When in doubt, ask Einstein.

[Tomk80]

I can do that. Law of conservation of matter states that matter can't just come from nowhere.

However, Einstein's equation E = MC[sup]2[/sup] states that matter is another form of energy. So at the least matter does not have to be around for eternity.

Leaves, us, of course, the question of where energy comes from.

SOMETHING has to be exchanged for it. Now, it's illogical that the universe has "just always been there" so it must have appeared that some point along the way. The problem is, the law of conservation of mass doesn't allow for this stuff to just start getting created on it's own, so technically we should exsist.

The bolded sentence does not make sense in light of the preceding.

However, science is currently not able to understand the material the spirit is made of, and for all science knows it coudl totall be self creating and spriti energy could for all we know be used to create matter. Therefore, use being created by a spirit (God) makes more sense than the Big Bang just happening on it's own. Beleiving is God is proven to be more logical than atheism.

There is a whole lot of things science does not know, the first beginning of the universe is one of them. This in no way allows one to conjure up fantasies (ie, spirits and gods) and pretend they are truth.

There, just backed up my beleifs with science for you. God bless.

No, you just found something that science does not know about, dreamed up some imaginary entities to explain it and then pretended your fantasies are science. This is not the same as backing your beliefs up with science.

 

[five]

I can do that. Law of conservation of matter states that matter can't just come from nowhere. SOMETHING has to be exchanged for it. Now, it's illogical that the universe has "just always been there" so it must have appeared that some point along the way.

Oh yeah?

The problem is, the law of conservation of mass doesn't allow for this stuff to just start getting created on it's own, so technically we should exsist.

fascinating...

However, science is currently not able to understand the material the spirit is made of, and for all science knows it coudl totall be self creating and spriti energy could for all we know be used to create matter.

A compelling argument!

Therefore, use being created by a spirit (God) makes more sense than the Big Bang just happening on it's own. Beleiving is God is proven to be more logical than atheism.

 

[Loudmouth]

True, but if I'm wrong I haven't missed out on anything really except inappropriate acts I'm not interested in anyways.

Is playing golf on sunday morning inappropriate?

If an atheist wrong you're gonna be in trouble with God. Between that and my faith I'll take my chances.

If you are wrong about Jesus then God is going to be ticked off about all that pork you have eaten. Even worse, how are you going to explain yourself to Zeus?

What you are arguing is called Pascal's Wager. It's a poor wager and a poor argument.

 

[five]

If you are wrong about Jesus then God is going to be ticked off about all that pork you have eaten. Even worse, how are you going to explain yourself to Zeus?

What happens when they die and there's nothing else beyond that? Man are they gonna be [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]ed that they spent all those college nights reading the bible instead of getting drunk and having sex with girls with crabs.

 

[Loudmouth]

Perhaps this quote will offer some illumination:

"Although I am a typical loner in daily life, my consciousness of belonging to the invisible community of those who strive for truth, beauty, and justice has preserved me from feeling isolated. The most beautiful and deepest experience a man can have is the sense of the mysterious. It is the underlying principle of religion as well as all serious endeavour in art and science. He who never had this experience seems to me, if not dead, then at least blind. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious. To me it suffices to wonder at these secrets and to attempt humbly to grasp with my mind a mere image of the lofty structure of all that is there."

source: http://www.ctinquiry.org/publications/reflections_volume_1/torrance.htm

 

[five]

Perhaps this quote will offer some illumination:

"Although I am a typical loner in daily life, my consciousness of belonging to the invisible community of those who strive for truth, beauty, and justice has preserved me from feeling isolated. The most beautiful and deepest experience a man can have is the sense of the mysterious. It is the underlying principle of religion as well as all serious endeavour in art and science. He who never had this experience seems to me, if not dead, then at least blind. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious. To me it suffices to wonder at these secrets and to attempt humbly to grasp with my mind a mere image of the lofty structure of all that is there."

source: http://www.ctinquiry.org/publications/reflections_volume_1/torrance.htm

Countdown until someone says that einstein believes in God because he said something remotely related to religion?

 

[Loudmouth]

Countdown until someone says that einstein believes in God because he said something remotely related to religion?

