An Empirical Theory Of God (2)

[Michael]

No, he absolutely didn't, because he didn't believe in the any personal Gods, such as the God of Christianity.

Many individuals fail to develop a "personal" relationship with God, and/or relate to God in a very "impersonal" way.

I just so happen to have a very 'personal' relationship with God, as do most "Christians" I know of, including Jesus himself.

He left the door slightly ajar towards a universal God (one that does not answer prayers,

Is "no"' a legitimate answer in your opinion, or is God obligated to say "yes" to all human requests/commands?

or judges or cares what you do),

As a universalist "Christian", I don't personally believe in eternal torment so in terms of the judgement aspect I find myself pretty close to agreement with Einstein on that point.

In terms of "caring" about me however, I've had exactly the opposite experience over the past 53 years or so.

but he slammed the door hard against the existence of any personal Gods.

I get the feeling from reading his various statements that he entertained a pantheistic view of the universe, but not necessarily a panentheistic view of the universe. He certainly rejected any sense of a vengeful "God" that runs around eternally tormenting his creations for the finite sins of a single human lifetime. I tend to understand and agree with Einstein on some religious viewpoints, but not in terms of the 'caring' aspect. I've had too many personal experience of God in my life to agree with Einstein on that particular issue. I think it's a pity he never developed a "personal" relationship with God. It's probably his greatest actual "blunder" IMO.

 

[bhsmte]

Many individuals fail to develop a "personal" relationship with God, and/or relate to God in a very "impersonal" way.

I just so happen to have a very 'personal' relationship with God, as do most "Christians" I know of, including Jesus himself.



Is "no"' a legitimate answer in your opinion, or is God obligated to say "yes" to all human requests/commands?



As a universalist "Christian", I don't personally believe in eternal torment so in terms of the judgement aspect I find myself pretty close to agreement with Einstein on that point.

In terms of "caring" about me however, I've had exactly the opposite experience over the past 53 years or so.



I get the feeling from reading his various statements that he entertained a pantheistic view of the universe, but not necessarily a panentheistic view of the universe. He certainly rejected any sense of a vengeful "God" that runs around eternally tormenting his creations for the finite sins of a single human lifetime. I tend to understand and agree with Einstein on some religious viewpoints, but not in terms of the 'caring' aspect. I've had too many personal experience of God in my life to agree with Einstein on that particular issue. I think it's a pity he never developed a "personal" relationship with God. It's probably his greatest actual "blunder" IMO.

Well, whether it was a blunder or not is a matter of opinion.

Obviously, Einstein was a man who was a deep thinker and he thought things through with careful examination and claimed himself to be "agnostic" towards a personal God and even labeled the bible and personal God belief as "childish".

I don't think he was trying to offend anyone by using this term of "childish", he was simply observing the world we live in, examining the contents of the bible and making a logical conclusion (which I happen to agree with).

To label that a blunder on his part, is really not giving him the respect that any person deserves in developing an "informed opinion".

 

[Michael]

Well, whether it was a blunder or not is a matter of opinion.

Obviously, Einstein was a man who was a deep thinker and he thought things through with careful examination and claimed himself to be "agnostic" towards a personal God and even labeled the bible and personal God belief as "childish".

Before I comment further, I think an actual quote is in order. I've seen way too many instances of people putting words into Einstein's mouth. Your claim that he said "personal God belief" is "childish" sounds suspiciously like one such example. I too find some specific religious (and scientific) viewpoints to be "childish". Again, an actual quote would be in order IMO.

I don't think he was trying to offend anyone by using this term of "childish", he was simply observing the world we live in, examining the contents of the bible and making a logical conclusion (which I happen to agree with).

There are many ways of interpreting any or all religious texts, some of which seem pretty "childish" from my vantage point as well. Again, I can only comment in the context of an actual quote.

To label that a blunder on his part, is really not giving him the respect that any person deserves in developing an "informed opinion".

I'll grant you that Einstein was an "expert" on the topic of GR theory, but even Einstein admitted his capacity for making "blunders" even in his own areas of expertize. What however makes his opinion on any other topic, including the topic of God an 'informed opinion' exactly? Was he an "expert" at fidelity as well?

I admire Einstein, but I admire Jesus far more.

 

[CabVet]

Before I comment further, I think an actual quote is in order. I've seen way too many instances of people putting words into Einstein's mouth.

Below is a letter hand written by Einstein in response to Gutkind’s book "Choose Life: The Biblical Call to Revolt". Here is a translated piece of it:

"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 subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text."

