Article

2008-05-14 -Short Attention Span Theater-

Einstein letter: Belief in God 'childish,' Jews not chosen people

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by gorb 2008-05-14 05:00|| || Front Page|| [11130 views ] Top

#1 For a scientific genius, he wasn't all that bright.

Posted by Mike 2008-05-14 06:23|| 2008-05-14 06:23|| Front Page Top

#2 The man was a mathematician, not a theologian. No different than 'brilliant' actors pontificating their usual ignorant spew about politics or history, "I only play a doctor on TV, but....."

Posted by Procopius2k 2008-05-14 08:02|| 2008-05-14 08:02|| Front Page Top

#3 I disagree w/him on the assumption that God does not exist but concur w/the sentiment that there are no chosen people. A lot of people on here are religious so this will be a hot button issue. As w/other issues in the same vein it is improbable anyone will change their views no matter what facts or arguments the other side brings. IIRC Carl Sagan or Hawking also have the same opinion as AE - we're all free to disagree but I wouldn't go so far as to lump some of the smartest men of all time in w/Alec Baldwin & Martin Sheen.

Posted by Broadhead6 2008-05-14 08:58|| 2008-05-14 08:58|| Front Page Top

#4 By 1954 Einstein was, scientifically, a broken man. His quest for a unification theory had produced nothing worthwhile (in fact at that time not enough was known about the strong force to make the research worth anything). His anti quantum opinions had been shown to be without merit. He had made no significant contribution to physics in decades.

It may be that these factors account for some of his thoughts in the interview.

Posted by mhw 2008-05-14 09:21|| 2008-05-14 09:21|| Front Page Top

#5 Not quite without merit. At least the EPR paradox asked the right question.

Posted by Eric Jablow">Eric Jablow 2008-05-14 09:36|| 2008-05-14 09:36|| Front Page Top

#6 I want answers to questions on physics, I'll ask a scientist.

I want answers to questions on God, I'll talk to a theologian.

Einstein shoudl have stuck to physics. He was brilliant there several decades before this interview. He should have left metaphysics and epistemology to philosophers and theologians.

FYI metaphysics is meant in the classical, greek/roman sense, that is:

Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy investigating principles of reality transcending those of any particular science, traditionally, cosmology and ontology. It is concerned with explaining the ultimate nature of being and the world

Not the idiotic addle-minded new-wave old-hippie crap (crystals, auras, etc) that has kidnapped the term these days.

And as above, if I want answers to questions on philosophy, I'll talk to a wall (its just as substantiating as talking to a philosopher).

/me=philosophy major, originally.

Posted by OldSpook 2008-05-14 09:55|| 2008-05-14 09:55|| Front Page Top

#7 A lot of people on here are religious so this will be a hot button issue.

Actually a lot of people here are athiests, but we are athiests who respect others right to their religous beliefs.

As an athiest, it irritates the crap out of me that athiesm is equated with anti-religion.

There are large areas of the internet where morons advertized their moronism by denigrating religion.

If you are a moron, what ever you believe or don't believe, you are still a moron.

It's athiesm as a fashion statement.

/endrant

Posted by phil_b 2008-05-14 10:04|| 2008-05-14 10:04|| Front Page Top

#8 However Einstein chose to characterize his beliefs, from an objective standpoint, his search for answers seems like just an idiosyncratic variant of the ancient quest for transcendence. There is a strong connection to Platonism, in that his quest for a time-independent description of the world links up directly to Plato's conception of the Real as that invisible order of being which never changes. Plato in turn was in the tradition of Parmenides, who came to his vision of the Real in a mystical vision. Einstein's view was Platonic also in that his physics implied that the invisible foundation of the world was mathematical, in other words the ultimate reality was an Idea. But an Idea implies a thinker.

Einstein was perhaps more consciously a follower of the Jewish philosopher Spinoza, who in turn links back to a long tradition of Jewish medieval theology and philosophy.

It seems that what Einstein might have been objecting to was the idea of a personal God. But Einstein's view seems unbalanced in the sense that he placed all the weight on the reality of the objective world, and not enough on the subjective, the inner reality, where God resides as the ultimate subject.

