The God Fuse

[Menolly]

If we're going to allow discourse between people who, on the one hand, believe the other side deserves eternal torment, and people who, on the other hand, think this idea of religious torment is a mythological scare tactic, then it is impossible for these two groups to converse without insulting each other. They cannot articulate their views honestly without admitting that what they believe is negative regarding the other side. One side thinks the other is evil, while the other side thinks that their opponents are superstitious reality deniers.

You'll forgive me, I hope, if I take this piece of writing as an example to mention that, from an European viewpoint, the battle between Christians and Atheists in the US is completely baffling.
This religious conflict (which, judging from what I read in newspapers and I hear in TV, is slowly growing in scope, polarizing people) is founded on the assumption that each side is absolutely intransigent: each side believes the other is completely and utterly wrong, and that it is one's moral responsibility to prove how wrong they are (either because otherwise they'll go to Hell, or because rational people shouldn't be burdened by superstition). In both cases, interestingly enough, another assumption is that by attacking the other person's beliefs, you're doing him or her a favor - you're showing him or her what the truth about the world is, so why does he/she complain that much, and where does he/she get the nerve to counterattack?
The translation of this conflict into a social environment is the now-infamous debate of science vs. religion. And (I hope you forgive the possible stereotype) whenever I mention to an American that I'm both a scientist and a believer, I get a stare as if I were some weird new species.
But there IS common ground, and it IS possible for everyone to coexist peacefully. The feeling I have (and please, correct me if I'm wrong) is that, as always in these cases, it's a small, fundamentalist minority (both of Christians and of Atheists) which has become overwhelmingly vocal in their criticism of the other side. But they do not speak for everyone: it doesn't mean that if I'm a believer I automatically pity an atheist because he's obviously going to Hell; it doesn't mean that if I'm an atheist I automatically pity a believer because that poor guy is so deluded. At least, I hope it doesn't!
Do we really need people to "choose sides" in a conflict which cannot possibly be won by anyone, since people are notoriously stubborn in matters of personal beliefs?

[aTOMiC]

Bravo Xar. Your post prevented me from developing carpal tunnel syndrome posting my opinion.

[Zarathustra]

If we're going to allow discourse between people who, on the one hand, believe the other side deserves eternal torment, and people who, on the other hand, think this idea of religious torment is a mythological scare tactic, then it is impossible for these two groups to converse without insulting each other. They cannot articulate their views honestly without admitting that what they believe is negative regarding the other side. One side thinks the other is evil, while the other side thinks that their opponents are superstitious reality deniers.

You'll forgive me, I hope, if I take this piece of writing as an example to mention that, from an European viewpoint, the battle between Christians and Atheists in the US is completely baffling.
This religious conflict (which, judging from what I read in newspapers and I hear in TV, is slowly growing in scope, polarizing people) is founded on the assumption that each side is absolutely intransigent: each side believes the other is completely and utterly wrong, and that it is one's moral responsibility to prove how wrong they are (either because otherwise they'll go to Hell, or because rational people shouldn't be burdened by superstition). In both cases, interestingly enough, another assumption is that by attacking the other person's beliefs, you're doing him or her a favor - you're showing him or her what the truth about the world is, so why does he/she complain that much, and where does he/she get the nerve to counterattack?
The translation of this conflict into a social environment is the now-infamous debate of science vs. religion. And (I hope you forgive the possible stereotype) whenever I mention to an American that I'm both a scientist and a believer, I get a stare as if I were some weird new species.
But there IS common ground, and it IS possible for everyone to coexist peacefully. The feeling I have (and please, correct me if I'm wrong) is that, as always in these cases, it's a small, fundamentalist minority (both of Christians and of Atheists) which has become overwhelmingly vocal in their criticism of the other side. But they do not speak for everyone: it doesn't mean that if I'm a believer I automatically pity an atheist because he's obviously going to Hell; it doesn't mean that if I'm an atheist I automatically pity a believer because that poor guy is so deluded. At least, I hope it doesn't!
Do we really need people to "choose sides" in a conflict which cannot possibly be won by anyone, since people are notoriously stubborn in matters of personal beliefs?