Another passage:

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

*Some translate the German word that he used for "childish" as "primitive", but the point remains.

 

[Michael]

Below is a letter hand written by Einstein in response to Gutkind’s book "Choose Life: The Biblical Call to Revolt". Here is a translated piece of it:

"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 subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text."

Another passage:

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

*Some translate the German word that he used for "childish" as "primitive", but the point remains.

Actually, the difference between childish and primitive is relevant, at least to me. I would agree that Judaism is a more "primitive" religion than Christianity for instance. I would tend to agree with him that all human texts are open to personal interpretation, and that interpretation may or may not have much if anything to do with the actual text.

Ultimately you'd have to say that "dark energy" and "dark matter" are an expression of and a product of human weaknesses. Even the term "gravity" doesn't actually explain *what gravity is, or how it works". All we know about gravity is how to label it, and how to mathematically model it. MOND theory demonstrates that even our beliefs about it's mathematical expression can vary with the individual. I'd say our knowledge of gravity remains pretty primitive, even if we can land objects on other planets. I wouldn't however necessarily call our understanding or expression of gravity "childish".

I still didn't hear him say "Personal God belief is childish", no matter how you interpret that last term.

 

[CabVet]

Actually, the difference between childish and primitive is relevant, at least to me. I would agree that Judaism is a more "primitive" religion than Christianity for instance. I would tend to agree with him that all human texts are open to personal interpretation, and that interpretation may or may not have much if anything to do with the actual text.

I still didn't hear him say "Personal God belief is childish", no matter how you interpret that last term.

Denial, I get it. But did you at least hear him say that all religions are superstitions?

 

[bhsmte]

Actually, the difference between childish and primitive is relevant, at least to me. I would agree that Judaism is a more "primitive" religion than Christianity for instance. I would tend to agree with him that all human texts are open to personal interpretation, and that interpretation may or may not have much if anything to do with the actual text.

Ultimately you'd have to say that "dark energy" and "dark matter" are an expression of and a product of human weaknesses. Even the term "gravity" doesn't actually explain *what gravity is, or how it works". All we know about gravity is how to label it, and how to mathematically model it. MOND theory demonstrates that even our beliefs about it's mathematical expression can vary with the individual. I'd say our knowledge of gravity remains pretty primitive, even if we can land objects on other planets. I wouldn't however necessarily call our understanding or expression of gravity "childish".

I still didn't hear him say "Personal God belief is childish", no matter how you interpret that last term.

Bottom line, Einstein made his view on the existence of a personal God and religion crystal clear, for anyone who cared to listen.

 

[Michael]

Bottom line, Einstein made his view on the existence of a personal God and religion crystal clear, for anyone who cared to listen.

"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 minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God."

He and I aren't really that far apart on this particular point. In terms of our beliefs and relationship with God, the distinction between us seems to be the difference between pantheism and panentheism. Whereas he did not have a "personal" relationship with God, I do have a personal relationship with God, as do most "Christians". Other than that, we seem to share a lot of the same opinions on a variety of topics.

 

[bhsmte]

He and I aren't really that far apart on this particular point. In terms of our beliefs and relationship with God, the distinction between us seems to be the difference between pantheism and panentheism. Whereas he did not have a "personal" relationship with God, I do have a personal relationship with God, as do most "Christians". Other than that, we seem to share a lot of the same opinions on a variety of topics.

If you look at the totality of Einsteins comments about religion and God, he didn't have a personal relationship, because he didn't believe the "personal God" of Christianity or other religions existed. Since he did not believe in the personal God concept, that would make any "personal" relationship quite difficult.

 

[Michael]

Denial, I get it. But did you at least hear him say that all religions are superstitions?

IMO, pretty much any explanation of the universe that we life in amounts to a human superstition. What you call "science" today is more of a metaphysical superstition than most in fact. It actually requires more acts of pure faith than most religions do.

I actually tend to agree with Einstein about religion in general. It's typically full of bad dogma, and it's usually constrained by politics. Of course I feel that same exact way about what passes for "science" as well in terms of it's explanation about the origin and function of our universe.

Einstein also rejected QM. His expertize was limited and he wasn't an expert on every topic. I'd hardly call him an 'expert' on the topic of God, particularly since he never developed a personal relationship with God during his lifetime. Jesus tends to be my role model as it relates to the topic of God, not Einstein.

 

[CabVet]

IMO, pretty much any explanation of the universe that we life in amounts to a human superstition. What you call "science" today is more of a metaphysical superstition than most in fact. It actually requires more acts of pure faith than most religions do.

