Einstein the atheist.

If a persons asked some one "Do you believe there is no God? And the person replied that the question was an insult to him. And then went on to say "How could a scientist like myself not be an atheist" - we would conclude that he or she WAS an atheist.

Conversely if Einstien said, how could a scientist like himself not believe in God then we can only conclude he was a theist.

Those denying what is plan as day better spend their energy trying to debunk something else.

Originally posted by jaywill
He was a theist. When asked if he believed in God he said that the question was an insult to him. He said how could a scientist such as he not believe in God. Or essentially those things he said.

By no tortured logic can it be "debunked" that Albert Einstien was a theist.

Rubbish. He makes it absolutely clear in the letters of his that were published that he was an atheist, who didn't really like the tag "atheist". He clearly, and on many occassions alluded to the fact that his notion of God was in fact synonymous with reality, or existence.

Why won't you READ? I've posted several links to articles which make this abundantly clear.

"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilized interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. 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. As far as my experience goes, they are also 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."

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Yes, but the Jews and Christians share a god, you know......

Irrelvant.

Einstien was not an atheist whatever else you want to call him.

You might as well take him at his own word. He should have known what his personal beliefs were and were not.

Do you agree?

Originally posted by jaywill
Irrelvant.

Einstien was not an atheist whatever else you want to call him.

You might as well take him at his own word. He should know.

Blethers. Complete moonshine.


Einstein himself said;

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

====================================

Rubbish. He makes it absolutely clear in the letters of his that were published that he was an atheist, who didn't really like the tag "atheist". He clearly, and on many occassions alluded to the fact that his notion of God was in fact synonymous with reality, or existence.

=======================================

So he didn't like the tag. So what?

I believe God is synonymous with reality also.

Your quote after this is interesting. However you cannot discount the other things he also said.

And I would like to see that paragraph in the full context.

What about the several quotations that Scriabin supplied. Should we pretend that he never said those things?

At best you can say "Well, his concept of God was not like yours." Sure, lots of theists don't have a concept of God like I do.

The question here is really "Is a Pantheist a Theist or is a Pantheist an Atheist?"


I think the answer is that a Pantheist is a kind of Theist.

Originally posted by jaywill

I think the answer is that a Pantheist is a kind of Theist.

For a summary of this issue, visit:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism/

The stance of the article is that pantheism not theism. Whether it is atheistic is undecided. Technical definitions aside, Einstein was nonetheless an atheist. When we argue whether God exists, we conversationally mean, whether a personal God exists. As Einstein denied a personal God, he would have supported the atheists.

Originally posted by jaywill
Your quote after this is interesting. However you cannot discount the other things he also said.

And I would like to see that paragraph in the full context.

What about the several quotations that Scriabin supplied. Should we pretend that he never said those things?

This is interesting. I provide a full paragraph and you want to see that in context, yet you have no qualms about seeing the full context of what Scriabin supplied.

Amazing how the balance of necessary evidence shifts when you have a point you want to support, as opposed to one you want to reject.

Reviewing Einstien's statements

====================================
"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses,
===============================


I would ask him if he considered Abraham, Moses. Joshua, David, Solomon as examples of very weak men.

( I didn't say that they were perfect and without defects.)

I would ask him who he would consider as world history's strongest personality. My opinion is that Jesus of Nazareth displays the most powerful personality among people who have lived. He said that He could do nothing without the Father.

I would ask Einstien if he considered Jesus Christ as an example of a weak person.

I might also ask him was he qualified to critique other's weaknesses when he apparently could not remain faithful to his first wife.

==========================================
the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.
===========================================


I would tell him that was a pretty broad and innacuate generalization. The whole biography of Joseph in Genesis is quite profound as is the life stories of others in the Bible.

I would not mistake simplicity for childishness. One might say the the simplicity of E = MC square was "childish" because of its simplicity. But it really would not be fair.

The elegance of the Bible to present some profound truths in a way accisible to many people, including children, is not an indication of its childishness. Rather of its wisdom.