Well, you asked for forgiveness in using my post to illustrate your point, so I think you might have anticipated where I'm going with this . . . (you didn't have to ask for forgiveness btw, I don't mind). I think you asked for forgiveness ahead of time because you sense that you're doing exactly what we're doing: taking someone's points, and illustrating why you think they're wrong. Sure, you haven't done it for page after page like I have. But that's just a matter of degree. Telling people they should get along (for their own good) isn't much different from telling people they should get saved (for their own good). The argument simply has three sides now, instead of two. Why is your disagreement with us any better than our disagreement with each other? Even if you don't choose a side, you still have made a choice. You position isn't any better simply because it contains bits of both sides. In fact, I think it is even less defensible, due to its contradiction.

Calling for a truce and advocating peaceful coexistence certainly sounds noble. But it's just another form of what you're accusing us of doing: telling other people what's best for them. In the end, it's really just an excuse to avoid a debate, rather than settling it (well, avoid it after we agree with you, of course). And some issues--like man's place in the universe and his Fate (or lack thereof)--deserves the rigorous attention which can only come from a debate format, unless you are going to exclude one side or the other. Which isn't fair. That's perhaps the most disingenuous position of all.

It IS possible for everyone to coexist peacefully, but only at cost of what makes them unique. Basically, we can coexist peacefully if we'll only shut up.

I'm curious how you reconcile a position of scientific rationalism with supernatural belief. Do you achieve your own internal peace by a similar strategy of ignoring the differences between your two contradictory views, as you advocate we do with each other?

[Xar]

You're obviously free to think whatever you wish, even when it is not what I intended to say, as long as you don't make it sound like that's what I meant all along

Telling people they should get along (for their own good) isn't much different from telling people they should get saved (for their own good). The argument simply has three sides now, instead of two.

I think the misunderstanding here is based on the assumption that everyone is into the argument, one way or another. Personally - and this is the opinion of most people I know here in Europe - I just find the whole thing puzzling, ultimately baffling, and completely pointless. In fact, whenever we hear about another round of this religious conflict in the US, most of us usually think, "Americans are weird!"...

Why is your disagreement with us any better than our disagreement with each other? Even if you don't choose a side, you still have made a choice. You position isn't any better simply because it contains bits of both sides. In fact, I think it is even less defensible, due to its contradiction.

I see no contradiction, unless you mean "let's respect each other's point of view", which is hardly a contradiction and seems to me to be simple common sense in a civilized society.

Calling for a truce and advocating peaceful coexistence certainly sounds noble. But it's just another form of what you're accusing us of doing: telling other people what's best for them.

In the same way as someone might see two friends who argue about a topic they both feel passionate about, and knowing neither will ever win, steps in to point out that perhaps arguing so much is not really accomplishing anything. Or a parent stopping his children from arguing about a favorite toy and telling them to play together instead.

In the end, it's really just an excuse to avoid a debate, rather than settling it (well, avoid it after we agree with you, of course). And some issues--like man's place in the universe and his Fate (or lack thereof)--deserves the rigorous attention which can only come from a debate format, unless you are going to exclude one side or the other. Which isn't fair. That's perhaps the most disingenuous position of all.

A debate, however, does not start with both sides claiming the other is dead wrong, and that they have to persuade the other side to see things their way "for their own good". To do so - and I include both sides of the argument here - implies that one thinks the other side is not intelligent/smart/wise/clear-sighted enough to see the Truth (which is what the subject knows, of course) and must be brought to see it.
Because if the subject truly believed that the choice of the other side is equally as worthy of respect as his, he would not be trying to "convert" them. I'll repeat: this works for both sides. But the fact that side A behaves this way does not excuse side B from doing the same. In other words: if the believers do it, it doesn't mean the atheists are justified in doing it, and vice versa. It's only once both sides respect the other's views that a debate can start. Otherwise, it's just a shouting match with no winners.

