Kevin's Watch

Indeed.

danlo wrote: My God (using the phase to denote astonishment not any religious or nonreligious leaning) Malik can argue! He makes the Energizer Bunny look like a punk!

I'd crush that damn bunny.

Danlo wrote:from everything I've tryed to follow here, without getting a headache, it does imply that Einstien was a deist. Why does he have to condense it into one word?

Well, he doesn't have to condense it into one word. But then if he doesn't, why should we? I fully admit my interpretation of his ideas could be wrong. But I'm not trying to put words in his mouth, or use words he hasn't used himself. When I think he is trying to use words differently than the rest of us, I try to back that up with more of his own words, rather than introduce new ones like "deist" or "sentient being."

In fact, the position that "Einstein believes in God" is one that can only be made by recognizing that he is using this word differently than everyone else--as even Esmer admits. But to reduce that usage to "a sentient being," well, this just pulls it back into that territory from which he was trying to distinguish himself.

Doar, nice find!

Einstein wrote:But, on the other hand, every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe -- a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.

I've already quoted twice his views on man's "spirit." He doesn't think it has any meaning in the absence of a body, and he doesn't believe in life after death or immortality. So a spirit which is "superior to that of man" would imply a difference in degree, rather than a difference in kind. This is at least twice that he has specifically used the word, "superior." If he meant "entirely different," one might expect him to say so. Therefore, if he didn't mean man literally has a spirit, then I think it is a fair interpretation to say he didn't literally think of God as a disembodied spirit. Instead, I think he thought of God's "spirit" in the same figurative terms, only "greater." Our own "spirit," for Einstein, is that part of us which makes contact with the order and harmony of the universe by way of reason and comprehension of math. This "superior spirit" is the counterpart to man's reason, its "source." It is the comprehensible aspect of being . . . or being-as-rational-comprehensibility.

Again, I'm not trying to force my own definitions on Einstein. If he believes that the laws of the universe are some kind of sentient being, then more power to him. I'm just having trouble reconciling that idea with his rejection of immaterial souls as meaningless. Not merely improbable. But meaningless. How can the thing which has the most meaning possible (laws of the universe) manifest themselves in something which he thinks is meaningless?

Define Einstein's God in as few words as possible, preferably one, two is ok, but it's really up to you. I'm interested in how you condense his beliefs about God in particular into a simple thought or phrase. Who, or What, is Einstein's God?


If you want to save your answer I have created a new thread for this.

Asking me to say anything in few words is probably futile. I'm just grateful people read my long-winded posts at all.

I'll have to think about it. I've given several descriptions, and I've tried to use only words that he uses himself. It's much easier to state it negatively (what it isn't) rather than positively (what it is). For one, such a characterization is "safer" because is says less. As soon as I make a positive assertion, I put myself out there for you guys to tear it down. But also, perhaps the concept of God--Einstein's, mine, yours--is something too large for a pithy statement.

I'll get back to you. Meanwhile, if you get tired of waiting, you could go through my posts and cut out the bits where I've interpreted what he means by "illimitable spirit," etc.

One last point: if he means something different by "God" than the rest of us, it's quite possible that he means something [edit: different] by "spirit," too.

can we merge this part of the thread with the other one or do we want to start fresh?

Einstein wrote:"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."

"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."

"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."

Albert Einstein credited Spinoza as the philosopher that most greatly influenced his world view. Spinoza believed that god=nature, that there were two names for one reality that he called "substance".

god=nature all deists would agree with that.

god=nature Yes, a deist would agree with that from the standpoint of the fact that there is a natural world with natural laws and that presupposes a designer. god=nature would be more appropriately labeled as pantheism. Spinoza was a pantheist, so it would be reasonable to assume that Einstein was also a pantheist, if we insist on labeling him. Pantheism basically asserts that god is everything and everything is god. So to Spinoza or Einstein it would be substance is everything and everything is substance. Deism is different from pantheism in that it assumes the existence of a god based on reason from observing "design" of the natural world.

I feel like I've given this subject too much time already. And I still haven't answered Esmer's challenge to describe E's position succinctly . . . but I wanted to say that deism speaks of a god who created the universe and then stands outside of it, not interfering. In a sense, E supports this, at least in terms of a non-interfering god. But deism supports a transcendent god, whereas pantheism supports an immanent god. (Google or Wiki if those distinctions aren't familiar. I'm not in the mood for a long post).

OK, back to drinking beer and listening to music.