"but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth."

This is my favorite part. Einstein agrees with the atheist that religious indoctrination is a "fetter". He is just too full of humility to say so out loud (except in this quote, I suppose).


On this part though, you are wrong:
"I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.", he is not saying that he has reached a verdict on the matter, he is saying that, given the limitations of our human intellect, he cannot make a pronouncement."

Einstein didn't say human intellect was too limited, he is saying that the then *current* understanding of nature and our being is limited. A more strident atheist like me instead looks to the trend in understanding, which (barring some major nuclear catastrophe) is always going up.

Because what's said is something like this:

"We don't understand everything about the universe."

Whereas what they hear is this:

"Yes, of course, your belief in your god is completely logical and reasonable, and arrogant atheists who keep asking you pesky questions about contradictions and flaws in your beliefs need to shut up."

loves in a quote like this.

If I knew what every atheist loved and felt I might feel qualified to explain things as you do. Perhaps someday I will also be a mind reader.

You stop doing that, and I'll stop defining things for believers.

Deal?

Other than that, interesting to know that you have appointed yourself to be the official definer.

Really?

Unless you are referring to my assertion that atheism is a belief system like any other. I will admit to stating the obvious if that is your reference.

If you have proof that there is/are no deity/deities, present that proof.

If you have no proof, it is merely a belief.

and you insist that you are right and every atheist who has spoken against you is wrong.

I am not making a claim that no gods or things like the concept we hold of a 'god' exist ever, anywhere in this or any other universe.

Not a claim I make.


I simply don't believe your claim that your concept of god is real and it exists.
I'm not saying it doesn't exist, or can't exist. I am disinclined to believe you, and your evidence is insufficient (nonexistent) to convince me.

Burden of proof is yours. I'm an a-theist. Without faith. I don't actively hold that belief/faith is impossible. I simply do not share it.

Why start a new one?

Einstein knew nothing of Dawkins, Sagan, or Hitchens.

Einstein's contemporary references would be Bertrand Russell, Sir Julian Huxley, Sigmund Freud.

is that Dawkins et al are attacking theism. They aren't. I don't think they give a squat if people believe. What they are concerned about is the impact of that on society.

That and you ignore the "whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth." Those that you seem to want to dismiss as angry atheists, according to your source, are that way because of what religion has done that it shouldn't have.

My take on Einstein's quote is that:

The idea of a personal god is basically an adult version of the childhood 'imaginary friend',and is an idea which is encouraged and reinforced through religious indoctrination designed to control one's desire to question & critically analyze the beliefs held as accepted as 'fact'.

There is a difference between those who grew up believing in the existence of a personal god and now, as the result of a painful experience, vehemently reject the existence of such and those, such as Einstein, who recognize that man's understanding of nature and being is rudimentary in relation to the complexity of the subject matter.

The 'professional atheist' is concerned only with rejecting the idea that a personal god exists and seeks proof to support his position, whereas those such as Einstein seek A greater understanding of the simple and complex systems, and their relationships, which together comprise that which man identifies as 'nature and beings'....

The quest for this greater understanding is not motivated by a desire to prove or disprove the existence of a personal god.
Rather, the quest is motivated by a desire to add to the existing knowledge base and to utilize all knowledge to gain a greater understanding of things we have yet to discover are even remotely possible.

Given that most people believe in a deity, one could argue that belief is the default position.

And my interpretation of the ending is that Einstein was humble enough to recognize the limitations of the human intellect. His rejection of a personal god is not a rejection of the existence of a deity, it is only his belief that a personal relationship with a deity is not possible.

I see statements like these as a Rorschach test where each observer might see (and understand) something different.

I'd like to see you try and make that argument.

If I were to make such an argument I would expect you to enter the debate.

Make it. Otherwise it's just your personal unsupported opinion and can be easily dismissed as such.

If I were interested in making the argument I would.

Just another wholly unsupported claim of yours. Got it.

dafuq?


Religious belief is common in the same sense that nationalism is common. We teach it to our kids. In both cases, it is not universal, and cannot be considered 'default' simply because it is common.

Humans do seem predisposed to faith, but that does not make it default. We're also predisposed to tribalistic grouping/nationalism but that does not make it default or universal either.

we can see that it is the majority position. I never said it was universal. While it is possible that there are sentient beings elsewhere in the universe, unless we knew more about them we could not say.

When Samsung ships a TV, and the default input is HDMI1, 20% of the TV's do not insist on starting up on HDMI3, or ANT, or USB1, etc.

We do not have an 80% religious majority (inflated by the way, nones) because there is some self-evident thing to be religious about. We have it because again, socially, we teach it to our children. It is a ubiquitous social artifact, and it is declining. Also something the 'default' does not do in nature.

http://www.pewforum.org/2016/07/13/evangelicals-rally-to-trump-religious-nones-back-clinton/

'Nones' are now the single largest 'religious denomination'. Massively outnumbered by the 'somes', but if you break 'somes' into unique religions, we're the largest.

It means accepted, or commonly accepted. And no matter how one wishes to qualify or break down the numbers, over 80% of humans believe in a religion. And, given the trend in Russia and China, that number might well increase.

