"God" "Expression of Human Weakness"
Thanks for your response in the closed thread about Einstein's God. But it didn't really answer my question.

Are you okay with Einstein's God?

Einstein clearly used the word, "God" to communicate an idea, not of a personal Sky Daddy, but of a kind of divine clockwork behind the movement of celestial bodies in our night sky, a logic or logos. A divine reason, in the Greek and Roman Stoic and Epicureans sense of divine reason.

"A human being is a part of the whole, called by us "Universe," a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest—a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. The striving to free oneself from this delusion is the one issue of true religion. Not to nourish it but to try to overcome it is the way to reach the attainable measure of peace of mind."

“Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be expected in a cosmic religion for the future: It transcends a personal God, avoids dogmas and theology; it covers both the natural and the spiritual, and it is based on a religious sense aspiring from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity. and 2) Buddhism is the only religion able to cope with modern scientific needs.” Albert Einstein

doesn't mean our higher needs, for community, belonging, love, self actualization and self transcendence evaporate.
We still have those needs and there are ways of fulfilling those needs outside of religion of course, but they're just not as obvious or convenient.
I honestly think that the "cosmic religion of the future" that Einstein spoke of, is probably a lot like Buddhism.
Saying that all religion is 'childish' just flattens the conversation. Some religions are more stupid than others and by stupid I mean, out of touch with or in denial of reality, as revealed by science.
Buddhism is the only religion I know of, who's leader says, "If there is a conflict between my beliefs and science, I need to change my beliefs." Dalai Lama
http://pewresearch.org/files/old-assets/publications/1105-1.png

"...but they're just not as obvious or convenient."

I think it really depends. In my life I'm able to fulfill those needs and I do so without god. I've been able to do it easier without the idea of god in my life as well.

Everyone has their own path. I guess the trick is that we need to figure out where we stand and where we fit in.

Let's stick to Einstein's stated views on the matter. The Christian writer of the following article admits that Einstein did not believe in a personal God (but then gives him a sermon based on the Bible as to why Einstein is supposedly wrong on that score):

"Did Albert Einstein Believe in a Personal God?

"Introduction

"I get a fair amount of e-mail about Albert Einstein's quote1 on the homepage of 'Evidence for God from Science,' so I thought it would be good to clarify the matter. Atheists object to the use of the quote, since Einstein might best be described as an agnostic. Einstein himself stated quite clearly that he did not believe in a personal God:

"'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.'

"No personal God

"So, the quick answer to the question is that Einstein did not believe in a personal God. However, it is interesting how he arrived at that conclusion. In developing the theory of relativity, Einstein realized that the equations led to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning. He didn't like the idea of a beginning, because he thought one would have to conclude that the universe was created by God. So, he added a cosmological constant to the equation to attempt to get rid of the beginning. He said this was one of the worst mistakes of his life. Of course, the results of Edwin Hubble confirmed that the universe was expanding and had a beginning at some point in the past. So, Einstein became a deist--a believer in an impersonal creator God:

"'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.'

"Love Your God With All Your Mind: The Role of Reason in the Life of the Soul

"However, it would also seem that Einstein was not an atheist, since he also complained about being put into that camp:

"'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'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God.'

"So, although Einstein was not a Christian, he had great respect for Jesus, and recognized that He was an amazing figure in history. . . .

"Why no personal God?

"So, what was the reason Einstein rejected the existence of a personal God? Einstein recognized the remarkable design and order of the cosmos, but could not reconcile those characteristics with the evil and suffering he found in human existence. How could an all-powerful God allow the suffering that exists on earth?

"Einstein's [alleged] error [as supposedly demonstrated by the God-believing author resorting to an appeal to Bible-based faith]:

"Einstein and Religion: Physics and Theology

"Einstein's failure to understand the motives of God are the result of his incorrect assumption that God intended this universe as His ultimate perfect creation. Einstein could not get past the moral problems that are present in our universe. He assumed, as most atheists do, that a personal God would only create a universe which is both good morally and perfect physically. Where Einstein erred was in that thinking that there was a god who designed the universe, but designed it in such as way as to allow evil without a purpose. If the universe were designed and it included evil, then there must have been a purpose for that evil. However, according to Christianity, the purpose of the universe is not to be morally or physically perfect, but to provide a place where spiritual creatures can choose to love or reject God - to live with Him forever in a new, perfect universe, or reject Him and live apart from Him for eternity. It would not be possible to make this choice in a universe in which all moral choices are restricted to only good ones. Einstein didn't seem to understand that one could not choose between good and bad if bad did not exist. It's amazing that such a brilliant man could not understand such a simple logical principle.

