal with the ideas behind them because everybody just gets friggin' confused.

 

Every sane person draws a line somewhere. Can the universe itself be called god? Can the sun be called a god? Is Frank Black a god of rock? Can I grab a pencil off my desk and say it's god?

When you're taking material things that are known to exist, and not imbuing them with any additional power or purpose, can you honestly call that thing a god?

Of course you can. But by the same token, I can disagree. A pantheist god - the kind that is nothing more or less than the universe itself - is not an actual god, in my view, so pantheists are not really theists. But I can't blame you if you think they are.

 

Fair enough. In that vein, then, Einstein clearly expressed that he was not a believer in a personal god, but found the idea "childish." Thus, if theists (the people who believe in the god of the bible) want to claim Einstein as one of their own, they are very sorely mistaken to do so.

 

I see no reason to think Einstein believed in such a God, his professed affinity for Spinoza's ideas notwithstanding:

About God, I cannot accept any concept based on the authority of the Church. As long as I can remember, I have resented mass indocrination. I do not believe in the fear of life, in the fear of death, in blind faith. I cannot prove to you that there is no personal God, but if I were to speak of him, I would be a liar. I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil. My God created laws that take care of that. His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking, but by immutable laws.​

It is patently absurd to believe the universe created the laws by which it operates, and I see no reason to think Einstein harbored any such belief; and while he certainly rejects a personal God who is concerned with human affairs, he clearly believed in an intelligent Designer whether he saw fit to call Him a person or not.

 

Unless you have a quote in which he said he believed the universe was designed, or that his idea of god was one that is intelligent, then it definitely isn't clear that he believed that. He said he believed in Spinoza's god. That is the clearest, most direct description he made of his own belief on the matter. Spinoza's god, being the entire natural world, is incapable (as a whole) of intelligent and designed creation.

 

It's absurd to assume that any intelligent agent had to create the universal laws, and Einstein was not claiming that a creator god such as Yahweh did that. His use of "God" is not theistic in nature; it's simply applying the name "God" to whatever the Universe actually sprang from, i.e. to whatever it was that caused the Universe to be what it is today.

 

The truth of the matter is we simply don't know. We have not yet gathered enough evidence to know. So to conclude, based on incomplete, or inconclusive evience, that a certain thing exists is, in my view, imprudent at best.

 

Not sure how it’s absurd for things to just have a nature

it is absurd to think the universe can’t have a nature of its own without some one designing it and then believe the designer is not subject to the exact same problem

 

There seems to be no bottom to the pit of stupidity certain members of this board are content to wallow in.

 

o that’s true in more ways than you or i may care to believe