A debate is supposedly a situation where both groups compare their views, discuss their differences while respecting each other's beliefs, and hopefully learn from each other, even if a compromise cannot be reached. But what you say in the above quote contrasts with what is happening in this religious conflict: you say "some issues [...] deserve the rigorous attention with can only come from a debate format, unless you are going to exclude one side or the other." And yet, is that not what each side is trying to do? Tell the other side "you're wrong", and trying to prove it?

It IS possible for everyone to coexist peacefully, but only at cost of what makes them unique. Basically, we can coexist peacefully if we'll only shut up.

No, not really. We can coexist peacefully if we learn to respect other people's views even when they are vastly different from our own. In other words, we can coexist peacefully if, when we meet someone who believes something we don't, we are willing to forgo criticizing his/her beliefs in favor of respecting them as much as we would like our own to be respected.
By the way, uniqueness derives from everyone having their own ideas: to impose your own ideas on everyone is what dilutes that uniqueness. So, fundamentalist atheists or Christians trying to force-feed their beliefs to the other side is what makes everyone the same. When all are atheists or all are Christians, what you get is unity, but where is the uniqueness?

I'm curious how you reconcile a position of scientific rationalism with supernatural belief. Do you achieve your own internal peace by a similar strategy of ignoring the differences between your two contradictory views, as you advocate we do with each other?

Well, first of all, I never said we should ignore differences between two different views. And truthfully, you leave me baffled. You see, this is what I've noticed is really hard for most Americans (at least those who are into this religious conflict) to understand: there really is no conflict.

Here, see what Albert Einstein had to say about it: www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm .

[Zarathustra]

Xar, you completely misunderstand Einstein if you think he believes in God, theology, or the supernatural. Also, you completely misunderstand him if you think he is arguing that belief in the supernatural is compatible with scientific rationalism.

In the article to which you linked, it is true that he is saying there is common ground between religious people and rational people, but this common ground is not one of doctrine or belief, but rather lies in an emotion: a sense of awe for our existence. This feeling leads some people (less educated in science, less rational) to superstitious, supernatural explanations to account for this feeling of awe. But this feeling leads other people in the exact opposite direction: into scientific study of this world.

He is trying to get religious people to understand that his own position of scientific rationalism arises out of the same feeling which drives them (incorrectly) toward the supernatural: transcendent wonder. He is trying to reclaim this feeling for science, not share it with religion. Make no mistake, he thinks that science is the one, authentic expression of this transcendent sense of wonder. Unfortunately, in order to reclaim it, he describes it as “religious.” But he does not mean supernatural, nor does he mean dogmatic. He is describing an emotion as “religious” because it conjures up the same sense of awe that others feel about God.

“I don’t try to imagine a personal God; it suffices to stand in awe at the structure of the world, insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to appreciate it.”

“Much unfortunate confusion is caused by failure to distinguish what can be called Einsteinian religion from supernatural religion. Einstein sometimes invoked the name of God (and he is not the only atheistic scientist to do so), inviting misunderstanding by supernaturalists eager to misunderstand and claim so illustrious thinker as their own.

“Great scientists of our time who sound religious usually turn outt not to be so when you examine their beliefs more deeply. This is certainly true of Einstein and Hawking.”

“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.”

“To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness. In this sense, I am religious.”

In this sense I’m “religious,” too. But that doesn’t mean a belief in the supernatural. The “something our mind cannot grasp” is only beyond our grasp because we are limited, finite beings, not because it is supernatural.

“I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility.”

Note how this "humility" is based on a feeling of awe, not on a feeling of guilt and unworthiness, as the Orthodox sense of “humitility.”

[Xar]

First, a word of caution - earlier, I mostly spoke about Christianity; here, I'm going to refer more to religions in general, since Christianity is not the only religion in the world - and there is wisdom to be found in other religions as well.

Xar, you completely misunderstand Einstein if you think he believes in God, theology, or the supernatural. Also, you completely misunderstand him if you think he is arguing that belief in the supernatural is compatible with scientific rationalism.

In the article to which you linked, it is true that he is saying there is common ground between religious people and rational people, but this common ground is not one of doctrine or belief, but rather lies in an emotion: a sense of awe for our existence. This feeling leads some people (less educated in science, less rational) to superstitious, supernatural explanations to account for this feeling of awe. But this feeling leads other people in the exact opposite direction: into scientific study of this world.

