|
Science vs. Creationism (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| colonelcrisp |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Since the thread changed focus from Creationism vs. Science oddly enough to Religion vs. Science, as much as athiest despise religion, interestingly enough most scientific thought is indirectly a by product of religion, with the exception of the modern era. That's simply a fact, in the sense that majority of the foundational work and inovations in though came from heavily religious societies, who also gave you your modern institutions. So it's always amusing to see athiest and their hatred for organized religion completely overriding their rational thought process and acknolwedgement of historical record of the developement of human thought. |
This is a very good point shaolin, but i would just like to point out that while the founding fathers of modern science were very religious men, and many scientists today are still religious, Scientific views evolve with new findings and theories, where organized religion is notorious for resisting change.... the vatican did not officially admit that the earth revolved around the sun until 1992 (350 years after galilleo was forced to recant his observations by the inquisitors). |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
The fact that all societies have been religious since day 1 isn't the same thing as religion being responsible for scientific advancement. Indeed I would say the scientific knowledge often came about despite religious belief, not because of it. Just because a particular discovery was made by someone that believed in god does not mean that the discovery was due to religion. It’s a nice little non sequitur. I mean, sure, something like the printing press was in part inspired by the need to print the king james, but that would be ignoring the hundreds of years the church banned chrisitianity from being expressed in any language other than latin.
I would enjoy someone providing some specific examples of how religious thought has directly advanced scientific knowledge if anyone has some for me? |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
I would enjoy someone providing some specific examples of how religious thought has directly advanced scientific knowledge if anyone has some for me? |
I'll put forward the one and only Albert Einstein. The way he viewed the universe was to imagine, "What if I were god; how would I construct the universe?" One of the very reasons Einstein refused to acknowledge quantum mechanics was his disbelief in uncertainty. It seemed he believed in the same kind of mechanical universe as Isaac Newton did. I see your view of science and religion being incompatible as rather extreme. Many of humanity's best and brightest scientific minds were theists. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Many of humanity's best and brightest scientific minds were theists. |
i hate to break it to you, but einstein was absolutely certainly positively NOT one of them ;) |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
i hate to break it to you, but einstein was absolutely certainly positively NOT one of them ;) |
"A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which are only accessible to our reason in their most elementary forms—it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man." Einstein, Albert (1949). The World as I See It
Einstein has argued conflicts between science and religion "have all sprung from fatal errors." "[E]ven though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other" there are "strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies … science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind … a legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot exist." In Einstein's view, "neither the rule of human nor Divine Will exists as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted … by science, for [it] can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot." (Einstein 1940, pp. 605–607) |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: |
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. |
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/alber...on-theology.htm
there are other quotes examined in the god delusion, but i dont remember off the top of my head what they are. i think this quote sums it up pretty well though. |
|
|
| Krypton |
Einstein did not believe in the Judeo-Christian personable model of god. That does not mean he was an atheist.
"I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind." -Brian, Dennis (1996), Einstein: A Life, New York: John Wiley & Sons, p. 127
"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment." -Albert Einstein in a letter to M. Berkowitz, October 25, 1950; Einstein Archive 59-215; from Alice Calaprice, ed., The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2000, p. 216. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Einstein did not believe in the Judeo-Christian personable model of god. That does not mean he was an atheist. |
im not throwing around labels, just stating that einstein did not believe in god. call that whatever you will, try and play some BS pedantic game all you want, it doesn't change the fact that einstein does not believe in a deity according to any religion on the planet.
the use of "god" that you have quoted certainly does not refer to a deity. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
im not throwing around labels, just stating that einstein did not believe in god. call that whatever you will, try and play some BS pedantic game all you want, it doesn't change the fact that einstein does not believe in a deity according to any religion on the planet.
the use of "god" that you have quoted certainly does not refer to a deity. |
Why should I simply take your word for it? Otherwise, he would not go through the trouble of claiming to be an agnostic. Your assertion that religious philosophy and scientific theory are completely incompatible is rather shallow in my view, and as I have demonstrated again, some of the most brillian scientific minds we no atheists, including Einstein. Yes, he did not follow a specific religious doctrine, but he still believed in something
"I'm 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 different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. 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. We see a universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's pantheism, but admire even more his contributions to modern thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and the body as one, not two separate things." -Einstein quoted in Glimpses of the Great (1930) by G. S. Viereck |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Why should I simply take your word for it? I clearly see him as believing in something. Otherwise, he would not go through the trouble of claiming to be an agnostic. |
and how the hell does einstein being agnostic count as a religiously-influenced scientific discovery? (which is what i asked you to begin with) :rolleyes:
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Your assertion that religious philosophy and scientific theory are completely incompatible is rather shallow in my view, |
where did i say they were incompatible? that's right, i didn't. what i did say was that equating the influence of religion with scientific discovery is (more or less) fallacious.
but it doesn't seem to stop you playing the same old tune does it...