Merriam-Webster



 

Interpreting in such a manner that one introduces their own beliefs and biases into the text to prove a presupposed conclusion.

Einstein lived a full life. He wrote a lot of letters. He gave interviews. He published works. We can attempt to understand this quote more thoroughly by reading it in the context of these other works.

Or, you know, we can toss our arms up in the air and pretend there's no way to read anything with even the slightest measure of objectivity.

"Given that most people believe in a deity, one could argue that belief is the default position."

If one were to make that argument it would be an example of a logical fallacy: Appeal to common belief
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/24/Appeal-to-Common-Belief

It's a broken premise in multiple ways.

We are all born atheist. Then belief in a god is placed on us by our parents.

If that weren't the case, belief in Thor would still randomly pop up.

means nothing?

Where did the initial impulse to believe arise?

Was it divinely inspired?

We are born as blank pages, that much is true, but atheism is not innate in humans or it would be believed in by the vast majority of humans.

Clearly you have to see that. Otherwise we would see Catholic parents raising children that are just magically Jewish.

Dawkins sheds a lot of biological/evolutionary light on why belief arises and what needs it fills. If it were divinely inspired, I guess the Christian god has boundaries and timelines that it can't go outside of or the early Norse would not have believed in Odin.

If we are born blank pages, then atheism is definitionally innate. Culture makes the blank slate believe in the religion of the culture.

specific forms of that attribute.

Most humans have hair, but not all humans have the same color of hair.

And some feel that all of the different manifestations of the divine are merely reflections of the underlying divine.

Humans are not born with many reflexes, we are not lizards, but given that the vast majority of humans are believers, it speaks to a need or is a reflection of something outside of humanity.

As an evolutionary biologist, he explains the reason why we would want to believe pretty well and how that would have been beneficial for the species at a time.

I'm not saying it's like having hair. It's a thing that is learned. If it weren't learned, we would all be born with a belief. And it would likely be the same belief, not thousands of different permutations. And the beliefs would not have changed over the centuries as cultures came and went. We'd still be born believing in Zeus. Or Odin. It's learned. That seems obvious.

Is there a need to want to feel better about things and thing that the world isn't just some thing that doesn't give two shits about you? Of course. Would it make me feel better to think that some day I'll see my mom again in heaven? Of course. It's clear why we have created these beliefs. Addtionally, the lack of science helped foster these beliefs. Don't understand why something is the way it is? God did it.

But given that belief has persisted, it speaks to a psychological need.

As to the variety of beliefs, that can be explained by the variety of political and economic and artistic beliefs. And everything is learned for humans, except for reflex. A function of brain size.

Lots of things have persisted in humans from our earliest days - and just because they have persisted doesn't mean they are needed, nor necessarily good.

You need to keep working on your argument if you want it to be taken seriously.

It said that no one knows fully what God is like. So people should be free to choose their belief. And no one should "force their belief" on others.

This theology was also part of ecumenism. Or the effort of the different churches to avoid conflicting too much. By asserting that no one can be sure their own ideas about God are the right ones.

But while this was considered pretty advanced theology from the 1950's through the 60's and beyond? There are some things in it that lead to problems. To say, an odd kind of dogmatic vagueness, and evasiveness. People begin very strongly advocating indecisiveness and irrationality, and unaccountability, in religious matters. And its just too vague.

When you try to put your finger on anything in it, it's like punching a marshmallow. But maybe here's one criticism: it is vague and indecisive, to the point of having no solid or reliable content. Beyond maybe the deification of indecisiveness itself.

It's a rather oriental modification of Christianity. The way of the bending reed. The reed that tries to stand straight and firm against a strong force, is broken. The reed that bends, lives on for another day.

But? The disadvantage again, is that there us nothing in it that is firmly reliable.

definitions.

Ask 100 people to define what it means to be a Democrat and we might see 100 different definitions.

If you wish for firmly reliable you are probably better off looking at machines.

But for discussion's sake, I believe in a Creator, and a created universe. But that belief also encompasses the idea that a Creator is so much more powerful than a human. And the Creator is of a much higher order of intellect. So any attempt to define the Creator, or to insist that certain attributes must be part of the Creator is an attempt on the part of the one talking to anthropomorphize a non-human Creator to make that Creator more accessible or understandable to humans.

So we're not dealing with anything very firmly defined here?

Which makes useful or critical discussion difficult or impossible.

To have clear or useful discussions, we need clearly defined terms

One can discuss literature, or music, and whatever is discussed in the arts,and the conclusions arrived at can be very different.

You might prefer one type of art, no matter the medium, and I might prefer another. So we can have such a discussion even if we simply agree to disagree at the end. Is Picasso a better artist than Renoir? There is no real answer.

Recently, you have stressed the word "faith," as a way to characterize religion. And yet however, if religion is uncertain, then this characterization may not be entirely certain.

And in fact, Bishop Barron just offered a review that said the Church and Christianity are not based entirely on faith, but are also based - possibly even more - on Reason.