Not my field (evolutionary biology).

 

[Michael]

If you look at the totality of Einsteins comments about religion and God, he didn't have a personal relationship, because he didn't believe the "personal God" of Christianity or other religions existed.

Whereas Jesus did believe in a personal God and Jesus did manage to develop and maintain a personal relationship with the 'Father' figure that he talked about.

Since he did not believe in the personal God concept, that would make any "personal" relationship quite difficult.

I'm not sure how familiar you are with other religions, but many Hindus have a very 'impersonal' relationship and viewpoint about God. There is a monotheistic "Brahman" figure in Hinduism, but it tends to be an impersonal view of God compared to say 'Krishna". I understand that impersonal viewpoint of God, I simply don't agree with it, nor does it jive with my experience in life.

 

[Michael]

Not my field (evolutionary biology).

I see. I'm afraid that I don't have any complaints with any "hands on" branches of science.

 

[bhsmte]

Whereas Jesus did believe in a personal God and Jesus did manage to develop and maintain a personal relationship with the 'Father' figure that he talked about.

I'm not sure how familiar you are with other religions, but many Hindus have a very 'impersonal' relationship and viewpoint about God. There is a monotheistic "Brahman" figure in Hinduism, but it tends to be an impersonal view of God compared to say 'Krishna". I understand that impersonal viewpoint of God, I simply don't agree with it, nor does it jive with my experience in life.

Not sure I understand your response as it relates to my point.

Again, Einstein would have no reason to have a relationship with God, because he stated and I paraphrase; if a God exists, he does not answer prayers or involve himself with interjecting himself with people's lives as it states in the bible. How can you have a personal relationship if you believe a potential God has no interest in a personal relationship with you?

 

[Michael]

Not sure I understand your response as it relates to my point.

I hear your point, but I don't get the impression that you're hearing mine.

Again, Einstein would have no reason to have a relationship with God, because he stated and I paraphrase; if a God exists, he does not answer prayers or involve himself with interjecting himself with people's lives as it states in the bible. How can you have a personal relationship if you believe a potential God has no interest in a personal relationship with you?

IMO Einstein limited *himself* based upon his own *assumptions* about God. He may have *assumed* that God exists but God doesn't "care" for humans. That *assumption* was incorrect however, according to the world recognized "experts" on the topic of God. While Einstein is a valid and recognized 'expert' on GR theory, he's not a recognized 'expert' on the topic of God or QM.

Between Islam and Christianity, over 50 percent of planet Earth considers Jesus to be a recognized "expert" on the topic of God. If I'm going to select an "expert" on the topic of God, it's not Einstein. Whereas he seemed to believe in an impersonal "God", it's clear that he never developed a *personal* relationship with the God that he believed in. It's a pity mind you, but it was a *choice* that Einstein made based upon his own preconceived prejudices. Did Einstein meditate and pray? I have no idea. All I know is that while he did believe in God, he did not have a "close" or personal relationship with God.

Again however, that's a *choice* that Einstein made for himself, and it's definite not *reality* for everyone. The world's leading and recognized "experts" on the topic of God all seem to *disagree* with Einstein on this point. I know for a fact that Jesus *did* meditate and pray to God, since these acts are described in synoptic gospels as well as John. Jesus found value in that activity even when the answer was 'no' (his personal crucifixion).

According to the 'expert' I put "faith" in, it is possible to have a personal relationship with God. It takes *effort* of course, effort Einstein may or may not have made. My *experiences* however are based upon *effort*, specifically an *effort* to get to know God, and to commune with God.

I have discovered that while God's love toward me is unchanging, often the answers to my prayers are "no". It's not that God doesn't want me to be happy however, it's just that he knows that sometimes my *desires* aren't always in my long range best interests.

I appreciate Einstein's position on a wide variety of topics. He wasn't however particularly faithful to his wife, and therefore I wouldn't select his beliefs/advice/actions on that topic as the 'be-all-end-all' in terms of judging the value of fidelity in marriage. He also rejected QM, and it's pretty darn clear now that his position was not correct on that topic either.

Both Einstein and Jesus believed in something they called "God". In terms of deciding whether or not it's possible that God "cares" for human, or interacts with humans, there is some debate/disagreement between them. I know what Jesus suggested in terms of meditation and prayer worked to help *me* establish a personal relationship with God during my lifetime. I therefore have very little "doubt" as the to the "expertize" of Jesus on that particular topic. I also happen to know that Jesus suggested that fidelity in marriage was a good thing, and I have followed that advice in my life and in my marriage. I can tell you from experience that such advice was good advice as well.