Malik, the crux of the matter is found in a phrase you use here. You define those who use supernatural explanations to account for this feeling of awe as "less educated in science, less rational". And again, later, you say that "He is trying to get religious people to understand that his own position of scientific rationalism arises out of the same feeling which drives them (incorrectly) toward the supernatural". In essence, what you are implying - consciously or not - is that you are at a higher level of understanding than they are - you're in essence saying that you're obviously in a position to judge, and that those who "delude themselves" by believing in something supernatural are obviously less rational and - therefore - misguided people.

You might well say "that's exactly what I'm trying to say!", but you might ALSO consider that religion is not something which is found only in less educated people, or in low social classes. Religion is followed and believed in everywhere, at every social level: educated men as well as not-so-educated. It's just HOW it is followed that changes: educated people tend not to follow everything literally, nor to accept everything they're spoon-fed as God's own truth. In short: what puts you in a position to chalk all believers off as "less educated, less rational people" who are "incorrect" in seeking an alternative explanation to the awe Einstein describes (note that "because what I think is right!" is not an explanation - it's a vicious circle, in which you say "I have the right to do so because what I think is right")?
Or to put it another way: why should not believers judge you the same way, deeming you to be "incorrect", "less educated" and possibly "less rational" than they are (where "rational" here would refer to the fact that, from a believer's point of view, the world's complexity and beauty are obvious clues to the existence of a creator being)?
See, the feeling I have is that both sides in the dispute feel that they are superior to the other. And truthfully, this assumption is the very reason why neither is.

Incidentally, I didn't mean for you to read the papers I linked to as a demonstration that Einstein was a believer or not - but rather to show you that he, too, understood that while conflict can sometimes erupt when religion or science try to undermine each other, they can coexist peacefully. And this, regardless of whether the religion in question still focuses on a personal God or rather on the awe of the universe.
As you mentioned Orthodox teachings, I feel I can therefore also stray from the standard Christian viewpoint and direct you to the Jewish Qabbalah, where the concept of God is examined in a fascinating perspective, leading to the conclusion that the true essence of God is unknowable, and we can perceive it only once it is "filtered" into the terrestrial realm, where everything we see - and even we ourselves - is made out of God, because there can be nothing outside of God's presence (and even saying "outside God's presence" is incorrect because there is no outside). If you replace the word "God" with the word "Universe", what you get is basically what Einstein is saying.

“I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility.”

Note how this "humility" is based on a feeling of awe, not on a feeling of guilt and unworthiness, as the Orthodox sense of “humitility.”

As I never mentioned guilt, unworthiness and humility, I don't really see where this point applies, unless you're using it to explain the difference between Einstein's thoughts and religious belief. In which case one could also say that much of the meaning of humility depends on the religion - and on how it is implemented. As far as I'm concerned, even when I was going to church every week and preparing for my first communion, I was never taught to feel guilty or unworthy or otherwise negative about the human condition; rather, I was taught to find pleasure in God's works and in the world that surrounded us. The key here was moderation, of course - but "excesses" were what everyone would consider so (taking drugs, for instance, or risking your life just for the thrill of it). Certainly not spending three hours watching the stars, or eating fruits until you got indigestion Also remember that all religions were founded at a time when mankind was younger, and anything would be explained as the actions of gods. Whether there is a Sentience that makes up our universe or not, in any case, I doubt it could be cast into human terms. As you say, we are finite beings and we would be unable to grasp infinity and eternity, meaning that even the concept of a personal God might simply be mankind's reduction of all that exists into a more easily "digestible" form.

[The Laughing Man]

Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices, but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence and fulfills the duty to express the results of his thought in clear form.

[Zarathustra]

Malik, the crux of the matter is found in a phrase you use here. You define those who use supernatural explanations to account for this feeling of awe as "less educated in science, less rational". And again, later, you say that "He is trying to get religious people to understand that his own position of scientific rationalism arises out of the same feeling which drives them (incorrectly) toward the supernatural". In essence, what you are implying - consciously or not - is that you are at a higher level of understanding than they are - you're in essence saying that you're obviously in a position to judge, and that those who "delude themselves" by believing in something supernatural are obviously less rational and - therefore - misguided people.

