Belief in God "Childish"

[Don Quixote]

If you refer to young-earth types, then yes, you are correct. I have some problems with their interpretation of the Bible and their philosophy of science.

But let's not pretend, either, that science has disproven God. First, that is a HUGE statement to make. How could one prove that statement? Second, 20th century science has often helped theism. Indeed, one could argue that Einstein's own general theory of relativity (which proved an expanding universe) had theistic implications -- there was a beginning! And, third, the classical arguments won't go away. We still have to deal with the fact that we have language, cognition, conscience, and morals. For the theist, this is no problem, but for the atheist, he has to give plausible explanations for them. (This is a very small nuts ).

As for your experience with "bubba" type Christians, yes, you're right about them. I wish more of us were educated on the issues. But let's not pretend, either, that atheists, as a whole, are any more informed on them.

[BigZak]

The belief in God and Jesus IS childish...that is what makes it so great...

hatred is bred from the 'mature' minds of the corrupted...

N E X T...

[Extra Stout]

yipee. while you're at it, why don't you revive jack and the beanstalk.

Do you assume that everyone who preceded modernity is stupid?

[Extra Stout]

As for your experience with "bubba" type Christians, yes, you're right about them. I wish more of us were educated on the issues. But let's not pretend, either, that atheists, as a whole, are any more informed on them.

As recently as a couple of generations ago, there were very few non-intellectual atheists, because the prevailing cultural assumptions were theistic. Today, however, there is a cultural tendency towards naturalism and nihilism, so non-intellectual atheists are more common. However, due to the way it used to be, these unthinking atheists imagine that they know what they are talking about simply because they are atheists.

[Don Quixote]

Stout, good to hear from you again.

Yes, I understand Alister McGrath brings this up in his latest book. Atheism, he says, used to be primarily an intellectual movement. As it developed, it of course made it into the mainstream, so now the majority of atheists are of the presumptive type -- not particularly interested in the issues.

Have you noticed atheists becoming less and less tolerant toward religion in general?

[Extra Stout]

Have you noticed atheists becoming less and less tolerant toward religion in general?

Trends are not favoring the spread of atheism. Thus, the polemics.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

As recently as a couple of generations ago, there were very few non-intellectual atheists, because the prevailing cultural assumptions were theistic. Today, however, there is a cultural tendency towards naturalism and nihilism, so non-intellectual atheists are more common. However, due to the way it used to be, these unthinking atheists imagine that they know what they are talking about simply because they are atheists.

This might be true, but I also think that given that religion is based on nothing but assumptions, wouldn't it be fair to say that when talking about religion/atheism nobody KNOWS what they're talking about?

[Don Quixote]

Some people will follow that line of thinking, that no one can say anything meaningful whatsoever about religion. These people were the logical positivists and it was a big movement in the 20th century.

However ... the statement, "no one can say anything meaningful about religion," is ITSELF a meaningful statement? Yes or no? And furthermore, if no one can say anything at all, then everyone's religion is equally valid and true, and this includes crazy religions (cults, radical Islam). We can't criticize them because we don't know what we're talking about. This gets absurd.

Second, I don't argue for all religions. I am a Christian and argue for Christianity. And Christianity is not a blind faith without any evidence whatsoever. It's not only metaphysical assumptions and things we cannot prove. The belief in God is reasonable, and I would say probable. The Bible is a generally reliable do ent that accurately describes life in the 3d millenium BC up to the first century AD. (Actually, my position on the Bible's truth is much stronger than this). And, I believe in the person of Jesus. Each of these convictions is held in faith, but undergirded by study in history, archaeology, and science.

[Extra Stout]

This might be true, but I also think that given that religion is based on nothing but assumptions, wouldn't it be fair to say that when talking about religion/atheism nobody KNOWS what they're talking about?

Can you postulate any line of reasoning whatsoever that does not make any a priori assumptions?

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Can you postulate any line of reasoning whatsoever that does not make any a priori assumptions?

touché

[peewee's lovechild]

And your point is?

It's pretty simple.

But, let me spell it out for you:

E-i-n-s-t-e-i-n t-h-o-u-g-h-t t-o b-e-l-i-e-v-e i-n g-o-d w-a-s c-h-i-l-d-i-s-h.


That good for you?

[peewee's lovechild]

peewee doesn't believe in having a point. he just likes seeing his post count go up.

That's right, face.

[Don Quixote]

It's pretty simple.

But, let me spell it out for you:

E-i-n-s-t-e-i-n t-h-o-u-g-h-t t-o b-e-l-i-e-v-e i-n g-o-d w-a-s c-h-i-l-d-i-s-h.


That good for you?

Yes, I gathered that. Thank you.

And, Einstein's religious beliefs mean what to us, exactly?

[MaNuMaNiAc]

It's pretty simple.

But, let me spell it out for you:

E-i-n-s-t-e-i-n t-h-o-u-g-h-t t-o b-e-l-i-e-v-e i-n g-o-d w-a-s c-h-i-l-d-i-s-h.


