Reply With Quote
986 of the worlds greatest minds could denouce religion and all you'd end up with is 986 people for the bible thumpers to hate. Its an inpenatrable barrier of stupidity.
Belief in God 'childish,' Jews not chosen people: Einstein letter
Albert Einstein described belief in God as "childish supers ion" and said Jews were not the chosen people, in a letter to be sold in London this week, an auctioneer said Tuesday.
The father of relativity, whose previously known views on religion have been more ambivalent and fuelled much discussion, made the comments in response to a philosopher in 1954.
As a Jew himself, Einstein said he had a great affinity with Jewish people but said they "have no different quality for me than all other people".
"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.
"No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this," he wrote in the letter written on January 3, 1954 to the philosopher Eric Gutkind, cited by The Guardian newspaper.
The German-language letter is being sold Thursday by Bloomsbury Auctions in Mayfair after being in a private collection for more than 50 years, said the auction house's managing director Rupert Powell.
In it, the renowned scientist, who declined an invitation to become Israel's second president, rejected the idea that the Jews are God's chosen people.
"For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish supers ions," he said.
"And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people."
And he added: "As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them."
Previously the great scientist's comments on religion -- such as "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" -- have been the subject of much debate, used notably to back up arguments in favour of faith.
Powell said the letter being sold this week gave a clear reflection of Einstein's real thoughts on the subject. "He's fairly unequivocal as to what he's saying. There's no beating about the bush," he told AFP.
Copyright AFP 2008, AFP stories and photos shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium
986 of the worlds greatest minds could denouce religion and all you'd end up with is 986 people for the bible thumpers to hate. Its an inpenatrable barrier of stupidity.
Wow. Another religion debate. These are always fun to read.
Can you post another "is this art" thread too?
LMAO.....This time can we starve a cat?
I wonder what context the letter is in. Did Einstein define the Jewish belief in God as childish supersition, or the belief of God in general? I can't imagine it being the latter, judging his previous statements. I don't believe Einstein was athesist by any measure. However, I do believe his concept of God was beyond any literary interpretation, in part b/c his mind was different. I believe he tried to find a science behind God.
Interesting topic.
Faith in religion has been, historically, THE most resilient aspect of human nature. No amount of scientific evidence to the contrary will ever change that. People believe in God because they need to. Faith needs no proof and because of this, is also immune to all proof to the contrary. Trying to argue for or against it is pointless.
Well put.
And while your at it, can we have another " s are great" one?Wow. Another religion debate. These are always fun to read.
I fully agree. Faith in god is a matter of belief not evidence, and thus outside of science's scope.
I would also like to add that the le is misleading.
He's criticising religion, not neccessarilly faith in god.For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish supers ions
Dude, read it again.
"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."
It's pretty self explanatory.
Read post #11.
And your point is?
peewee doesn't believe in having a point. he just likes seeing his post count go up.
the belief is childish, i'll agree. but the most disturbing aspect is the people that manipulate the "weakness" disguised as the lords servant. i mean, really, is there anything more disturbing than a lying minister? they're probably capable of anything devious.
Figures
He obviously missed the mark on my comment.
It's not that it's immune to proof... There's no "proof" to be immune to.
The problem is the most blaring Christian arguments for faith attempt to disprove scientific facts and theories.
These people who denounce religion are just as ing annoying as the crazy religious people.
No one has any idea WTF is going on so just be happy and keep your to yourself.
No ... that's actually not true. If you were to say, "a few Christian arguments try to disprove science," then, I'd say fine. But most of the arguments for the existence of God go back many centuries have very little to do with modern science.
Examples: The ontological argument is from the 11th century. It fell out of favor during the Renaissance, but lately Alvin Plantinga has been doing good work in reviving it.
The moral argument dates back to Aquinas in the 12th century, and deals with the existence of moral norms, why we have them, and where they might come from. C.S. Lewis focused on this one. Doesn't have much to do with modern science.
The cosmological argument likewise dates to Aquinas, although Aristotle alluded to it as well. It argues, roughly, that everything has a logical cause, so something had to cause the first thing that happened. Medieval Islamic philosophers, and William Lane Craig today, have done quite a lot of work on this one. (In fact, I saw Craig speak last year, and he stole the show. The atheist, a good atheist by the way (Dennett), didn't even try to respond.) The cosmological argument today deals a bit with science (the expanding universe), but it generally doesn't challenge evolution.
And then there's the teleological argument -- the argument from design. This is the only one that really challenges commonly held science. ID is essentially a form of the teleological argument.
Bottom line, though, the arguments are only arguments. In fact, you can reject one or all of them, and still believe in God.
Last edited by Don Quixote; 05-13-2008 at 11:36 AM. Reason: clarification
But at least the arguements are plausible. I don't think anyones trying to denounce religion based on supernatural phenomena.
Second, I would advise that atheists not argue against God based on an a priori bias against the supernatural. They don't know any more than theists know whether or not the supernatural exists or can happen. In effect, they would be saying, supernatural things can't happen because the supernatural doesn't exist. It's circular.
It would be better for them to argue that we don't KNOW whether or not the supernatural exists, it's not probable.
That's all well and good, but I'd guess less than 10% of practicing Christians could tell you about any of those arguments. At least the ones I've grown up with.
In my experience, it has been very difficult for a lot of Christians to get past the Evolution vs. Creation false dilemma. This is amplified by media coverage of controversies related to the teaching of evolution in schools.
Last edited by Spurminator; 05-13-2008 at 11:52 AM.
yipee. while you're at it, why don't you revive jack and the beanstalk.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