While I do think that supernaturalists are less rational, and often less educated, I was merely describing Einstein's position here. You'll have to take that one up with him.

I specifically choose the word "supernaturalist" here instead of "religious" because Einstein himself is trying to redefine the term "religious." He is trying to take God and the supernatural out of religion, and redefine it in purely secular humanist terms. Indeed, he says this the only way that the conflict between them can be resolved--which was my whole point. You can't make religion compatible with science without taking the supernatural aspect out of it. If you do that, then well, sure it can be compatible. But it's no longer religion as most religious people would recognize it. First of all, you have to become an atheist in order to accept this definition of "religious." There is no place for blind faith anymore.

At first, then, instead of asking what religion is I should prefer to ask what characterizes the aspirations of a person who gives me the impression of being religious: a person who is religiously enlightened appears to me to be one who has, to the best of his ability, liberated himself from the fetters of his selfish desires and is preoccupied with thoughts, feelings, and aspirations to which he clings because of their superpersonalvalue. It seems to me that what is important is the force of this superpersonal content and the depth of the conviction concerning its overpowering meaningfulness, regardless of whether any attempt is made to unite this content with a divine Being, for otherwise it would not be possible to count Buddha and Spinoza as religious personalities. Accordingly, a religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance and loftiness of those superpersonal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation. They exist with the same necessity and matter-of-factness as he himself. In this sense religion is the age-old endeavor of mankind to become clearly and completely conscious of these values and goals and constantly to strengthen and extend their effect. If one conceives of religion and science according to these definitions then a conflict between them appears impossible. For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts. According to this interpretation the well-known conflicts between religion and science in the past must all be ascribed to a misapprehension of the situation which has been described.

It is only by redefining religion in terms of "evaluations of human thought and action," (i.e. morality, not supernaturalism), that this truce between science and religion can be achieved. And even this truce retains separate fields of inquiry. Religion can't intrude upon matters of fact, and science can't intrude upon matters of morality.

The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge.

Though I have asserted above that in truth a legitimate conflict between religion and science cannot exist, I must nevertheless qualify this assertion once again on an essential point, with reference to the actual content of historical religions. This qualification has to do with the concept of God. During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution human fantasy created gods in man's own image, who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate to influence, the phenomenal world. Man sought to alter the disposition of these gods in his own favor by means of magic and prayer. The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old concept of the gods. Its anthropomorphic character is shown, for instance, by the fact that men appeal to the Divine Being in prayers and plead for the fulfillment of their wishes.

Nobody, certainly, will deny that the idea of the existence of an omnipotent, just, and omnibeneficent personal God is able to accord man solace, help, and guidance; also, by virtue of its simplicity it is accessible to the most undeveloped mind. But, on the other hand, there are decisive weaknesses attached to this idea in itself, which have been painfully felt since the beginning of history. That is, if this being is omnipotent, then every occurrence, including every human action, every human thought, and every human feeling and aspiration is also His work; how is it possible to think of holding men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an almighty Being? In giving out punishment and rewards He would to a certain extent be passing judgment on Himself. How can this be combined with the goodness and righteousness ascribed to Him?

The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and of science lies in this concept of a personal God.

The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of 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, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot.

But I am persuaded that such behavior on the part of the representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is able to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress.

Incidentally, I didn't mean for you to read the papers I linked to as a demonstration that Einstein was a believer or not - but rather to show you that he, too, understood that while conflict can sometimes erupt when religion or science try to undermine each other, they can coexist peacefully.

Yes, but they can coexist peacefully ONLY by redefining religion into a secular humanist program free of God and the supernatural. Most people leave off that part of Einstein's point. He's not really talking about religion anymore. He's just using that word to try to convince religious people to stop being dogmatic theists.