In terms of selecting an "expert" on the topic of whether or not it's possible to have a *personal* relationship with God, I have to go with the world's leading/recognized "expert" on that topic, and it it's not Einstein.

 

[bhsmte]

I hear your point, but I don't get the impression that you're hearing mine.

IMO Einstein limited *himself* based upon his own *assumptions* about God. He may have *assumed* that God exists but God doesn't "care" for humans. That *assumption* was incorrect however, according to the world recognized "experts" on the topic of God. While Einstein is a valid and recognized 'expert' on GR theory, he's not a recognized 'expert' on the topic of God or QM.

Between Islam and Christianity, over 50 percent of planet Earth considers Jesus to be a recognized "expert" on the topic of God. If I'm going to select an "expert" on the topic of God, it's not Einstein. Whereas he seemed to believe in an impersonal "God", it's clear that he never developed a *personal* relationship with the God that he believed in. It's a pity mind you, but it was a *choice* that Einstein made based upon his own preconceived prejudices. Did Einstein meditate and pray? I have no idea. All I know is that while he did believe in God, he did not have a "close" or personal relationship with God.

Again however, that's a *choice* that Einstein made for himself, and it's definite not *reality* for everyone. The world's leading and recognized "experts" on the topic of God all seem to *disagree* with Einstein on this point. I know for a fact that Jesus *did* meditate and pray to God, since these acts are described in synoptic gospels as well as John. Jesus found value in that activity even when the answer was 'no' (his personal crucifixion).

According to the 'expert' I put "faith" in, it is possible to have a personal relationship with God. It takes *effort* of course, effort Einstein may or may not have made. My *experiences* however are based upon *effort*, specifically an *effort* to get to know God, and to commune with God.

I have discovered that while God's love toward me is unchanging, often the answers to my prayers are "no". It's not that God doesn't want me to be happy however, it's just that he knows that sometimes my *desires* aren't always in my long range best interests.

I appreciate Einstein's position on a wide variety of topics. He wasn't however particularly faithful to his wife, and therefore I wouldn't select his beliefs/advice/actions on that topic as the 'be-all-end-all' in terms of judging the value of fidelity in marriage. He also rejected QM, and it's pretty darn clear now that his position was not correct on that topic either.

Both Einstein and Jesus believed in something they called "God". In terms of deciding whether or not it's possible that God "cares" for human, or interacts with humans, there is some debate/disagreement between them. I know what Jesus suggested in terms of meditation and prayer worked to help *me* establish a personal relationship with God during my lifetime. I therefore have very little "doubt" as the to the "expertize" of Jesus on that particular topic. I also happen to know that Jesus suggested that fidelity in marriage was a good thing, and I have followed that advice in my life and in my marriage. I can tell you from experience that such advice was good advice as well.

In terms of selecting an "expert" on the topic of whether or not it's possible to have a *personal* relationship with God, I have to go with the world's leading/recognized "expert" on that topic, and it it's not Einstein.

Well, Einstein had his opinion about a potential God based on his intellect and to say he was wrong and someone else is right, is really a giant leap with no evidence to support.

 

[Michael]

Well, Einstein had his opinion about a potential God based on his intellect and to say he was wrong and someone else is right, is really a giant leap with no evidence to support.

I already quoted Einstein about his belief in an "illimitable superior spirit" that reveals itself through nature. FYI, I'd also describe God that way myself. God *is* nature IMO.

When you say there is "no evidence" of God, or evidence that God interacts with humans, I can't really agree with you. If there is any supposed "evidence' of "dark energy', or "dark matter", or "inflation", then there is definitely "evidence" that God interacts with humans, starting with all the writings from antiquity that describe God interacting with humans.

Whether or not one has a "personal" relationship with God has everything to do with *effort*. Einstein's opinions on the *nature* of God (whether he cares/interacts or not) are of very little interest to me. I have no idea if he even made any/much effort into developing a relationship with God. I agree with Einstein that God exists and reveals himself through nature. I simply disagree with his opinion that God doesn't "care" for, or interact with humans. There's *ample* writings from *many* humans that describe a *personal* relationship between God and humans. Why doesn't that volume of human writing count as *evidence* to support a *personal* God?

 

[bhsmte]

I already quoted Einstein about his belief in an "illimitable superior spirit" that reveals itself through nature. FYI, I'd also describe God that way myself. God *is* nature IMO.