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
and as I have demonstrated again, some of the most brillian scientific minds we no atheists, including Einstein... |
religion has been a very powerful influence since history began, so it is no surprise to see those born in less enlightened times to be bearing the superstition socially acceptable at the time. why you think this historically important influence of religion is relevant to a completely separate and scientific enquiry is beyond me. it makes no sense.
which is my point. illustrate a causal relationship. note: scientist X discovering Y whilst also holding a belief in god is not a causal relationship.
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
"I'm 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 different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. 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. We see a universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's pantheism, but admire even more his contributions to modern thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and the body as one, not two separate things." -Einstein quoted in Glimpses of the Great (1930) by G. S. Viereck |
sheesh. that's just another way of saying "i dont believe in god but gee isn't the universe a weird and wonderful place". i know youre desperate to claim him as your own (as theists have tried to do before you) but its a retarded argument. einstein clearly didn't believe in an omnipotent deity that created the universe along the lines of any of the major religions.
back to my original point though, einstein theories were not developed due to religion. not even remotely.
| quote: |
Philosophy of Science
Did Einstein Believe in God?
When Einstein, famously, said that "God does NOT play dice", did that mean that he believed in God?
On the face of it, the answer is Yes. Hence it is not surprising that many people who say they believe in God, like to appeal to Einstein's authority in defence of their own beliefs. It gives them comfort to be able to say that such a great man shared their religious beliefs.
But appeals to authority are fraught with peril. What if it turns out that the god that Einstein was referring to is nothing like the god of the believer? Will the believer change his or her religion so as to bring it in line with that of Einstein?
When someone says, "I believe in God", the first question we need to ask is "Which God?"
Einstein, of course, was the son of Jewish parents. Was he, therefore, referring to the Jewish God whose chief prophet was Moses? Or, since he spent a good deal of his life in a "Christian" country, the United States of America, was he referring to the Christian God whose chief prophet was Jesus? Or could he have been referring to some other god? After all, experts in comparative religion can list well over 240 gods in whom people have believed.
Gods and religions
In order to plot Einstein's location on the spectrum of religious belief and disbelief it will be helpful to distinguish between the following:
Polytheism
Some people have believed in the existence of many gods. They conceive of their gods as supernatural beings who intervene in the natural world from time to time, performing so-called miracles, and interact with human beings usually in person.
They are called polytheists. The traditional religions of the ancient Greeks and Romans, for example, were polytheistic religions. So are hinduism and mahayana buddhism (as distinct from therevada buddhism).
Criticisms of polytheistic religions usually take the form of allegations that gods like Mars (god of war), Venus (goddess of love), and Pluto (god of death) were simply imagined projections of human attributes and experiences and have no real existence outside the human mind.
Clearly, Einstein wasn't a polytheist, since he used the singular term "God", rather than the plural "gods".
Monotheism
Sometime around 1350 B.C.E. (Before the Common Era) certain religious thinkers abandoned the polytheism of their ancestors and came to believe in the existence of just one god, not many. According to the founder of psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud, an Egyptian pharaoh by the name of Akhenaten (husband of the well-known Queen Nefertiti and, possibly, father of the even more famous "King Tut", Tutankhamen) was the founder of monotheism, with the Hebrew leader, Moses, following closely in his footsteps.
But the monotheistic religion that Akhenaten established was soon abandoned. The main monotheistic religions that survived are widely known as "Mosaic" religions. These are:
▪ Judaism (whose god, Yaweh, chose Moses as his chief prophet)
▪ Christianity (whose god, the Christian God, chose his son Jesus as his chief prophet)
▪ Islam (whose god, Allah, chose Mohammed as his chief prophet).
Clearly, each of these religions conceives of their God as being different from the God of each of the others, since each attributes different properties to its own "God" (properties that are incompatible with those attributed to the other "God"s). Because of the doctrinal differences between them, they have become logical rivals to one another: at best only one of them could be true. And sadly, history shows that they have become bitter rivals of one another on the battlefield as well.
What they share in common, however, are three main beliefs:
▪ that there exists only one supremely intelligent personal being who, by virtue of being the designer and creator of the natural world, has a supernatural mode of existence
▪ that this supreme being performs miracles from time to time
▪ that this supreme being has revealed himself in sacred texts like the Jewish Torah (Old Testament), the Christian Bible (Old and New Testaments), and the Muslim Koran.
