quote:

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." So said Albert Einstein, and his famous aphorism has been the source of endless debate between believers and non-believers wanting to claim the greatest scientist of the 20th century as their own. A little known letter written by him, however, may help to settle the argument - or at least provoke further controversy about his views. Due to be auctioned this week in London after being in a private collection for more than 50 years, the document leaves no doubt that the theoretical physicist was no supporter of religious beliefs, which he regarded as "childish superstitions". Einstein penned the letter on January 3 1954 to the philosopher Eric Gutkind who had sent him a copy of his book Choose Life: The Biblical Call to Revolt. The letter went on public sale a year later and has remained in private hands ever since. In the letter, he states: "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." Einstein, who was Jewish and who declined an offer to be the state of Israel's second president, also rejected the idea that the Jews are God's favoured people. "For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them." The letter will go on sale at Bloomsbury Auctions in Mayfair on Thursday and is expected to fetch up to £8,000. The handwritten piece, in German, is not listed in the source material of the most authoritative academic text on the subject, Max Jammer's book Einstein and Religion. One of the country's leading experts on the scientist, John Brooke of Oxford University, admitted he had not heard of it. Einstein is best known for his theories of relativity and for the famous E=mc2 equation that describes the equivalence of mass and energy, but his thoughts on religion have long attracted conjecture. His parents were not religious but he attended a Catholic primary school and at the same time received private tuition in Judaism. This prompted what he later called, his "religious paradise of youth", during which he observed religious rules such as not eating pork. This did not last long though and by 12 he was questioning the truth of many biblical stories. "The consequence was a positively fanatic [orgy of] freethinking coupled with the impression that youth is being deceived by the state through lies; it was a crushing impression," he later wrote. In his later years he referred to a "cosmic religious feeling" that permeated and sustained his scientific work. In 1954, a year before his death, he spoke of wishing to "experience the universe as a single cosmic whole". He was also fond of using religious flourishes, in 1926 declaring that "He [God] does not throw dice" when referring to randomness thrown up by quantum theory. His position on God has been widely misrepresented by people on both sides of the atheism/religion divide but he always resisted easy stereotyping on the subject. "Like other great scientists he does not fit the boxes in which popular polemicists like to pigeonhole him," said Brooke. "It is clear for example that he had respect for the religious values enshrined within Judaic and Christian traditions ... but what he understood by religion was something far more subtle than what is usually meant by the word in popular discussion." Despite his categorical rejection of conventional religion, Brooke said that Einstein became angry when his views were appropriated by evangelists for atheism. He was offended by their lack of humility and once wrote. "The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2...ss&feed=science

And I hope this reminds partisans from both sides that he was a physicist, not a theologian. I never really understood why people felt compelled to bring this up in debates about religion anyway...

___________________
Indiana Clones Upcoming Sets
[ I May Upload Something Someday ]

quote:

Originally posted by Lira I never really understood why people felt compelled to bring this up in debates about religion anyway...

News to me. I've never even HEARD people bring up Einstein in religious debates before.
Then again I usually try to steer clear of any talk on religion if it arises.

The title of this article is terrible, as it is not only sensationalist, but also contains one of the worst puns I've ever heard. ughhh painful

___________________
8.28 - Butane + Pezzner LIVE
9.25 - Par Grindvik


Take a trip... there's acid in my fridge...

quote:

Originally posted by Lira And I hope this reminds partisans from both sides that he was a physicist, not a theologian. I never really understood why people felt compelled to bring this up in debates about religion anyway...

I think a lot of that has to do with Einstein's own vagueness on the issue, as his clear disdain for zealots of any kind often seems to be misappropriated as an argument for or against religion generally.

This is an awesome piece of history going on sale here - and if anything, what I take away from it is a clearly brilliant man who was suspicious of anyone with an agenda, and who felt that though organized religion was little more than childish superstition, still acknowledged his own sense of wonder at the universe around him as so infinitely complex that to discount the possibility of anything would be a failure to recognize that the universe as a whole is larger than all of us, and will conduct itself as it sees fit, regardless of the beliefs of man.