And this, regardless of whether the religion in question still focuses on a personal God or rather on the awe of the universe.
As you mentioned Orthodox teachings, I feel I can therefore also stray from the standard Christian viewpoint and direct you to the Jewish Qabbalah, where the concept of God is examined in a fascinating perspective, leading to the conclusion that the true essence of God is unknowable, and we can perceive it only once it is "filtered" into the terrestrial realm, where everything we see - and even we ourselves - is made out of God, because there can be nothing outside of God's presence (and even saying "outside God's presence" is incorrect because there is no outside). If you replace the word "God" with the word "Universe", what you get is basically what Einstein is saying.

That's fine with me. But there's no longer anything supernatural about that concept, and you might as well just call it the universe.

I actually toy with a pantheistic view of God. I think it is possible that we are god being born. After all, we are the universe coming to life. But there's nothing supernatural about that.

Also remember that all religions were founded at a time when mankind was younger, and anything would be explained as the actions of gods.

You say "younger," I say, "less educated and less rational." But we mean the same thing.

[Prebe]

HMMMMM.......

I feel that we are less than two posts away from quantum theory. In fact I would think it inevitable poetic justice, since what we have here is two persons who BOTH made me back out of separate unrelated discussions using the "Q-word".

So I am waiting

[Zarathustra]

"God doesn't play dice with the universe. . ." ???

Something like that?

[Baradakas]

Prebe said:

HMMMMM.......

I feel that we are less than two posts away from quantum theory. In fact I would think it inevitable poetic justice, since what we have here is two persons who BOTH made me back out of separate unrelated discussions using the "Q-word".

So I am waiting

-B

[Prebe]

"God doesn't play dice with the universe. . ." ???

Something like that?

That would be a good place to start for a lot of reasons

On your marks....

[iQuestor]

"God doesn't play dice with the universe. . ." ???

Something like that?

That would be a good place to start for a lot of reasons

On your marks....

Einstein had a lot of conflicts with God versus Science, which led to his (self-described) greatest blunder, the Cosmological Constant, a fudge factor that allowed him to integrate what he saw with what he beleived. Of course, he later recanted when he was proven wrong. In my opinion, an example of how religion may have impeded ever greater insights from one of our greatest minds.

Einstein never liked the idea of Quantum Physics , as per the quote "

God does not play dice with the universe."

But as far as I know, a lot of it has been proven directly, or, as much as we can given the constraints discovered by Heisenburg and others.

SO Einstein did have his own conflicts with religion versus Science. its easy to say that if we redefine one it can coexist with the other, but to me, this is a cop out -- Christianity is based on a personal, accesible God, through prayer to his son Jesus Christ.

The debate on the nature of Miracles, and of the definition of Prayer, and how it is acheived -- these cannot be reconciled between Science and Religion unless we change our definitions to make them measurable and quantifiable in the real, perceivable world -- and this is in direct contradiction to what most of us agree religion is about.

If we could email God or Jesus or Allah and get a real response -- if there was a cause and effect with prayer that was agreed and measurable, then the religious aspect of these activities would soon dissappear. Praying would be like buying a lottery ticket and God would be creating email filters. Software programmers and cryptanalyists would be writing programs to analyze and improve our odds of getting what we want through prayer.

My point -- religion relies on this mystique; faith plays the most crucial part. Once they mystery goes away, the religion dies.

[Zarathustra]

Einstein had a lot of conflicts with God versus Science, which led to his (self-described) greatest blunder, the Cosmological Constant, a fudge factor that allowed him to integrate what he saw with what he beleived.

Interesting. I never heard of a religious angle to that. I thought he merely hadn't considered the fact that the universe was expanding, because that evidence wasn't available yet.

Einstein never liked the idea of Quantum Physics , as per the quote "

God does not play dice with the universe."

But as far as I know, a lot of it has been proven directly, or, as much as we can given the constraints discovered by Heisenburg and others.
SO Einstein did have his own conflicts with religion versus Science. its easy to say that if we redefine one it can coexist with the other, but to me, this is a cop out -- Christianity is based on a personal, accesible God, through prayer to his son Jesus Christ.

