I've been told several times over the years that Albert Einstein was religious, or at least believed in god, and being a scientist and smart this somehow is proof of the existence of god. I never understood this need to make scientists religious. So what, it makes no difference if they are religious, if they do good science. Well it turns out that these religious assertions seem to be false. Einstein sure doesn't sound like a believer to me:
Einsteins Letter
So what does this mean, other than the fact that the religious can't use this argument anymore, which wasn't really and argument but information, nothing. It's not a big deal. I just thought it was interesting:) I'm sure I'll hear he recanted on his deathbed, just like Darwin and whoever, but none of that can be proven. In fact noted Atheist, Richard Dawkin's is going to have his death recorded so they can't say that about him, now that's dedication!;)
Best,
Brett
16 comments:
I think there is sometimes a misinterpatation of Einstein's beliefs. He was Jewish, but admantly disagreed with the Jewish view of God, and definatley was not a Christian. On the other hand he believed the Universe was too complex to have arrived by undirected chance or random evolution. He believed in "god" but not "God." As best as I can figure out he believed in almost a Gaya-like type of sentinient universe.
"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."
—W. Hermanns, Einstein and the Poet—In Search of the Cosmic Man (Branden Press, Brookline Village, Mass., 1983), p.132, quoted in Jammer, p.123.
-Steve
To me that sounds like Einstein's god was science and the natural world/universe/laws of physics. It's sort of ambibuous, it sounds sort of agnostic too. That's the way I read it and couping that with the letter he doesn't sound religious at all. But it doesn't really matter, that's the whole point. His views might have changed as he went through life, most people's do. It might be slightly important if he turned into a young earth creationists close to the end of his life, but that wouldn't effect the science he already did. Unless it all turned out to be be wrong...but as far as I know that hasn't happend yet.;)
Brett
Einstein believed there was a higher intelligence working behind the scenes which created the universe and set all the laws in place. He did not believe in a closed materialistic nartualistic view of the world-which most evolutionists do. He also did not believe God took a personal interest in the affiars of man. So the religious and non-religous can both count Einstein as being in their camps. He really was more of a deist and that doesn't really help Christians or Evolutionists, but his beliefs did line up with Intelligent Design on foundational abiogenesis pretty well.
-Steve
But Stevem your doing exactly what I said is completely irrelivent. His religion/ or lack there of makes no difference to the science. Plus he was a math guy NOT a biologist. Would you like a Rocket scientist to operate on you? No of course not. If you want to know about the natural world you talk to biologists/botonists and the like.
But I still completely disagree with your assecment, it sound like Einstein was most likely an agnostic or deist. But that doesn't mean he was an ID supporter. I know of a preiest who runs a bible college that believes in and TEACHES evolution. By your 'test' that gives support to evolution. Which it doesn't.
The whole point of this is that a scientists religious views are not noteworthy unless it can be proven beyond a doubt that said scientist was a young earther. Most scientists today are either agnostics or atheists but that doesn't mean that's important tot he science. Your trying to give importance too a non issue;)
Best,
Brett
Okay, so scientists should not comment on areas outside of their expertise. Einstein's views on religion are interesting but not definative because he was not a Theologian. In the same way scientists who are non-religious should be allowed to express their beliefs or lack of beliefs, but again they shouldn't carry more weight than that of anyone else. They should carry less weight than those of a priest who has studied the field and is qualified to discuss the matter. In the same way Christians who are scientists should not have their views minamalized for coming from a person of faith.
-Steve
I'm not exactly sure what your trying to say. Are you telling me that I should give the same weight about, say evolution, from a religious scientists as from a none religious scientist?
Or are you telling me that I should give the same credibility to a priest who believe in the genesis story as a scientist who supports evolution?
I don't claim to know more about the bible than you. In fact I ask you questions about if I have them.
I feel I'm about to step onto a mine field;)
Brett
Well...the whole concept of ID is out of the question anyway. All of Einstein's work (or most of it at least) were scientific theories. He dealt in mathematical theories.
Evolution is a theory, so whether or not he supported the thought that a sentient being originally created the universe and gave it the ability to change over time is not any form of a theory. AKA, ID. Not a theory.
So...it's a bit of a moot subject. He seemed to be a bit like me. Raised in that religious world (Catholic and Evangelical Christian for me), but seemed to shun the fundamentals of it and retain only the knowledge that there may have been something out there beyond our measure.