======================================
No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.
=========================================

Well, Professor, that may be just the same stubburness by which you clung to the "greatest blunder" of your life - a constant in your theory of Relativity to account for an uncreated universe. You said it was the biggest blunder of your career. So that could just be the same bull headedness with which you refuse to recognize that there are quite mature and profound things to be read in the Bible.

It certainly has been a book to fully occupy intelligent minds for thousands of years. Tertullian, Cyprian, Origen, Augustine, Calvin, Luther, and many other learned scholars have spent much of their lives researching this book.

It is the only book I know of tha contain an Exhaustive Concordance with which one can look up every single occurance of every single word in the Bible ! Someone thought it was worthwhile to have a team of scholars write Strong's Exhaustive Concordance to the Bible.

Besides Professor, mastering ancient Greek might be equally or more ardent than mastering college mathematics. I tried it. Let's say it was no picknic of simplicity to learn to read and write New Testament Greek.

Ancient Hebrew is no picnic either.


=========================================
These subtilized interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text.
============================================

Examples from the Professor might be interesting to see. What examples would he give. And do such examples represent ALL exegesis of the Bible?

I wonder if the good professor would be happy if I said all Cosmology really boiled down to "Twinkle, twinkle, little star."

"Oh, this Cosmology is so childish. It all ends up being simply "Twinkle, twinkle, little star!" eh Professor?

All those formuli of Newton and Galaleo really have nothing to do with the matter, you know?


====================================
For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions.
=======================================

Interesting, Prof. How do you explain that such childish Jewish ideas have had such a profound impact on the Western Civilization?


=========================================

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. As far as my experience goes, they are also 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."

====================================

God said that He didn't chose Israel for any special quality that they had over other people anyway. He made that clear to them. They were not inherently superior to other people.

God Himself said that. He's just getting around to realizing the same.

Originally posted by jaywill
Reviewing Einstien's statements

[b]====================================
"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses,
===============================


I would ask him if he considered Abraham, Moses. Joshua, David, Solomon as examples of very weak men.

( I didn't say that they were pe ...[text shortened]...
God Himself said that. He's just getting around to realizing the same.[/b]

So you disagree with Einstein's beliefs. That does not prove whether Einstein was a theist.

=====================================

As Einstein denied a personal God, he would have supported the atheists.

==========================================

Then why did you not simply title your discussion "Einstien would have SUPPORTED the atheists?"

He had pantheistic beliefs by which he could have lent support to certain New Age or Buddhist concepts of God also.

Actually, I can see a man shifting and changing his way of expressing his ideas. When I didn't know God personally I had one opinion in the morning and wrestled and wrestled with it only to have another opinion in the evening. It is a restless existence of ever changing opinions like the troubled sea.

So I can see him sounding more like an atheist on some days and more like a theist on other days.


( I'll give it to you that I displayed some uneven suspicion concerning context ).

Originally posted by Conrau K
So you disagree with Einstein's beliefs. That does not prove whether Einstein was a theist.

The purpose of that post was not to prove anything except I have some good questions about the statements he made.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]=====================================

As Einstein denied a personal God, he would have supported the atheists.

==========================================

Then why did you not simply title your discussion "Einstien would have SUPPORTED the atheists?"

He had pantheistic beliefs by which he could have lent support to certain New Age o ...[text shortened]... ys.


( I'll give it to you that I displayed some uneven suspicion concerning context ).[/b]

He had pantheistic beliefs by which he could have lent support to certain New Age or Buddhist concepts of God also.

He could have. Nonetheless, he would not be a theist. And were he on this forum, he would probably support the atheists.

So I can see him sounding more like an atheist on some days and more like a theist on other days.

Dawkins makes the same comments as Einstein in his first chapter of The God Delusion. He even concedes that, like Einstein, he has a pantheistic reverence for nature. Do you think Dawkins ever sounds like a theist?

Originally posted by jaywill
The purpose of that post was not to prove anything except I have some good questions about the statements he made.

I personally doubt that Einstein will be able to answer your questions.

I meant to write that mastering NT GReek could be arguably as ardent of not more than mastering graduate math.