"Conclusion . . .

"No, Albert Einstein was not a Christian or even a theist (one who believes in a personal God), probably because he failed to understand why evil existed. These days, those who fail to understand the purpose of evil not only reject the concept of a personal God, but also reject the concept of God's existence altogether. If you are an agnostic or atheist, my goal for you would be to recognize what Albert Einstein understood about the universe--that its amazing design demands the existence of a creator God. Then, go beyond Einstein's faulty understanding of the purpose of the universe and consider the Christian explanation for the purpose of human life."

Whatever. End of Christian Sunday School lesson.

("Did Albert Einstein Believe in a Personal God?," by Rich Deem, at: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/einstein.html)



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 01/10/2015 10:59PM by steve benson.

Cool! That was interesting.

I agree with what you've said so far.
Trust me, we have much more in common than different.
The first thing I said to myself in response to 9-11 was, "Nietzsche was right. God is dead." I was at that deepest darkest point of my life, a nihilist.
And I agree with Nietzsche, to a certain extent.
I think what he meant was "God is dead in the hearts of the people". IOW, they drew near to God with their mouths, but far from God with their hearts and spiritually.

Is there any place for the kind of spirituality Einstein spoke about, in Atheism?

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious.
It is the source of all true art and science.
He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed."

"The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing.
One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery every day. Never lose a holy curiosity."

"All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree. All these aspirations are directed toward ennobling man's life, lifting it from the sphere of mere physical existence and leading the individual towards freedom."

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals
himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Einstein

If Atheists insist that all religion is 'childish' and 'naive' I'd ask, what about Taoism, Stoicism, Epicureanism?
That's probably the main reason Einstein refused to identify himself as an atheist. It's the reason I'm like him, a pantheist, which according to Dawkins is just 'sexed up Atheism'.
But then again, Dawkins is most likely a pantheist, if he believes in Einstein's God.
Question is, do you believe in Einstein's God?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/11/2015 02:41AM by koriwhore.

If you're going to quote Einstein, at least get it right: what you posted first appeared in two periodicals in 1964, nine years after his death. Here's the excerpt from which it was most likely derived.

"Common to all these types is the anthropomorphic character of the idea of God. Only exceptionally gifted individuals or especially noble communities rise essentially above this level; in these there is found a third level of religious experience, even if it is seldom found in a pure form. I will call it the cosmic religious sense. This is hard to make clear to those who do not experience it, since it does not involve an anthropomorphic idea of God; the individual feels the vanity of human desires and aims, and the nobility and marvelous order which are revealed in nature and in the world of thought. He feels the individual destiny as an imprisonment and seeks to experience the totality of existence as a unity full of significance. Indications of this cosmic religious sense can be found even on earlier levels of development—for example, in the Psalms of David and in the Prophets. The cosmic element is much stronger in Buddhism, as, in particular, Schopenhauer's magnificent essays have shown us. The religious geniuses of all times have been distinguished by this cosmic religious sense, which recognizes neither dogmas nor God made in man's image. Consequently there cannot be a church whose chief doctrines are based on the cosmic religious experience. It comes about, therefore, that we find precisely among the heretics of all ages men who were inspired by this highest religious experience; often they appeared to their contemporaries as atheists, but sometimes also as saints. Viewed from this angle, men like Democritus, Francis of Assisi, and Spinoza are near to one another."

(Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science," New York Times, 9 November 1930)

Notice the differences: he rejects the notion of an anthropomorphic god completely, and stipulates that true religious sense (since his views do not allow for "religion" as an organized institution) does not just "avoid dogmas and theology" but is incompatible with them.

Full text available here: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/blogs/learning/pdf/2013/19301109Einstein.pdf

I KNOW! That's the point!!!
He totally and completely rejected any kind of a personal God as naive and childish. I'm not asking about any kind of a personal God. I don't believe in a personal God either. But I do believe in Einstein's God, just like Dawkins says he does in the first Chapter of "The God Delusion" where he calls himself, "A Deeply Religious Non-Believer" just like Einstein.