___________________
last minute disco dot net

quote:

Originally posted by beema News to me. I've never even HEARD people bring up Einstein in religious debates before. Then again I usually try to steer clear of any talk on religion if it arises. The title of this article is terrible, as it is not only sensationalist, but also contains one of the worst puns I've ever heard. ughhh painful

Pun? And the Guardian is not exactly a sensationalist paper =/

Oh, well, here's an abridged version of the letter...

quote:

... I read a great deal in the last days of your book, and thank you very much for sending it to me. What especially struck me about it was this. With regard to the factual attitude to life and to the human community we have a great deal in common. ... The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them. In general I find it painful that you claim a privileged position and try to defend it by two walls of pride, an external one as a man and an internal one as a Jew. As a man you claim, so to speak, a dispensation from causality otherwise accepted, as a Jew the priviliege of monotheism. But a limited causality is no longer a causality at all, as our wonderful Spinoza recognized with all incision, probably as the first one. And the animistic interpretations of the religions of nature are in principle not annulled by monopolisation. With such walls we can only attain a certain self-deception, but our moral efforts are not furthered by them. On the contrary. Now that I have quite openly stated our differences in intellectual convictions it is still clear to me that we are quite close to each other in essential things, ie in our evalutations of human behaviour. What separates us are only intellectual 'props' and 'rationalisation' in Freud's language. Therefore I think that we would understand each other quite well if we talked about concrete things. With friendly thanks and best wishes Yours, A. Einstein

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2...ss&feed=science

___________________
Indiana Clones Upcoming Sets
[ I May Upload Something Someday ]

quote:

Originally posted by RJT I think a lot of that has to do with Einstein's own vagueness on the issue, as his clear disdain for zealots of any kind often seems to be misappropriated as an argument for or against religion generally. This is an awesome piece of history going on sale here - and if anything, what I take away from it is a clearly brilliant man who was suspicious of anyone with an agenda, and who felt that though organized religion was little more than childish superstition, still acknowledged his own sense of wonder at the universe around him as so infinitely complex that to discount the possibility of anything would be a failure to recognize that the universe as a whole is larger than all of us, and will conduct itself as it sees fit, regardless of the beliefs of man.

I'm glad to know you find it inspiring

I myself wouldn't disagree with him but, due to my different interests, I believe I've got an even more pragmatic take on religion and the supernatural and so on.

___________________
Indiana Clones Upcoming Sets
[ I May Upload Something Someday ]

krypton will be devastated. you should put an "FAO Krypton" in the thread title

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Pun? And the Guardian is not exactly a sensationalist paper =/

I know it's not, which is why I made a point of noting it. Heading the title of your article in reference to religion "Childish Superstition" is pretty sensationalist if you ask me, even if it's from a quote within the article. They could've just as easily titled it "Einstein's Views On Religion Explained In Revealing Letter" or something. Titling it the way they did is way more likely to get ignorant people all rilled up.

As for the pun:
"...makes view of religion relatively clear"

relatively
theory of relativity
do I have to spell it out?

there is no other reason for them to have used that particular word and wording in that title other than a really crappy pun.

___________________
8.28 - Butane + Pezzner LIVE
9.25 - Par Grindvik


Take a trip... there's acid in my fridge...

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN krypton will be devastated. you should put an "FAO Krypton" in the thread title

He believed in Spinoza's god. Did I ever say a Judeo-Christian god?

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton He believed in Spinoza's god. Did I ever say a Judeo-Christian god?

he doesn't believe in god, period. ANY god. he might use the term as a euphamism for "the cosmos" but he never believed in a deity.

that's just how it is. im sorry you dont like them apples.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN ANY god. he might use the term as a euphamism for "the cosmos" but he never believed in a deity.