That good for you?

Einstein knew as much about God as the next Joe Blow... which is to say not enough for his opinion to be considered anything more than just that, an opinion.

[dickface]

That's right, face.

a 29 per day average is tough to get without posting lots of pointless crap, i understand.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Just to clarify, I don't believe in religion, and I'm not certain about God. For this reason, I would never presume to deny anyone else their right to believe in whatever it is that makes them be happy.

Trying to reasonably argue one side or the other is beyond my capabilities I'm afraid. All I know is that although arguing theology and science is not without its uses, it is most definitely without finality. Life on the other hand, is not... ergo, I rather spend my days on this earth worrying about things I'll be able to understand while I'm alive

[Don Quixote]

An excellent observation. The original post commits the fallacy of "the appeal to authority." We're supposed to believe Einstein because, well, he's Einstein!

Einstein, as great and learned a man as he was, was not an expert or any special authority in religion. His expertise in physics has no bearing on his expertise in religion. And even if he were somewhat learned in the Bible and religion, is it possible that he was just wrong in this opinion?

Personally, I think the general theory of relativity did theism a huge favor.

[peewee's lovechild]

Figures

He obviously missed the mark on my comment.

You're trying to infer that Einstein meant that the Jewish religion was childish when in fact he meant, and said, "God" was a childish conception.

[Extra Stout]

The representation of Einstein's beliefs should be clarified in light of his other statements. He was not an atheist per se, but he indeed rejected the notion of a personal God to whom mankind could relate.

[Don Quixote]

Just to clarify, I don't believe in religion, and I'm not certain about God. For this reason, I would never presume to deny anyone else their right to believe in whatever it is that makes them be happy.

Trying to reasonably argue one side or the other is beyond my capabilities I'm afraid. All I know is that although arguing theology and science is not without its uses, it is most definitely without finality. Life on the other hand, is not... ergo, I rather spend my days on this earth worrying about things I'll be able to understand while I'm alive

Thank you for your mature and thoughtful approach. This is America, and I would never dream of denying anyone the opportunity to believe as they wish. God, however, does not operate that way. How could he? How could God say one thing in one text, and something totally contradictory in another? He can't. One has to be true, and one has to be false. Or they can both be false. But they cannot both be true.

There has to be a truth. And we rob ourselves immensely if we don't put forth an honest effort to find it. As for the reasonable arguments -- that's why I'm here .

[peewee's lovechild]

Yes, I gathered that. Thank you.

And, Einstein's religious beliefs mean what to us, exactly?

Nothing, at all.

I just thought it was an interesting article.

One has to wonder why you have to defend faith as fervently as you do.

Is faith/religion so weak that there has to be a militant defense to any comment made against it?

[peewee's lovechild]

Einstein knew as much about God as the next Joe Blow... which is to say not enough for his opinion to be considered anything more than just that, an opinion.

Precisley.

[peewee's lovechild]

a 29 per day average is tough to get without posting lots of pointless crap, i understand.

The fact that you are here posting in this thread means what, exactly?

And, you're obsessive nature towards me (looking up my posting average) is bordering on gay obsession.

[peewee's lovechild]

An excellent observation. The original post commits the fallacy of "the appeal to authority." We're supposed to believe Einstein because, well, he's Einstein!

Einstein, as great and learned a man as he was, was not an expert or any special authority in religion. His expertise in physics has no bearing on his expertise in religion. And even if he were somewhat learned in the Bible and religion, is it possible that he was just wrong in this opinion?

Personally, I think the general theory of relativity did theism a huge favor.

That was not the intent of the post.

Really, why do you feel you have to defend religiosity??

Is that all you have??
Is that why you feel the need to do it?

Must you always misconstrue anything said about religion?

God doesn't need you to speak up for him/her/it. Because, if he/she/it does, then that's one weak deity, and one not worth following.


The intent of the post was to show how Einstein really felt about religion, in his own words no less. For years, faith based individuals assumed that he was pro-religion and faith. Well, it turns out that he wasn't.

There.

Do you need some more explaining?

[easjer]

Thank you for your mature and thoughtful approach. This is America, and I would never dream of denying anyone the opportunity to believe as they wish. God, however, does not operate that way. How could he? How could God say one thing in one text, and something totally contradictory in another? He can't. One has to be true, and one has to be false. Or they can both be false. But they cannot both be true.

There has to be a truth. And we rob ourselves immensely if we don't put forth an honest effort to find it. As for the reasonable arguments -- that's why I'm here .

I think where I break from you is the idea that God said anything in text. I think that God's truth is a lot broader than you would seem to believe. In fact, if I can bring a childish book into play - I tend to agree with CS Lewis in the last book of the Narnia Chronicles, where at the end, Aslan welcomes that Tarkaanian into Narnia/Heaven because of his unwavering belief in and service to Tash.