Einstein never hesitated to use the word, "God" which he intended to be understood in the same sense that Democritus, Francis of Assisi, and Spinoza used the word, to mean Nature.

Honestly I think that by referring to God as "Him" or "His Thoughts" he was just trying to communicate with the public, using a metaphor that people would understand. He could have just as easily said, "I want to know Nature's thoughts; the rest are details."

I"m asking you if you reject Einstein's use of the word, "God" as he intended it to be understood.

I'm good with seeing the word, "God" as a euphamism from "Nature". Which is why I don't have any problem, whatsoever with the motto, "In God We Trust" written on every US coin and bill ever minted. When I see that I just think, "Yep, in Nature we Trust"

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.

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.

I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details.

The scientists’ religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.

There is no logical way to the discovery of elemental laws. There is only the way of intuition, which is helped by a feeling for the order lying behind the appearance.
The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.

The man who regards his own life and that of his fellow creatures as meaningless is not merely unfortunate but almost disqualified for life.

The human mind is not capable of grasping the Universe. We are like a little child entering a huge library. The walls are covered to the ceilings with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written these books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. But the child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books—-a mysterious order which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects.

What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism.

The finest emotion of which we are capable is the mystic emotion. Herein lies the germ of all art and all true science. Anyone to whom this feeling is alien, who is no longer capable of wonderment and lives in a state of fear is a dead man. To know that what is impenetrable for us really exists and manifests itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, whose gross forms alone are intelligible to our poor faculties - this knowledge, this feeling ... that is the core of the true religious sentiment. In this sense, and in this sense alone, I rank myself among profoundly religious men.

Intelligence makes clear to us the interrelationship of means and ends. But mere thinking cannot give us a sense of the ultimate and fundamental ends. To make clear these fundamental ends and valuations and to set them fast in the emotional life of the individual, seems to me precisely the most important function which religion has to form in the social life of man.

The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge." Einstein

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> doesn't mean our higher needs, for community,
> belonging, love, self actualization and self
> transcendence evaporate.
> We still have those needs and there are ways of
> fulfilling those needs outside of religion of
> course, but they're just not as obvious or
> convenient.

I personally bristle quite a bit when someone else tells me what my "needs" are. I don't share all of those, lots of other humans don't, and I don't consider all of them "needs." And frankly, if more humans weren't indoctrinated into religious mysticism as children, I suspect claimed "needs" like "self-actualization" and "transcendence" wouldn't be considered "needs" by so many.
Real people satisfy my *desires* for community, belonging, and love. I find the other two mystical nonsense. And my big problem, like Einstein, with "religion" is that it *doesn't actually* do anything -- it just pretends to. What it promises it doesn't deliver, what it offers never materializes. I wouldn't consider false hope and empty promises any kind of "fulfilling of needs," but instead a poor imitation of fulfillment.

> Buddhism is the only religion I know of, who's
> leader says, "If there is a conflict between my
> beliefs and science, I need to change my beliefs."
> Dalai Lama

Let's be clear: Buddhism the religion doesn't "say that," one Dalai Lama did. Other Dalai Lamas have said conflicting things. And the next Dalai Lama, like mormon "prophets," might throw the current one under the bus and go off in a completely different direction. There's nothing inherent in Buddhism promoting facts over belief...and therein lies the rub. Rather than have to change your "beliefs" when science proves them wrong, a better approach might be to not deal in "beliefs" at all, and just go with facts once we know them. And instead of filling gaps in our knowledge with "mysticism" or "beliefs" or "gods," just admit we don't know yet...and work towards gaining knowledge.

What the hell did he know?

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What the hell did he know?

Not much, apparently.

"The higher-order (self-esteem and self-actualization) and lower-order (physiological, safety, and love) needs classification of Maslow's hierarchy of needs is not universal and may vary across cultures due to individual differences and availability of resources in the region or geopolitical entity/country.
In one study, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) of a thirteen item scale showed there were two particularly important levels of needs in the US during the peacetime of 1993 to 1994: survival (physiological and safety) and psychological (love, self-esteem, and self-actualization). In 1991, a retrospective peacetime measure was established and collected during the Persian Gulf War and US citizens were asked to recall the importance of needs from the previous year. Once again, only two levels of needs were identified; therefore, people have the ability and competence to recall and estimate the importance of needs. For citizens in the Middle East (Egypt and Saudi Arabia), three levels of needs regarding importance and satisfaction surfaced during the 1990 retrospective peacetime. These three levels were completely different from those of the US citizens."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs#Criticism

You do realize that Maslow's speculative work is 60+ years old, and much research since his speculative work has shown much of his work wrong, right? Or did you just ignore 60+ years of research because you liked his ideas?

