I don’t think Einstein believed in a god…
Einstein did believe in god or better still “saw” a god.
The following quotations from Einstein are all in Jammer’s book:
“Behind all the discernible concatenations, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force is my religion. To that extent, I am in point of fact, religious.”[8]
“Every scientist becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men.”[9]
“Everyone 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.”[10]
“The divine reveals itself in the physical world.”[11]
“My God created laws… His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking but by immutable laws.”[12]
“I want to know how God created this world. I want to know his thoughts.”[13]
“What I am really interested in knowing is whether God could have created the world in a different way.”[14]
“This firm belief in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God.”[15]
“My religiosity consists of a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit, …That superior reasoning power forms my idea of God.”[16]
According to Dawkins, “Einstein was repeatedly indignant at the suggestion he was a theist.”[19] The evidence from Jammer’s book is the exact opposite. What Einstein actually said is:
“I am not an atheist, and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist.”[20]
“Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics and comes from the same source.”[21]
“There is harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognise, yet there are people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me to support such views.”[22]
omg
turtle,
Would you like to clarify what you mean by omg - it’s really not clear to me.
oh my god-----what can I say to that
So, are you saying here that “omg” to you means “what can I say to that” or do you mean something different by that?
It’s ambiguous you know - you may realize what you’re saying but I don’t. Words ARE important to communication and understanding.
Neil DeGrasse said in one of his lectures or teachings to the other science community that Einstein did not believe in god or religion. I don’t remember the exact quote.
Sorry to rain on the parade. [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xvILvxYbFA[/youtube]
The letter from Einstein at the end.
That wouldn’t be the first thing he lied about.
Einstein’s concept of God and mine are pretty much the same. I just have more details than he did.
Yes, deGrasse lies. Now tell us the truth about how you are privy to details about God that Einstein did not have. What are those details? In what ways do you and he agree? Disagree?
That would amount to me preaching. I know of the actual, provable make of that “spirit that is manifest in the laws of the universe” - the immutable determiner of all that is or can ever be. In Einstein’s era, they were still guessing about it.
Einstein’s “letter” was Einstein denying what had been defined to him as a “Personal God”. The adjective “personal” has a variety of meanings that I can’t discern even today when someone says “personal God”. No telling what Einstein was actually denying.
And of the many things that DeGrasse failed to mention in that lecture from a fool, is that Science in schools constitutes a State Religion. Denying that is in itself proposing that all religion is false and only state schooling is truth. The state dictates truth trough liars who speak for science … exactly like almost all religions have always done once they gain control. Teaching science without also teaching religion really is the promotion of a State Religion, and very, very unconstitutional in the USA (not that anyone cares about that issue any more). But it is founded, funded and promoted by liars who purport to be the only people who teach the real truth.
Good answer, JSS. Would you advocate the teaching of comparative religions in high school?
A personal god alters the functioning of the universe in order to benefit a specific individual. From a scientific perspective, that makes the universe unpredictable and unknowable. It makes the universe absurd. That’s why most scientists don’t believe in a personal god. If they believe in a god, they believe in an architect/engineer god.
Which amounts to the God Einstein believed in.
Someday James… someday… =)
I believe that there is a fundamental flaw in the architecture of how schools in the USA are run, how teaching is done. Thus to me, what you are asking is whether group A or group B should be running the FED when there actually shouldn’t be any FED to be run. Or perhaps what laws are better to handle the poor in your country when if your country were being run properly, there wouldn’t be any poor (especially not in the USA).
If you were to demand comparative religion to be taught, it would be taught very poorly and most often by atheists pretending to be honestly religious. There would be more false flag deaths blamed on the students in those classes or due to the fact that those classes existed. No telling what would come of it.
The only thing that I can honestly advocate is a system reboot.
Yep, he’s lying to everyone. Including other scientific people in the room… Probably what, 900 is what he said?
No DeGrasse didn’t lie. The book is there with him being asked question about “god” which he blatantly denied believing in. He just flat out said he doesn’t believe in a god or that he is not religious and here you guys are, twisting it saying he did? How is that even possible when he just SAID he didn’t in an answer in that book.
Science isn’t religion. It isn’t belief. Science or atheism isn’t religious.
Good comment.
LOL. Einstein didn’t believe the Universe unknowable… You guys really don’t know Einstein if you believe this garbage you’re saying. Einstein even has a quote about saying everything in the Universe being comprehensible, not unknowable.