Einstein was speaking metaphorically. He actually meant, "Randomness does not lie at the heart of all things." How do I know this? Because he didn't believe in God. Scientists, especially physicists, toss around the word "god" too loosely. They do this to give their statements transcendental weight, since they are dealing with the most fundamental aspects of the physical world. Yet, they are trying to communicate these purely mathematical concepts in ordinary language. Thus, they use metaphor and hyperbole.

However, Einstein was wrong on that fact. QM has been proven to be true.

My point -- religion relies on this mystique; faith plays the most crucial part. Once they mystery goes away, the religion dies.

I think Einstein might argue that there is plenty of room for "mystique" in the natural world, given that we are finite and our knowledge is never complete. But "mystique" doesn't have to extend beyond the physical universe for this to remain true. It's just a measure of our limitation.

However, while this limitation can produce feelings of humility and even reverence, it should also produce feelings of awe for our ability to grasp what little we can grasp. Why should brains which evolved to navigate the jungle have this little side-benefit of being able to understand relativity and quantum mechanics? Why should we expect that matter will come together in such a way as to produce consciousness which can understand how this matter is arranged? Why should something abstract like math lend itself so easily and with such universal applicability to the concrete? And, why should evolved animals be able to contemplate math?

One of my favorite Einstein quotes:

"The most inexplicable thing about the universe is that it is explicable."

So yeah, he gets it. I love that man.

[rusmeister]

"God doesn't play dice with the universe. . ." ???

Something like that?

That would be a good place to start for a lot of reasons

On your marks....

Einstein had a lot of conflicts with God versus Science, which led to his (self-described) greatest blunder, the Cosmological Constant, a fudge factor that allowed him to integrate what he saw with what he beleived. Of course, he later recanted when he was proven wrong. In my opinion, an example of how religion may have impeded ever greater insights from one of our greatest minds.

Einstein never liked the idea of Quantum Physics , as per the quote "

God does not play dice with the universe."

But as far as I know, a lot of it has been proven directly, or, as much as we can given the constraints discovered by Heisenburg and others.

SO Einstein did have his own conflicts with religion versus Science. its easy to say that if we redefine one it can coexist with the other, but to me, this is a cop out -- Christianity is based on a personal, accesible God, through prayer to his son Jesus Christ.

The debate on the nature of Miracles, and of the definition of Prayer, and how it is acheived -- these cannot be reconciled between Science and Religion unless we change our definitions to make them measurable and quantifiable in the real, perceivable world -- and this is in direct contradiction to what most of us agree religion is about.

If we could email God or Jesus or Allah and get a real response -- if there was a cause and effect with prayer that was agreed and measurable, then the religious aspect of these activities would soon dissappear. Praying would be like buying a lottery ticket and God would be creating email filters. Software programmers and cryptanalyists would be writing programs to analyze and improve our odds of getting what we want through prayer.

My point -- religion relies on this mystique; faith plays the most crucial part. Once they mystery goes away, the religion dies.

Yet, religion has never died. Mystery has always remained, even though in periods like "the Age of Reason" (which is over, dudes!) people tried to kill it, end the possibility of mysticism.

Lewis wrote a pretty good book dealing with this: "Miracles". Have you heard of it? www.amazon.com/Miracles-C-S-Lewis/dp/0060653019

[Lord Mhoram]

Going to jump in here to clarify something about Einstein's religious views. It's a fairly complex subject, but he was not an atheist. He was not a Christian either, but:

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.

[iQuestor]

Einstein and religion -- I have to do some research. I have a biography of him I am beginning to read, I will report back. I had read he was fairly religious.

Rus said:

Yet, religion has never died. Mystery has always remained, even though in periods like "the Age of Reason" (which is over, dudes!) people tried to kill it, end the possibility of mysticism.

and it never will. when we stopped wondering, we are all dead.

[Zarathustra]

Going to jump in here to clarify something about Einstein's religious views. It's a fairly complex subject, but he was not an atheist. He was not a Christian either, but:

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.

LM, you're right that his position is complex. However, you haven't made it any clearer with this quote. He was talking here about the universe, and our ability to penetrate it (partially, incompletely) with reason.