We "need" food, water, and tolerable living conditions.
The rest is desire, not need.
And not even "universal" desire.

. . . much of which he acknowledges humankind does noi yet understand as to its natural-law mechanics. I'm OK with that as a basic concept. Humans tend to describe phenomena that they do not comprehend in majestic and soaring rhetoric. "God" is rhetoric. Science is reality. Einstein knew the difference.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/10/2015 08:34PM by steve benson.

Well the dali llama showed off his flip flopping skills when he embraced violence as justifiable ........because a couple of skyscrapers had collapsed.

From the article, "Was Albert Einstein An Atheist Or Not? . . .":

"Albert Einstein, black and white

"Many people wonder whether Albert Einstein, arguably one of the smartest people to have ever lived, believed in God. The battle over history’s most brilliant minds has gone on for centuries, even including the father of the theory of evolution, Charles Darwin. But few are as hotly disputed as Einstein’s religious beliefs. What did Albert Einstein really believe in, if anything?

"Some religious leaders and theists like Ray Comfort claim that Einstein believed in some form of God, even if it was just an abstract higher power.

“Although he clearly didn’t believe in a personal God (as revealed in the Bible),' Ray Comfort posits in 'Einstein, God, and the Bible': 'Einstein wrote that he wanted to know ‘His’ thoughts, referred to God as "He," and acknowledged that He revealed "Himself."'

"Meanwhile outspoken atheists like evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins claim Einstein as one of their own:

"The 'Hinckley Times' recently published an article written by Reverend John Whittaker denouncing Dawkins’ claim and trying to prove that Einstein never identified as an atheist. Whittaker uses one of Einstein’s most telling quotes on his atheism to support his point. Albert Einstein once said the following in an interview for G. S. Viereck’s book Glimpses of the Great.

“'I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds… The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God.'

"Creationist leaders like Ray Comfort and Ken Ham also use this quote as proof that Albert Einstein did not side with atheists. However, that interview is not the only time Albert Einstein spoke on the subject of God.

"Einstein’s final opinions on the matter were shared in a letter he wrote one year before his death, in 1954. According to 'Letters of Note,' Albert Einstein wrote to the philosopher Erik Gutkind after having just read Gutkind’s book 'Choose Life: The Biblical Call to Revolt.' In this letter, Einstein made his views on God as clear as possible, including the following quote.

“'The word "God" is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can change this for me.'

"Einstein’s letter has since been auctioned off. Richard Dawkins bid on the letter and failed to win the auction, but that doesn’t change that he and other atheist activists appear to be right about Albert Einstein’s religious stance. It’s possible that Einstein simply did not approve of the atheist label, and chose not to identify as such despite lacking a belief in the God of the Bible or other religions."

("Was Albert Einstein An Atheist Or Not? Read His Final Words On God," posted in "News," 13 October 2014, at: http://www.inquisitr.com/1538169/was-albert-einstein-an-atheist-or-not-read-his-final-words-on-god/#SoDwG6xwPc1kLPSx.99)

As a lead up, here are a few snippets from vman455’s Einstein quote (I have used caps as a replacement for italics, sorry for yelling):

“…in these there is found a third LEVEL of religious experience…”
“I will call it the cosmic religious SENSE.”
“This is HARD to make clear to THOSE WHO DO NOT EXPERIENCE IT, since it does not involve an anthropomorphic idea of God; the individual FEELS…”

Let me further emphasize two points from this.

First point: the idea of an experience of consciousness (enlightenment?) that can’t really be relayed to someone who hasn’t experienced it.

(In other words, an anecdotal ‘story’ …an experience unique to the individual, but not necessarily unique for others who may have also experienced it).

Second point: In Einstein’s description of this ‘cosmic religious sense’, he begins with the words “the individual FEELS”.

(Yet another anecdotal experience …you can’t ‘prove’ a ‘feeling’ using the scientific method ...it’s something you experience, it isn’t detected by machinery.)


Pardon the build-up, now here are my observations/rhetorical questions.