Each of these theistic religions has been criticised, not only by followers of rival religions, but also by thinkers who reject them all. It has been argued, for instance, that:
▪ since they are logically incompatible, at best only one of them can be true;
▪ the alleged evidences - like miracles - cited in support of any one of them are negated by the evidences cited in support of its rivals;
▪ each is torn apart by rival sects each one of which claims to be the only true religion;
▪ since the sacred scriptures of each religion contain logical inconsistencies and factual errors about matters of history and science, they should be recognised as man-made, not the inerrant word of the God they supposedly reveal;
▪ the existence of a supreme being - supreme in intelligence and moral virtue - can't be reconciled with the evil nature of the world he has allegedly designed and created; and that
▪ the moral viewpoints of all three are primitive and out of tune with the needs and aspirations of modern humans.
For reasons like these, many liberal theologians have rejected the certitudes of their fundamentalist brethren. Within the ranks of Christian bishops and theologians, for example, there are some who claim that it is a mistake to think of God as a supernatural being "out there". And some critics have even gone so far as to question whether Moses and Jesus were genuine historical figures since, outside the Bible, there seems not to be any reliable evidence that either actually existed. Not surprisingly, these defectors from orthodoxy have been labelled "atheists" by those of a more conservative leaning.
How many of these criticisms Einstein himself would have wanted to make is unclear. But he has stated unequivocally that, by the age of twelve, he had rejected any sort of theistic religion. He could no longer bring himself to believe in any sort of miracle-performing God of the sort that was supposedly revealed in the Torah, the Bible or the Koran.
But the ideas of miracles and revelation are definitionally required of theism. So it follows when that Einstein used the expressions "God", or "the Lord", or "the Old One", he must have been referring to the god of some nontheistic (i.e., atheistic) religion. But which?
Deism
Deists don't go as far as the liberal theologians mentioned above. They still believe in the existence of a supernatural being who created the universe and set it in motion. But in their view, this being has declined thereafter to intervene in its affairs or to reveal himself/herself to us. They believe in a Supreme Being, but decline to identify this god with the "God" of Judaism, or of Christianity, or of Islam. In short, of the three main beliefs shared by all theistic religions, they retain only:
▪ that there exists only one supremely intelligent personal being who, by virtue of being the designer and creator of the natural world, has a supernatural mode of existence
While rejecting both:
▪ that this supreme being performs miracles from time to time
▪ that this supreme being has revealed himself in sacred texts like the Jewish Torah (Old Testament), the Christian Bible (Old and New Testaments), and the Muslim Koran
Not surprisingly, since deists reject all forms of theistic religion, they are often called atheists. And in one sense of the word, they are. So it is not surprising that, in the history of religion, many deists have been lumped together with other atheists and persecuted accordingly. Yet deists share with theists a belief in the existence of a supreme Creator-god whereas in a stricter sense of the word, atheists don't believe in any sort of god whatever.
According to deists, most of the arguments for theism are residues of superstition. The main argument that they think carries some weight is that from the need to explain why the universe exists in the first place. Surely, they would say, it must have been caused to exist by some pre-existing being, namely God. Yet this argument, too, has its critics. Some liberal Christian theologians, for example, would point out that to try explaining why the natural world exists by postulating a being in a supernatural one is to embark on an endless quest. For then the question arises, "Who caused God to exist?" There seems to be no escape from the dilemma: Either something can exist without having been caused to exist by something else (in which case there is no reason why the natural world should not be that thing) or there must be a cause for God, and for the being that caused him, and so on, ad infinitum.
Was Einstein a deist? It seems not. Indeed, as we shall see, he rejected the concept of any sort of supernatural being or god distinct from nature. His god is to be identified with nature itself.
Pantheism
Pantheists believe that nature itself deserves to be called "God" since nature itself deserves our feelings of reverence and awe. For the pantheist, nothing is more worthy of reverence, or even worship, than the awesome power and beauty of the cosmos itself.
Pantheism caters to the emotional need that many people feel for so-called "spiritual (as opposed to materialistic) values", a need to value something beyond themselves or even the human race.
Pantheism has a long and distinguished history. It has included several philosophers such as the seventeenth century philosopher Baruch Spinoza. Certain versions of Taoism are pantheistic. So is Therevada Buddhism. As Einstein pointed out:
[Therevada] Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be expected in a cosmic religion for the future: it transcends a personal God, avoids dogmas and theology; it covers both the natural and spiritual, and it is based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity.
Einstein himself, it turns out, was a pantheist. In his own words:
A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestation of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this sense alone, I am a deeply religious man.