He was an atheist when it comes to a personal God.

I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly.

What kind of god do you think he believed in? Or was he agnostic?

He did claim to be religious. But as I've carefully shown, he didn't mean anything supernatural about this, nor anything transcending the physical, natural universe. He was intentionally trying to redefine "religious" by a) reducing it to its morality and value judgments (what humans should do) and b) replacing the transcendent sense of wonder for god with a transcendent sense of wonder for rationality's paradoxical ability and inability to grasp the principles of the physical universe. A. is a way to distill out what is redeemable about historical religions (which also means giving up what is unacceptable: god and the supernatural), while B. is a way to redirect it into rational, scientific pursuits. He really was trying to reclaim the word to mean something else, and I assume he wanted others to follow his example (otherwise he wouldn't try so hard to articulate it to theologians).

At most, you can say that his position doesn't contradict pantheism. But I don't think you can make the argument that he was indeed a pantheist, unless you've got another quote up your sleeve.

Considering that he didn't believe in anything supernatural, I don't see how this leaves room for calling him any kind of -theist. And since he actively tried to take God out of religion, I don't think you could say he was reserving judgment, like an agnostic. Surely an agnostic who was trying to find "common ground" between science and religion would have left wiggle room by actively, explicitly admitting the possibility of God, rather than explicitly denying him and trying to remove him from religion. For all practical purposes, he was an atheist.

[The Laughing Man]

That deep emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God. Albert Einstein

My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind. Albert Einstein

Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish. Albert Einstein

We should take care not to make the intellect our god; it has, of course, powerful muscles, but no personality. Albert Einstein

[Zarathustra]

Those are indeed some interesting quotes, Esmer. However, all the words Einstein uses must be placed in the larger framework of his thought. He does not use them in the same way we do. Words like "spirit," "religious," "God," etc. have either a metaphorical meaning, or a strictly redefined meaning for Einstein.

He does not believe in spirits or souls.

The mystical trend of our time, which shows itself particularly in the rampant growth of the so-called Theosophy and Spiritualism, is for me no more than a symptom of weakness and confusion.

Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seems to me to be empty and devoid of meaning.

Therefore, this "illimitable superior spirit" which you quoted him describing cannot actually be a spirit, because he thinks the concept of a spirit is devoid of meaning. Nor can it be a "who" or "himself" since he explicitly denies a personal god. "Spirit" must be understood figuratively. Think of phrases such as "spirit of our times." I'm not saying that this phrase is identical to his usage, but it is equally distinct from an immaterial being, or a personal agent, as it is used in that phrase.

The "presence of a superior reasoning power" is a figurative description for the experience one has in confronting reason's paradoxical role as our access to the universe's deepest secrets, while simultaneously showing us how incomplete this access is. There is more which lies beyond what we know, but it is still rational. He's not talking about some disembodied rationality floating around the universe as some kind of entity, but rather the harmony or structure of our universe itself which humans encounter with both awe and partial understanding.

When he says "forms my idea of God" he means something closer to "replaces for me what you might call God." God is always metaphorical. His idea of God is a metaphor. He is saying that the harmony and structure of the universe forms his metaphorical idea of God. He doesn't literally think that the structures of the universe are god.

The last quote is the one most easily understandable as metaphor. He wouldn't explicitly state that he does not believe in a personal god, and then complain that intellect can't be god because it lacks personality. The sense of humor of the world's smartest man is indeed subtle. But us lower intellects can piece it together if we read more than just a few quotes.

With that said, I'll add one more:

"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."

Ok, two more:

The religious feeling engendered by experiencing the logical comprehensibility of profound interrelations is of a somewhat different sort from the feeling that one usually calls religious. It is more a feeling of awe at the scheme that is manifested in the material universe. It does not lead us to take the step of fashioning a god-like being in our own image-a personage who makes demands of us and who takes an interest in us as individuals. There is in this neither a will nor a goal, nor a must, but only sheer being. For this reason, people of our type see in morality a purely human matter, albeit the most important in the human sphere.

skeptically.org/thinkersonreligion/id8.html