Belief in God "Childish"

[peewee's lovechild]

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.

I agree with what you're saying here, Stout.

I think he was probably disillusioned with religion as we have it, but no one knows if he believed in a higher power.

[Don Quixote]

No, when you post something on a message board, it is implied that people will comment on it and draw conclusions. I knew that the conversation would eventually go into the rationality of belief in God, which is an interest of mine, and I suspect, one of other people too. Message boards do this by nature, and you should not get upset when the conversation doesn't go the way you wanted it to.

What if all the posters had bashed religion? Would you still be mad that people weren't discussing Einstein?

Lastly, are you, then, okay with people "fervently" defending atheism against religious talk? Because you are obviously not okay with somebody defending theism. And I have been more than fair and gracious toward you and other atheists around here.

[Don Quixote]

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.

A good point. I never said, however, that God didn't reveal himself in "non-text" ways. He walked with Adam & Eve in the Garden, he met personally with Abraham, Jacob, and Moses, and we have no idea about the content of their conversations. It's not recorded.

Second, I would agree, however, that the majority of the Bible went through various stages of oral transmission. This is particularly true for the Torah and the Gospels, and probably the Psalms as well. It was later that writers compiled these oral traditions and smaller do ents into basically what we have today -- a written text. But, if you're implying a "dictation" theory of inspiration (God spoke directly to the author, who has to write it down exactly), what you're describing is something that fits Islam much more than it fits Christianity. In other words, there is "wiggle room" in our theory of inspiration that allows for differences in wording and detail.

But God surely has revealed himself to us!

[peewee's lovechild]

No, when you post something on a message board, it is implied that people will comment on it and draw conclusions. I knew that the conversation would eventually go into the rationality of belief in God, which is an interest of mine, and I suspect, one of other people too. Message boards do this by nature, and you should not get upset when the conversation doesn't go the way you wanted it to.

What if all the posters had bashed religion? Would you still be mad that people weren't discussing Einstein?

Lastly, are you, then, okay with people "fervently" defending atheism against religious talk? Because you are obviously not okay with somebody defending theism. And I have been more than fair and gracious toward you and other atheists around here.

You can rant all you want, but let me remind you that you started with a post saying "And your point is?"

You didn't want a rational conversation at all. You can pretend that you did, but that's just a load of and you know it.

A rational conversation would not have started with "And your point is?". No, the problem is that you feel you're god's little soldier and you feel the need to defend religion (christianity in your case) in a militant fashion.

Don't come around after the fact saying you were gracious and what not. That's bull .

Your fist post was nothing short of a smug response to what I posted.

And, all I posted was an article on Einstein's letter to a philosopher where he claims that the belief in god was childish.

[Don Quixote]

Fine. Goodbye.

[peewee's lovechild]

A good point. I never said, however, that God didn't reveal himself in "non-text" ways. He walked with Adam & Eve in the Garden, he met personally with Abraham, Jacob, and Moses, and we have no idea about the content of their conversations. It's not recorded.

Not true, at all.

According to the bible, god "spoke" to Adam, Eve, Abraham, Jacob and Moses.

He never came down from the heavens and "revealed" himself.

[peewee's lovechild]

Fine. Goodbye.

Later.

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

Not true, at all.

According to the bible, god "spoke" to Adam, Eve, Abraham, Jacob and Moses.

He never came down from the heavens and "revealed" himself.

No one at Spurstalk has seen me.

Perhaps I'm not real either.

[Don Quixote]

I wonder what context the letter is in. Did Einstein define the Jewish belief in God as childish supers ion, 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 atheist 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.

I wonder how much his beliefs were influence by his own religious tradition. I'm not sure he was a Reform Jew, but his beliefs seem similar to what they hold to. Reform Judaism has probably the weakest sense of a personal God who chooses to relate to people, whereas Orthodox and Conservative Judaism are stronger in this regard.

I'm not sure, however, how far physics, math, and chemistry can reveal a God who, indeed, reveals Himself to man. The order of the universe CAN reveal the existence of a designer, but not much beyond that. We call this "general revelation," a form of God's self-revelation that is available to every person.

It is the job of religion and theology, however, to get at who and what exactly this designer is. Some of God's qualities (his love, justice, holiness, etc.) are not available to be observed in nature. They must be given to us in scripture -- there's no other way to know about them.