When you say there is "no evidence" of God, or evidence that God interacts with humans, I can't really agree with you. If there is any supposed "evidence' of "dark energy', or "dark matter", or "inflation", then there is definitely "evidence" that God interacts with humans, starting with all the writings from antiquity that describe God interacting with humans.

Whether or not one has a "personal" relationship with God has everything to do with *effort*. Einstein's opinions on the *nature* of God (whether he cares/interacts or not) are of very little interest to me. I have no idea if he even made any/much effort into developing a relationship with God. I agree with Einstein that God exists and reveals himself through nature. I simply disagree with his opinion that God doesn't "care" for, or interact with humans. There's *ample* writings from *many* humans that describe a *personal* relationship between God and humans. Why doesn't that volume of human writing count as *evidence* to support a *personal* God?

Effort to obtain a relationship with God comes from having a motivation to do so and this is true for everyone - believer and non-believer.

At the end of the day, this is driven by individual psychology more than anything else. There has been interesting research done on what motivates certain people to believe in a personal God without objective evidence (you state there is evidence and any evidence would only involve personal experience, which comes from the mind and is not verifiable) and this is what makes this topic so interesting.

Believing is important for some people because it satisfies a psychological need. Some people claim to believe just because they feel it is politically correct and they want to be accepted (but they really have serious doubts) and there is a smaller group which look at things more objectively and have a strong desire to discover truth and truth that can be verified.

 

[Michael]

Effort to obtain a relationship with God comes from having a motivation to do so and this is true for everyone - believer and non-believer.

At the end of the day, this is driven by individual psychology more than anything else.

Agreed. Some people make a great effort to become experts at chess. Others make a great effort to improve their singing skills. Others make a great effort at developing a personal relationship with God. That internal motivation is the key to becoming "good" at something.

There has been interesting research done on what motivates certain people to believe in a personal God without objective evidence

Define "objective" and define "evidence". If you can explain what "objective evidence" that you think exist to support "dark energy", "dark matter" or inflation, I can explain the 'evidence' of God to you.

(you state there is evidence and any evidence would only involve personal experience, which comes from the mind and is not verifiable) and this is what makes this topic so interesting.

In terms of "verifiable", at least it's "repeatable" here on Earth which is a lot more than can be said for inflation or dark energy.

Believing is important for some people because it satisfies a psychological need.

Likewise atheism can have important internal psychological triggers and motives. That "mind" aspect cuts both ways.

Some people claim to believe just because they feel it is politically correct and they want to be accepted (but they really have serious doubts) and there is a smaller group which look at things more objectively and have a strong desire to discover truth and truth that can be verified.

IMO an honest "scientific doubt" is actually a healthy thing. Do you have 'doubts' as to the existence of "dark energy" as well? Do you publicly crusade *against* that idea as vehemently as as say the topic of "God"? What actually motivates *vocal skeptics*?

 

[bhsmte]

Agreed. Some people make a great effort to become experts at chess. Others make a great effort to improve their singing skills. Others make a great effort at developing a personal relationship with God. That internal motivation is the key to becoming "good" at something.



Define "objective" and define "evidence". If you can explain what "objective evidence" that you think exist to support "dark energy", "dark matter" or inflation, I can explain the 'evidence' of God to you.



In terms of "verifiable", at least it's "repeatable" here on Earth which is a lot more than can be said for inflation or dark energy.



Likewise atheism can have important internal psychological triggers and motives. That "mind" aspect cuts both ways.



IMO an honest "scientific doubt" is actually a healthy thing. Do you have 'doubts' as to the existence of "dark energy" as well? Do you publicly crusade *against* that idea as vehemently as as say the topic of "God"? What actually motivates *vocal skeptics*?

Look up research on the "God Helmet" and there is tons of other work being done in regards to the psychology of belief.

Most humans by nature, tend to hold onto certain core beliefs, even in the absence of evidence or evidence pointing the other direction. It is very uncomfortable (psychologically) to acknowledge a long held belief was wrong, and a practice of rationalization will take place to secure that belief (ignoring facts as being wrong, making non-verifiable evidence rock solid, etc. etc.).

Have you ever known someone who holds onto a belief that goes against logic; The Kennedy assasination is one example. Despite massive evidence that points to one guy, most Americans still believe there is a conspiracy and they bend and twist the evidence to make it fit there belief. Just one small example of denying reality, because it is more painful (psychologically) to accept you were wrong.