Plagiarism! Dawkins.

___________________
Everything is beautiful. Let the music carry you. Baby I will follow you forever. Nowhere else I'd rather be when you're lying next to me. Let the music carry us together.
anti-JennyPie Alliance
SuspicionVandit: Are you God?
Paul Van Dyk 09-24-2009: No, but I can sign your sleeve under that name if you let me!

quote:

Originally posted by SuspicionVandit Plagiarism! Dawkins.

i wouldnt be surprised i did love love love that book.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN he doesn't believe in god, period. ANY god. he might use the term as a euphamism for "the cosmos" but he never believed in a deity. that's just how it is. im sorry you dont like them apples.

Nahh. I disagree...Let's take a look at Einstein's quote...

“I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings” -Einstein

Now Spinoza's god...

quote:

Spinoza’s Ethics ....................... Spinoza begins by describing what can be known about God. God is infinite being, according to Spinoza. God is infinite substance, consisting of infinite attributes, each of which expresses God’s eternal and infinite essence (I, Prop. XI).1 God necessarily exists, argues Spinoza, because God’s essence is existence. God’s essence is perfect, and therefore God's perfection implies that God must exist. God’s essence and existence are the same (I, Prop. XX). Each attribute which expresses God’s essence also expresses God’s existence. According to Spinoza, infinite substance is indivisible (I, Prop. XIII). If infinite substance were divisible, it could either be divided into two finite parts, which is impossible, or it could be divided into two equally infinite parts, which is also impossible. Thus, there is only one infinite substance. Since God is infinite substance, Spinoza argues, no attribute which expresses the essence of substance can be denied of God (I, Prop. XIV). Every being has its being in God. Nothing can come into being or exist without God. According to Spinoza, the will and the intellect are modes of thought. The will is the same as the intellect. In God, intellect is actual and not potential, because in God intellect is fully actualized. This means that things must necessarily occur in the manner in which they occur, because the intellect or will of God is fully actualized. For Spinoza, God is the necessary cause of all things. All things by nature proceed from necessity. All things are predetermined by God, and for anything that exists, some effect must follow. Spinoza argues that thought is one of the attributes of God (II, Prop. I). God can think an infinite number of things in an infinite number of ways. God’s infinite intellect comprehends all of God’s attributes. According to Spinoza, God is the essence of substance. Thought and extension are attributes of God. Thus, God is the essence of thinking substance (i.e. mind) and of extended substance (i.e. body). Substance is defined by Spinoza as a mode of being which implies necessary existence. God is infinite substance, and outside of God no other substance is possible. Thus, Spinoza’s philosophy is pantheistic, in that it claims that God is present in all things. Spinoza argues that the human mind is a part of the infinite intellect of God (II, Prop. XI, Corollary). All ideas are present in the intellect of God. Ideas are true and adequate insofar as they refer to God. Ideas that logically follow from adequate ideas are also adequate. Ideas are false and inadequate insofar as they do not express the essence of God. According to Spinoza, an idea is adequate and perfect insofar as it represents knowledge of the eternal and infinite essence of God. Spinoza says that, since the idea of anything actually existing must come from God, the human mind is capable of knowing God (II, Prop. XLV). For Spinoza, the will cannot be separated from the intellect. There is no such thing as free will, because the human mind is determined in its willing by a cause other than itself. God’s will, which has no cause other than itself, reveals itself by necessity rather than by freedom. Thus, Spinoza explains that the will can only be a necessary cause of action, and not a free cause of action (I, Prop. XXXII). Spinoza also argues that from any idea, an effect must necessarily follow. Insofar as an idea adequately refers to God, its effect is caused immediately by God. Insofar as an idea inadequately refers to God, its effect has intermediary causes and is not caused immediately by God. Spinoza explains that the human mind may have both adequate and inadequate