So ... I would be interested to know where, exactly, Einstein got these ideas about a distant, impersonal god.

[Don Quixote]

No one at Spurstalk has seen me.

Perhaps I'm not real either.

I'll take that on faith. I'm certainly not in a position to know a priori that you are not real.

I carry no anti-Helicopter bias.

[peewee's lovechild]

I wonder how much his beliefs were influence by his own religious tradition. I'm not sure he was a Reform Jew, but his beliefs seem similar to what they hold to. Reform Judaism has probably the weakest sense of a personal God who chooses to relate to people, whereas Orthodox and Conservative Judaism are stronger in this regard.

I'm not sure, however, how far physics, math, and chemistry can reveal a God who, indeed, reveals Himself to man. The order of the universe CAN reveal the existence of a designer, but not much beyond that. We call this "general revelation," a form of God's self-revelation that is available to every person.

It is the job of religion and theology, however, to get at who and what exactly this designer is. Some of God's qualities (his love, justice, holiness, etc.) are not available to be observed in nature. They must be given to us in scripture -- there's no other way to know about them.

So ... I would be interested to know where, exactly, Einstein got these ideas about a distant, impersonal god.

Or, perhaps, because of the knowledge he gained from physics, math, and chemistry led him to believe that such a being didn't exist.

Maybe he believed in an energy source where all things lead, and that doesn't have to be a "god".

[midgetonadonkey]

We get it. You are athiest.

/thread

[smeagol]

Or, perhaps, because of the knowledge he gained from physics, math, and chemistry led him to believe that such a being didn't exist.

Not really . . .

[velik_m]

Or, perhaps, because of the knowledge he gained from physics, math, and chemistry led him to believe that such a being didn't exist.

Maybe he believed in an energy source where all things lead, and that doesn't have to be a "god".

I think he rather came to conclusion, that belief in god is not needed, its pointless and thus childish.

[boutons_]

"Trends are not favoring the spread of atheism"

"So?"

Is it some kind of popularity contest?

[BacktoBasics]

"Trends are not favoring the spread of atheism"

"So?"

Is it some kind of popularity contest?

They're hoping the young boys think so

[Extra Stout]

"Trends are not favoring the spread of atheism"

"So?"

Is it some kind of popularity contest?

So, that's why there are an increasing number of anti-religious polemics. A fair number of atheists believe that religion is a toxic influence on society that should be done away with, and failing the spread of reason to disabuse people of their religious beliefs, some atheists are trying shame and humiliation instead.

[clambake]

So, that's why there are an increasing number of anti-religious polemics. A fair number of atheists believe that religion is a toxic influence on society that should be done away with, and failing the spread of reason to disabuse people of their religious beliefs, some atheists are trying shame and humiliation instead.

is that what einstein did?

[Extra Stout]

is that what einstein did?

No, a private letter is not the same thing as an anti-religious polemic, such as Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins might publish. In a private letter, you might express your personal opinions to a confidant. This is not the same as the trend to which Don Quixote was referring earlier, wherein atheists are becoming increasingly hostile in their public pronouncements against religious people in general, as opposed to just the fundamentalist extremists.

[Phil Hellmuth]

LOL I have had this einstein quote in my sig for like a month now, it almost contradicts what the original poster is trying to say LOL.

I hate when people suppose that science is fact and can ultimately explain metaphysical ideas.

Science explains a lot, but it doesn't explain why, how, and leaves many gaps.

To try to mix science to prove/disprove religion is incredibly dumb.

[Don Quixote]

As always, I am open for intellectual (and not-so-intellectual) discussion about God, man, the universe, and the nature of things. I look forward dialog from any worldview (Christian or otherwise), provided it is respectful and intellectual honest, with a good measure of humility from all.

[dallaskd]

Einstein's bull views do not change my opinion on anything. People try to hard to back religion up with science.

John 3:16

Einstein is in right now, sitting right next to Darwin.

[PixelPusher]

Einstein is in right now, sitting right next to Darwin.

Yep, you're either a member of the Jesus Club or you're not. All of your thoughts, actions, choices, hopes, dreams, regrets, epiphanies...the sum total of your life on earth from the moment you were born till the day you die doesn't mean squat - it's all about whether you joined the Jesus Club.

[Shaolin-Style]

Einstein was a demon.

[Jimmy Bobby]

I believe in Mike Taylor and Arbitron. Nuff said.