I have seen many (or at least a few) people try to convey a similar ‘cosmic religious sense’ here at RfM. When I see those posts, I am often reminded of the eastern philosophies, and of their ideas of ‘raised consciousness, or ‘enlightenment’, much like Einstein was relating through the discourse provided by vman455.

Here is the question: Why can Einstein say it, and everyone reacts with hmmm’s and haw’s and takes it as a valid discussion point. Yet when someone posts here and talks about the same ‘experiential’ concept of enlightenment, it is ridiculed and written off as an anecdotal experience with absolutely no validity.

Why is it ok for Einstein to discuss such an idea, but not some lowly mortal here on RfM? Are we too afraid to call Einstein an ass for placing any validity in what amounts to an ‘anecdotal personal experience’? Or are we just assuming, as was proposed in another post on the Einstein topic, that he was just playing PR with any of his discourses regarding the experience of consciousness …and so we simply let him off the hook? Or does this idea suddenly become relevant just because Einstein said it?

Is this some version of an appeal to an authority mindset, or maybe a situation where what’s good for the goose isn’t good for the gander? What is it then? Cause I’ve seen others here derided for expressing similar thoughts to the one’s Einstein just made in vman455’s quote. That is what is puzzling me, if I’ve managed to convey my point effectively.

If there is a sliding scale of relevance to various ponderings regarding consciousness, as Einstein has indicated here, then why can’t they be discussed here at RfM without them so quickly being shut down and regarded as ‘anecdotal’ and ‘irrelevant’? Einstein obviously thought about them a lot, why can’t we?

Mormonism = Amway, I am certain of it.
Eastern ‘consciousness raising’ philosophies = Hmmm, not so sure yet.

+1

Science isn't necessarily reality. Science is merely the cross section of the things that we can and do know with the things that are actually true.

Edit: That being said, I guess we are probably both wrong about science. Science is a methodology more than anything else.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/10/2015 10:25PM by snb.

. . . a much more reliable tool than religion, in that it is based on observation, testing, replication and falsification--a model for knowledge acquisition that, in its basic structure, is infinitely more reliable at discovering facts than religion ever has been or can be.

Think of "the religious method" as one that involves the following steps:

(1) You stand in front of a wall with an arrow pulled back in your bow.

(2) You shoot the arrow into the wall.

(3) You step forward and draw concentric circles around where the arrow has embedded in the wall.

(4) You then shout, "BULL'S-EYE!"

(5) You pat yourself on the back for getting yourself your very own religion.

That is how religion works: It's a faith-based belief system where pre-determined notions are not subjected to meaningful testing, questioning, observing, replicating or falsifying. Rather, these notions are simply accepted as magically being "true."

Science, on the other hand, is at its best when it's doing what it does best: Engaging in relentless empirical efforts to disprove its own theories through the application of known facts. The best theories are those that withstand the most rigorous attacks in their efforts at explaining the real world.

Religion, in contrast, sets itself up as being "God"-protected impervious to skeptical inquiry because religion, at its core, applies nothing of substance against its assumptions that demonstrably can disprove those assumptions (except, of course, faith, which is ameaningless "tool" because faith is based on a nothing-disproveable-God approach to life).

So, give me science any day. It's the best things humans have going for them when it comes to understanding the world around them. Religion is best suited for Mother Goose storytime.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 01/10/2015 10:50PM by steve benson.

. . . . from its author, Maria Popova, no direct statements from Einstein about "God."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/10/2015 10:58PM by steve benson.

Science is a methodology more than anything else.

Great wisdom here.....

Genius is a mixed bag. Einstein was great at math and physics. Other than that, he was just another guy with his own religious views. They happened to be colored by his experiences in theoretical physics. Just as my views of God are colored by my life experiences.

So, another person's experience of God really doesn't amount to much. It's more about what you experience.

I mean Einstein was smart but he promoted "the bomb" to Roosevelt and he didn't treat his first wife very well.

Yeah! It's not like Einstein was a rocket scientist!

Religion is churlish.

Religion is not rocket science!

Einstein was brilliant, but what difference do his religious beliefs matter? People can be amazing in one field and fools in another.

I'm sure Einstein would be amazing to talk to, but that doesn't mean you have to swallow his advice whole. It's even more foolish to follow one quote taken out of context as the foundation for your life.

Outside of physics, Einstein was just a smart guy.