ideas. The mind is active insofar as it has adequate ideas, and is passive insofar as it has inadequate ideas. The mind may have more or less adequate ideas, according to whether it is more or less subject to reason. The mind may have more or less inadequate ideas, according to whether it is more or less subject to emotion. According to Spinoza there are three primary emotions: desire, pleasure, and pain. All emotions arise from desire, pleasure, or pain. Desire may arise from either pleasure or pain. Pleasure may be produced by a transition from a lesser to a greater state of perfection. Pain may be produced by a transition from a greater to a lesser state of perfection. For Spinoza, perfection is the same as reality II, Def. VI). The more perfect a thing is, the more real it is. Inasmuch as God is absolutely perfect, God is also absolutely real. God is infinitely perfect and infinitely real. Spinoza claims that the more perfect a thing is, the more active and less passive it is. The more active a thing is, the more it becomes perfect (IV, Prop. XL). Perfection and imperfection are modes of thought.2 The mind is most perfect when it knows God. Spinoza argues that knowledge of good and evil arises from the awareness of what causes pleasure and pain. The greatest good of the mind, and its greatest virtue, is to know God (IV, Prop. XXVIII). To act with virtue is to act according to reason (IV, Prop. XXXVI). If we act according to reason, then we desire only what is good. If we act according to reason, then we try to promote what is good not only for ourselves but for others. Freedom is the ability to act according to reason. Freedom is not the ability to make free, undetermined choices. Freedom is the ability to act rationally and to control the emotions. Servitude is the inability to act rationally or to control the emotions. Spinoza admits that all emotions may not necessarily conflict with reason. Emotions which agree with reason may cause pleasure, while emotions which do not agree with reason may cause pain. Inability to control the emotions may cause pain. According to Spinoza, pain is the knowledge of evil. Pain arises from inadequate ideas, i.e. ideas which do not adequately express the essence of God. Knowledge of evil is thus inadequate knowledge (IV, Prop. XIV). Pleasure is knowledge of what is good. Pleasure arises from adequate ideas, i.e. ideas which adequately express the essence of God. Knowledge of good is thus adequate knowledge. Spinoza argues that to live according to reason is to live freely, and is not to live in servitude to the emotions. If we act according to reason, then we are guided by love and good-will and not by fear or hatred. Spinoza maintains that reason can control the emotions. Reason is virtue, and virtue is love toward God. The more we love God, the more we are able to control our emotions (V, Prop. XLII, Proof). The better we can control our emotions, the better we can understand God. For Spinoza, the more active the mind is, the more adequately it knows God. The more passive the mind is, the less adequately it knows God. The more active the mind is, the more it is able to avoid emotions which are evil. The more passive the mind is, the more it accepts emotions which are evil. The question arises as to whether Spinoza’s philosophy is able to reconcile the existence of good with the existence of evil, or the existence of truth with the existence of falsehood. If God is infinite substance, then how can any kind of evil or falsehood occur? If God is perfect, then how can God allow the existence of evil or suffering? Spinoza’s answer is that evil is a lack of good and that falsehood is a lack of truth. Error and falsehood arise from inadequate knowledge of God. Knowledge of evil arises from inadequate ideas, i.e. ideas that do not adequately refer to God. Knowledge of good arises from adequate ideas, i.e. ideas that adequately refer to God. Spinoza argues that all ideas are found in God, but that ideas are true only insofar as they adequately refer to God. Truth is adequate knowledge, but falsehood is inadequate knowledge. FOOTNOTES 1Benedict Spinoza, "Ethic," in Spinoza: Selections, edited by John Wild (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1930), p. 103. 2Ibid., p. 284. BIBLIOGRAPHY Spinoza, Benedict. "Ethic," in Spinoza: Selections. Edited by John Wild. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1930.

http://www.angelfire.com/md2/timewarp/spinoza.html

Now you are coming out and saying Einstein was a complete bonafide atheist. You're wrong.

___________________