In that case? A constant invocation of faith, "people of faith," would not be right. Maybe we would even do better, to simply speak about traditional religion, in terms of what reason and science tell us about it; good or bad.

In that case? Reason and science begin to note many apparently false things in traditional, faith-based religion. Including first, say, its promises of giant physical miracles, "all" and "whatever" we "ask" for (John 14.13).

And for that matter, again, they note problems with, sins in, an overemphasis on faith and spirituality in general.

So a major element of Christianity - reason, science - are pointing to very big errors in other parts. The very parts most Christians have tended to make absolutely central.

So I feel that religious believers, the faithful, would do better to listen more, and learn from, not each other so much. But to listen more to even atheists. If they are rational. As most are.

But those feelings are my own and I know that they are my attempts at understanding.

And it seems to me that much of your argument is with Christian Biblical literalists.

The emphasis on just the spiritual quality of faith, for instance, too much denigrates and attacks and seriously weakens reason and intelligence, for instance, in billions of people.

And then define how being in touch with the spiritual side, as you define it, weakens reason and intelligence.


It seems to me that any weaknesses that you may find are individual traits rather than traits inherent in spirituality.

Last edited Mon May 1, 2017, 07:35 AM - Edit history (1)

Generally, it means stressing thinking about invisible religious mental things, in our consciousness or feelings or heaven, over visible physical material things here on earth: especially "possessions."

This note, weakens our materially practical intelligence. In that in priests and the pious, it de-emphasizes the importance of studying for say, a materially practical job. Like making wagon wheels or ships. Instead we often just think and pray about how to please God. Sometimes by only praying continually.

So the nonworldly or otherworldly activity of religious or ascetic spirituality, often takes away from our concentration on practical material things.

Spiritual religious ascetics often despised "mere" material things, including even their own physical "bodies" or "flesh." To the point that they often fasted, or did not eat material food, to support their physical bodies. To the point that they literally starved death.

The example of asceticism illustrates the physical deadliness of extreme spirituality, which is common in religious leaders. Varying degrees of similar material dysunctionality, can be seen in those everyday people, to the degree that they adopt spiritual ideas. Like say, "faith."

Faith we have noted here, by dictionary definition, discourages one from developing a practical intelligence; from basing your behaviour in what results in "proof" able, physical, material results here on this material earth. Instead we are supposed to think of results the eyes cannot see, in an invisible immaterial heaven.

In a word, the great sin in spirituality, is that it often fatally detracts us from adequate attention to the physical world around us.

and extrapolating from that tiny subset to all believers. So if I name Stalin and Mao Tse-Tung as atheists, can I reasonably infer that atheism encourages a tendency to being a dictator and mass murderer?

Last edited Tue May 2, 2017, 09:02 PM - Edit history (1)

... in religion and philosophy, stresses invisible spirits, over visible material things.

Individual believers may try to be more practical. But in doing so, they are departing from the core meaning and the practice of priests and ministers, the core practitioners.

Many "spiritual" laymen are less spiritual than they think. In many ways this is good. Since strict spirituality is physically debilitating. But it means being confused and inconsistent, as to which principles you are really following.

If you are more practical about material things, you may be, on balance, less spiritual than you think.

And I understand.

Last edited Wed May 3, 2017, 04:47 PM - Edit history (1)

That rather rigidly separates religion - normally understood as faith, spirit - from science and technology, practical materialistic thinking.

And listening to many of your statements on "faith"? It does seem to often - if not always - have a disembodied quality. That interfaces only awkwardly with only some practical material actions.

Fortunately, material help for the poor seems an exception to be sure.

But your Faith? Seems deliberately free of any firm focused actions or judgements.

Which makes it unexpectedly amoral in surprising ways. Failing to act against some obvious immoralities in believers.

All of which further suggesting that problems within religion, may be more widespread than any problems within atheism.

It does not imply that the two are in opposition, or that one precludes the other.

And given that science and morality are also separate magisteria, it explains why scientists can invent nerve gas, and atomic weapons, and bacterial weapons, and other methods of mass destruction, with no apparent concern for the practical applications of their inventions.

So does that mean that science is evil and tainted?

Especially if faith excludes any interest in factual data or "proofs".

I'm not for separate magisteria. I'm similar to a monist, who believes that all religion if any, ethics, should be a subordinate part of science.

In my view, science does not exclude good ethics. Good ethics can be, and should be developed, and to some extent already is being developed, within science.

If science had poor ethics at times in the past, in part that was in fact due to your own offputting religious irrationality. And to religions' magisterial retreat. Which helped cripple any more effective interface between ethics and rational science.

So science is evil, or amoral at best.

Faith in the other hand, once it declared its magisterial separation from reason, science, is always half-witted.

Recognize that particular fallacy? It surfaces often when talking about religion.

Science is not a prescriptive set of morals. Religion is. Surely you are aware of this.

The Argument: 1) all Christians support faith. But 2) faith itself is bad; since it encourages people to believe too many things without proof or evidence, or even against.st evidence their briefs are false.

3) Therefore? All Christians ARE bad. Even if many of them proudly think or say that they are good.