Doesn't sound like ID or any religion to me. Sounds more like enlightenment.
-Erin
Hi Erin,
I believe what your describing is called Agnostic, or Deist. Agnostics believe in the possibility of a higher being, while Deist believe a god or the god sett it off with the big bang and basically sits back and watches. I used to be one of those, then I was an Agnostic and now I'm an evil Satan worshiping Atheist.;)
And I hope your using theory in the scientific way and not the TV detective way;)The whole thing should be moot bu the IDers keep coming. They think that in embracing evolution that this will somehow kill god. Almost all the biologists, except maybe 4 that I can say definately, accept evolution.
Best,
Brett
yeah I know...yet I don't see very many IDers attacking biologists. I mean...you can find them, but still.
And yes...sometimes I mean the TV detective way, lol. Kidding.
I'm reading a great book right now that was recommended by my mentor that works with Dr. Bakker calle Intelligent Thought: Science versus Intelligent Design. I'm only on the third chapter(they have TONS of info in them so I usually end up reading pages more than once), but it's a great book on how to explain why ID is a moot subject and get yourself out of debates you don't want to happen.
I wish I had started reading this book when I got trapped with those Christians a couple years ago. :)
-Erin
Umm...by years I mean weeks. don't know where that came from...yikes. I'm moving faster through time than I thought. lol
I was watching TV for a change, now that I actually have cable, and I was flipping through the channels between about 5 different religious programs-all of them very different and all of them sincere in their belief of God and their practice of religion. It struck me that if I knew nothing of God or religion I would get fed up at all these different supposed "one" true paths. How is a non-believer supposed to make heads or tails of God, religion, or how to live a life of faith. Very frustrating stuff from my point of view. It is helping me to see a need to be a bit humble in how I try to present my beliefs while not compromising on the message. So if I come off as being off the mark or a wacko, I can see how that is possible.
My above points on Einstein and faith was to show that just about any scientist, idist, evolutionist, creationist, agnostic, deist, or any other -ist, can find something to embrace in Einstein's beliefs or lack of beliefs.
He believed in some sort of divine Watchmaker who wound the universe up and designed it in such a way that scientific laws would govern it. In my opinion this is pretty close to what ID in science states. The identity of the Watchmaker, his personality, and morality are all human concerns, but they fall outside the realm of scientific discovery. Anyone who tries to use science to prove or disprove God is on a fool's errand. God is bigger than science so he'll never fit into that box. On the other hand I support anyone who uses science to show how religion and science are compatible and complementary. I guess that is my biggest beef with the current crop of outspoken biologists is how they try to portray it as one or the other when that has no historical validity.
-Steve
I still disagree, in fact I was reading the God Delusion and Dawkin's came to the same conclusion I did.
Brett
Erin,
Cool! I'll check it out!
Best,
Brett
And I honestly hate the Watchmaker thing. Or painter, or builder ideas.
Of course a building has an architect. Of course a watch has a maker, and of course a painting has a painter. You know why? They're inanimate.
No. I don't expect all of the pieces of a watch jumbled up in a bag to become a complete watch just by shaking it over and over again. That's honestly something that offends me - treating me as though I don't understand that a watch will have a watchmaker.
But whether or not Einstein believed in the Christian god or any type of God, I don't really care. That was his life, not mine. Was he a great scientist? Of course.
And...he got bad grades in math, just like me. :) That makes him okay in my book. lol
-Erin
The Watchmaker analolgy should only offend you if you misunderstand the role of science. Science is not the study of what is real or the litmus test for what is reality. Science is a tool for studying the physical universe. Science is a helpful tool in some areas, but completely useless in others, that is why science is allowed to comment on certain topics up to a point, but then remain silent once the topic crosses over into areas outside of the physical world. Science can tell us how to perform a medical procedure, but it is incapable of telling us if it is moral or economically feasible. This is why I argue that ID is capable of being studied scientifically and evolution theory did not cause Hitler to exterminate the Jews. Science often touches on or influences other areas of life, but its tools are incapable of measuring or explaining them.
Or from the other side of the coin look at how a materilist like Dawkins must break his own closed existance model to explain how anything exists at all. Eventually if you go back far enough where you must admit either the Universe is eternal and had no creator and matter has and always will exist or there is something bigger than creation which got the whoel ball of wax going.
-Steve
Post a Comment