If everyone used Einstein's definition of religion then even atheists have religious experiences. What Einstein is often talking about when he speaks of "religion" is inspiration, the drive that fuels our search for understanding how nature works.

If you take a step back, how much of science does not have direct practical use other than just knowing something? What drives us to try and understand how nature works? I think that is what Einstein is driving at, that itch we call curiosity.

 

[five]

If everyone used Einstein's definition of religion then even atheists have religious experiences. What Einstein is often talking about when he speaks of "religion" is inspiration, the drive that fuels our search for understanding how nature works.

If you take a step back, how much of science does not have direct practical use other than just knowing something? What drives us to try and understand how nature works? I think that is what Einstein is driving at, that itch we call curiosity.

No I understand what he's trying to say..I'm just saying that based on this thread it's pretty clear that not everyone catches onto it.

 

[Loudmouth]

No I understand what he's trying to say..I'm just saying that based on this thread it's pretty clear that not everyone catches onto it.

Unfortunately, you are correct. I think that Einstein was not afraid to use loaded words or phrases. Einstein had his own view of spirituality, religion, and God and that view did not always come through when he spoke publically. The other problem is that a small snippet from a larger quote can be somewhat misleading. Each time that Einstein uses the words "God", "soul", "religion", or "science" we need to step back and try and understand what those words meant to Einstein.

 

[ONEGod]

So Einstein didn't mean God when he said God and didn't mean religion when he said religion. And you don't perceive you have a credibility problem ? What else of life doesn't mean what it is or says, only what you want is what it is ?
(I've got to be more discerning and not talk to people hovering the earth in the Mother ship)

 

[Mumbo]

So Einstein didn't mean God when he said God and didn't mean religion when he said religion. And you don't perceive you have a credibility problem ? What else of life doesn't mean what it is or says, only what you want is what it is ?
(I've got to be more discerning and not talk to people hovering the earth in the Mother ship)

Since this thread seems to be all about Einstein quotes, here's a few that might help answer this.

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. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature.

I believe that those two explain perfectly well that Einstein was a religious man, but not in a remotely Christian sense. Therefore, I'd imagine that when he referred to God and spirituality, he wasn't indicating the Christian variety of either. Frankly though, I don't see why any of this matters. Einstein was a smart guy, but seeing as he was a physicist, I'd be more inclined to use his knowledge of physics as a point of reference, rather than his opinions on religion.

 

[Shemjaza]

So Einstein didn't mean God when he said God and didn't mean religion when he said religion. And you don't perceive you have a credibility problem ? What else of life doesn't mean what it is or says, only what you want is what it is ?
(I've got to be more discerning and not talk to people hovering the earth in the Mother ship)

I posted these other quotes on the first page of this thread... I think it's pretty clear he doesn't mean 'God' or 'Religion' in the conventional sense.

He said a lot of other things I agree with more:

It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere.... Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
-- Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science," New York Times Magazine, 9 November 1930

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. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
-- Albert Einstein, 1954, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/einstein.htm

 

[Loudmouth]

So Einstein didn't mean God when he said God and didn't mean religion when he said religion.

No, he meant "God" and he meant "religion", but the meaning of those words to Einstein differs from the meaning that those words have to you.

Einstein's definition of religion: "To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness."

Einstein's definition of God: "Certain it is that a conviction, akin to religious feeling, of the rationality and intelligibility of the world lies behind all scientific work of a higher order. The firm belief, which is bound up with deep feeling, in a superior mind revealing himself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God, which may, therefore be described in common parlance as `pantheistic' (Spinoza)."

and . . .

"I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the harmony of all being."

and, slightly contradicting himself:

"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 different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. 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. We see a universe marvellously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's pantheism, but admire even more his contributions to modern thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and the body as one, not two separate things."

These quotes can be found here.

So you can see that Einstein is one part pantheist, one part Deist, and one part "Nature Cultist" if you will.

And you don't perceive you have a credibility problem ? What else of life doesn't mean what it is or says, only what you want is what it is ?
(I've got to be more discerning and not talk to people hovering the earth in the Mother ship)

The only people with a credibility issue are those who will not take Einstein at his word.