Moreover, Einstein strongly resented having his religious convictions misrepresented:
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
Clearly, Einstein's "God" is not at all like the God that most people think of when they hear the word. Neither is the "God" of the famous cosmologist and mathematician, Stephen Hawking, whose talk of "the mind of God" has given comfort to many religious believers. Hawking also is a pantheist. When asked by CNN's Larry King whether he believed in God, Hawking answered:
Yes, if by God is meant the embodiment of the laws of the universe.
We began by asking "Did Einstein believe in God?" The answer, as Hawking pointed out, depends on what you mean by "God". In one sense (the Pantheist sense), Einstein did believe in God. But in another sense he didn't. Indeed, except for his deciding to use the term "God" in a way that is unfamiliar to most people, his views are indistinguishable from those of someone who is an unabashed atheist.
Atheism
The term "atheist" is usually reserved for someone who doesn't believe in any supernatural God or gods whatever, and who - in order to avoid being misunderstood - doesn't use the word "God" to refer to anything at all.
Although the term "atheist" has negative connotations for many people, it is worth remembering that in the strict sense of the word, the term applies to many of the most thoughtful and highly moral people throughout history. As we have seen, it applies to many liberal Christians, Jews, and Muslims; it applies to Deists; and it applies to Pantheists like Einstein.
It is worth remembering, too, that atheists are not alone in their disbelief. Theists don't believe in the existence of any God other than their own. A Christian, for example, no more believes in the existence of any of the pagan gods such as Mars, Venus, or Pluto, than he or she believes is Santa Claus or the tooth-fairy. An atheist just adds the theist's God to the list of those in whom he or she sees no good reason to believe. All, an atheist would say, are products of superstition. |
http://www.eequalsmcsquared.aucklan...instein_god.cfm
edit: i would like to point out that einstein's beliefs are immaterial to me - i merely resent him being trotted out as a believer (as if this somehow makes religious belief scientifically supportable). |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
and how the hell does einstein being agnostic count as a religiously-influenced scientific discovery? (which is what i asked you to begin with) :rolleyes: |
Well, this all started when I said many of the greatest scientific minds in history were not atheists, which is what I'm assuming is your belief. Religion is not science, therefore you wouldn't be testing miracles in a laboratory. But that does not mean they are incompatible in different settings.
| quote: | | where did i say they were incompatible? that's right, i didn't. what i did say was that equating the influence of religion with scientific discovery is (more or less) fallacious. |
That's what I imply from your argument, and from countless threads before this. You regard religion as something to be eradicated. So what I am supposed think?
Scientific discovery does not involve untestable religion, but a scientist holding a religious worldview does not make him any less of a scientist.
| quote: | | but it doesn't seem to stop you playing the same old tune does it... |
Yea, consistency pisses you off doesn't it? o_0
| quote: | religion has been a very powerful influence since history began, so it is no surprise to see those born in less enlightened times to be bearing the superstition socially acceptable at the time. why you think this historically important influence of religion is relevant to a completely separate and scientific enquiry is beyond me. it makes no sense.
which is my point. illustrate a causal relationship. note: scientist X discovering Y whilst also holding a belief in god is not a causal relationship. |
Oh, so now you say these scientists were not atheist because of the time in history of which they lived? That is pure, as you Australians say (I think ;)) BULLOCKS. Let me make this clear once again. I believe science and religion as not compatible in the same setting, but in different settings, they are. So, I guess I'de agree with you that a scientific discovery may not be made simply because of religion. Then again, I could point to Einstein's perspective as, "If I were god, how would I construct the universe?"
| quote: | | sheesh. that's just another way of saying "i dont believe in god but gee isn't the universe a weird and wonderful place". i know youre desperate to claim him as your own (as theists have tried to do before you) but its a retarded argument. einstein clearly didn't believe in an omnipotent deity that created the universe along the lines of any of the major religions. |
It seems you skipped this part..."We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. 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."
I am no more desperate as you are to assert Einstein was a strong atheist. At the very most, he can be called a weak atheist.
| quote: | | back to my original point though, einstein theories were not developed due to religion. not even remotely. |
"If I were god, how would construct the universe." Thinking about subjects such as physics of the cosmos, it helps to start from a certain PERSPECTIVE. You can't just throw a bunch of numbers around.
| quote: | | edit: i would like to point out that einstein's beliefs are immaterial to me - i merely resent him being trotted out as a believer (as if this somehow makes religious belief scientifically supportable). |
A believer in what? I never trotted him around as high-flying believer in a Abrahamic god. I resent him being trotted as someone who was a strong atheist. As if he asserted a proposition that absolutely no gods exist. That is something that is contrary to his own record. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Well, this all started when I said many of the greatest scientific minds in history were not atheists, |
actually you said
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Many of humanity's best and brightest scientific minds were theists. |
and then mentioned einstein as an example. which just isn't correct. |
|
|
|
|