 

[theIdi0t]

I’d argue that everything should be bound to ethics.

And who decides what ethics are?

Aren't you saying that you are bound to the ethicist?

If as the other poster said: "science is the only reliable method we have discovered for finding truth." then one's ethic should be based on science (I assume he means a scientific way of thinking).

If so, perhaps we should bind acts such as tending to the orphan and the widow to monetary profit, rather than the flimsy "it's good because it feels good", if it doesn't fatten up your wallet, or has the potential to fatten up your wallet it's wasteful." Sound science, don't you think?

"Jeffrey Skilling is our messiah."

 

[Chalnoth]

And who decides what ethics are?

In the end? Popular opinion. Fortunately there isn't much disagreement on most ethical questions.

If as the other poster said: "science is the only reliable method we have discovered for finding truth." then one's ethic should be based on science (I assume he means a scientific way of thinking).

Except that there is no such thing as a 'true ethic'. That is, if we define truth as an accurate description of reality, then science can only describe what is. It can not ever describe what should be. What should be is the realm of ethics, and while it can be informed by science (which provides us with insights in to the consequences of our choices), the end choice of what is and is not ethical is our own to make, and that choice is frequently arbitrary.

 

[theIdi0t]

In the end? Popular opinion. Fortunately there isn't much disagreement on most ethical questions.

So one's ethics should be bound to popular opinion? At one point popular opinion supported slavery. Hitler was supported by popular opinion. A minority of dissenters have done more for progress than the populace.

At least language can be grateful to God, which allows tending to the orphan and the widow to be bound to something more than the material, and the temporal, to tie it to something higher than the individual or the populace.

Science can only describe what is.

Science does not describe what is, it only describe what composes what is. "Religion" describes what is, and that is existence, not the origin of existence or the how, but why and what should be.

 

[Loudmouth]

So one's ethics should be bound to popular opinion?

I don't know. Maybe something like a Constitution that was approved by a majority vote?

At one point popular opinion supported slavery.

Even the Old Testament has instructions on how to treat slaves. What soceity views as ethical has changed quite a bit over the years, which is more evidence that ethics can be arbitrary.

At least language can be grateful to God, which allows tending to the orphan and the widow to be bound to something more than the material, and the temporal, to tie it to something higher than the individual or the populace.

How do you know that this "something higher" is ethical? That is exactly what Nazi supporters did, passed on their own sense of ethics to a "something higher", and that something was Hitler.

Science does not describe what is, it only describe what composes what is.

Correct. So why should we expect science to tell us what should be?

"Religion" describes what is, and that is existence, not the origin of existence or the how, but why and what should be.

How do we know if that description is correct and how do we know which religion, if any, describes the correct ethical behavior?

 

[Chalnoth]

So one's ethics should be bound to popular opinion? At one point popular opinion supported slavery. Hitler was supported by popular opinion. A minority of dissenters have done more for progress than the populace.

It's not that they should be. It's that they are, as a matter of fact. Of course, it's a lot more complex than simply popular opinion, but by large laws and other means of restricting 'bad' ethics and promoting 'good' ethics sway the way popular opinion sways. And yes, you are absolutely right that a minority of dissenters have done quite a lot for progress, which is perhaps the best argument I can think of for protecting freedom of speech. Popular opinion can sway quite rapidly when people bring to the public consciousness the destructive or otherwise undesirable nature of certain practices. The US civil rights movement is a great example of this.

It is also a good argument to support peoples' individual ethical sense. As a matter of fact, of course, they must still go along with the ethics of society as a whole, but they should not be afraid to speak out when they believe society as a whole is simply incorrect.

At least language can be grateful to God, which allows tending to the orphan and the widow to be bound to something more than the material, and the temporal, to tie it to something higher than the individual or the populace.

I don't see how this helps in the slightest.

Science does not describe what is, it only describe what composes what is. "Religion" describes what is, and that is existence, not the origin of existence or the how, but why and what should be.

Bull. Religion may claim to describe existence. But it fails miserably. The claims of religion are pretty much invariable inconsistent with the evidence, inconsistent with themselves, and otherwise lacking in evidentiary support.

 

[theIdi0t]

It's not that they should be. It's that they are, as a matter of fact. Of course, it's a lot more complex than simply popular opinion, but by large laws and other means of restricting 'bad' ethics and promoting 'good' ethics sway the way popular opinion sways.

I think the problem here, is that we are avoiding grounding. Laws do not restrict bad ethics punishment does. But if someone can do something advantageous for himself that the law prohibits, but which the probability of being caught is so miniscule that it deserves little reflection, why should he not do it?

You ever hear a child ask why, why, why after each response? Well grounding is the why before the why becomes pretentious.

Bull. Religion may claim to describe existence. But it fails miserably. The claims of religion are pretty much invariable inconsistent with the evidence, inconsistent with themselves, and otherwise lacking in evidentiary support.

I was referring to religion and God, as language, and not on religious text or even the existence of God.

It is the only language that conveys a sense of what is "good" grounded on something better than the warm and fuzzy, or what is advantageous to the individual. It speaks to something that we feel is higher than us, and more meaningful than the temporal.

Because the language of God of religion is hope, and meaning, particularly during those dark hours when life seems hopeless and meaningless. It is the sound of a slave singing "coming forth to carry me home", and the civil rights anthem "we shall overcome". There is no equivalent in the unbeliever lexicon. This does not mean that the unbeliever cannot feel it, he just cannot express it.

Here's God in language, from a speech by Bono:

Look, whatever thoughts you have about God, who He is or if He exists, most will agree that if there is a God, He has a special place for the poor. In fact, the poor are where God lives.

Check Judaism. Check Islam. Check pretty much anyone.

I mean, God may well be with us in our mansions on the hill. I hope so. He may well be with us as in all manner of controversial stuff. Maybe—maybe not. But the one thing on which we can all agree, all faiths and ideologies, is that God is with the vulnerable and poor.

"God is in the slums, in the cardboard boxes where the poor play house. God is in the silence of a mother who has infected her child with a virus that will end both their lives. God is in the cries heard under the rubble of war. God is in the debris of wasted opportunity and lives, and God is with us if we are with them. “If you remove the yoke from your midst, the pointing of the finger and speaking wickedness, and if you give yourself to the hungry and satisfy the desire of the afflicted, then your light will rise in darkness and your gloom will become like midday and the Lord will continually guide you and satisfy your desire in scorched places.”

An unbeliever cannot make a speech that resonates as this one with his limited vocabulary. The equivalent of this expression would be tend to the orphan and the widow because it "feels good." God and religion as language expresses what is not temporal like a warm and fuzzy.

(Perhaps I should allow the thread to remain within the topic of the forum. I was responding to another who mentioned "grounding", and to those who questioned by subsequent post. So I apologize for the derailing.)

 

[Chalnoth]

I think the problem here, is that we are avoiding grounding. Laws do not restrict bad ethics punishment does. But if someone can do something advantageous for himself that the law prohibits, but which the probability of being caught is so miniscule that it deserves little reflection, why should he not do it?

The sad thing is, many people do do it. In fact, it's pretty much inevitable that a number of people will if the law isn't enforced. This is the reason why we need to have regulation in the first place.

What laws do do is lay down the boundaries between what society considers acceptable and unacceptable behavior. They aren't the only thing that does this, but they are one major thing.

I was referring to religion and God, as language, and not on religious text or even the existence of God.

It is the only language that conveys a sense of what is "good" grounded on something better than the warm and fuzzy, or what is advantageous to the individual. It speaks to something that we feel is higher than us, and more meaningful than the temporal.

But now you're just speaking nonsense. While such inaccurate beliefs can affect morality, they are not the foundation for it. The foundation for human morality lies in our evolutionary past: basic rules of thumb are ingrained into our biology (like do to others as you want them to do to you). These basic rules, which are arbitrary but helped our ancestors to survive, allow us to come to agreement upon more specific rules, and further provide us with the sense that we should follow the rules decided by the society in which we live.

An unbeliever cannot make a speech that resonates as this one with his limited vocabulary.

And why not? There are common themes in human morality that stem from our biology that was laid down in our evolutionary past. These themes allow for an excellent foundation from which to provide us with moving moral arguments.