Posted by Clomoper Dark Lord of the Sith6587 2008-05-14 10:49|| 2008-05-14 10:49|| Front Page Top

#9 Eric

I agree that the EPR paradox presentation was a brilliant insight (measurement of one part of an quantum system creates an instantaneous effect in another part of the system).

However, it was an insight of the 1930s. Even more important, the EPR insight did not materially slow down the development of quantum theory.

Einstein's dislike (maybe hatred) of quantum theory may be because he hated the what he would call the 'chance' or the 'subjective' (as the dark lord posits above).

Posted by mhw 2008-05-14 11:08|| 2008-05-14 11:08|| Front Page Top

#10 He was also an enthusiastic Socialist in his economics. Think of him as a prodigy. Brilliant in physics and mediocre in everything else.

Al

Posted by Frozen Al 2008-05-14 11:13|| 2008-05-14 11:13|| Front Page Top

#11 So what were his contemplations on how religion and its practice influences the behaviors of a culture?

Posted by swksvolFF 2008-05-14 11:16|| 2008-05-14 11:16|| Front Page Top

#12 Its typical. Put a scinetist outside of his element, he still assumes that he is an expert.

Posted by OldSpook 2008-05-14 11:43|| 2008-05-14 11:43|| Front Page Top

#13 There are two subsets of people who are the Chosen people.

The first set is the Jews.

The second set is all who Choose God.

Being Chosen is one thing. What one does with being chosen is quite another.
-----
Chosen? For What? Are you SURE that's the REAL reason?
-----
As a Jew himself, Einstein said he had a great affinity with Jewish people but said they "have no different quality for me than all other people".

Missed the point. We're not talking about "Einstein's chosen people", but "God's Chosen People."
-----
Einstein's scientific output declined in his latter years. He apparently came to disbelieve in God and his own chosenness in his latter years.

A coincidence?

I don't think so.
-----
-----
Is there a God? Oh yes there is. You had a slim chance four weeks ago to have convinced me otherwise, but right now, this moment, it is very much quite too late. Things have happened, I have learned what already exists, and know far too much.

Posted by ptah">ptah 2008-05-14 12:17|| http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org]">[http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org] 2008-05-14 12:17|| Front Page Top

#14 I think you guys need to consider his frame of reference.

Posted by Penguin 2008-05-14 12:50|| 2008-05-14 12:50|| Front Page Top

#15 I have a troubling question We have police, firemen, forest rangers, soldiers, sailors, and marines. We have coast guard, customs agents, border patrol, etc. We have a number of other "Police" type agencies, treasury, CIA, FBI. (Name your own favorite acronym) All other countries have these same or similar agencies as well. My question is "Why?" If god exists then a problem arises, "Why do we have to have all those above mentioned agencies to do what is essentially god's work" (As described by the tens of thousands of preachers, ministers, priests, mullahs, popes, imams, etc present in the world and busy telling us what "God's Word" really is?) Another problem is best illustrated by the recent Cyclone, according to all teachings god watches over us. But he does not, (I heard someone say all those folks were evil, a plain clear lie) So there is a huge problem with the teachings that "God" is a helpful, caring being? So I have a dilemma with the teachings. Simply put, "God" is not doing his job. This brings me to the conclusion that there is NO such being, and the reason I think so is that Id rather believe it's all a hoax, than believe that "God" simply does not give a shit about us. I find it much easier to believe that the whole concept is just a made up series of stories, than to believe that this "Good, gracious, caring, helpful, all powerful, judgmental, petty, uncaring, vain, paranoid, vicious, multi millions mass murderer exists at all. Doesn't give a damn, and slaughters millions through tidal waves, hurricanes, typhoons, Volcanic Eruptions, forest fires, monsoons, floods, landslides, ships sinkings, lightning, tornado, house fires, and other events called "Acts of God" Further that allows, and does absolutely nothing to prevent such things as AIDS, ebola, black death, (Bubonic plague) smallpox (we eradicated it, not god) and the events such as the slaughter of multi millions by genocide, war, etc. Anyone who wishes to respond, and can do so without parroting the standard brainwashing phrases such as "God's will is unknown" is welcome to do so. I myself believe the old saying, "Actions speak louder than words" And the actions state that there is no "Guiding Being" (Name your own) or that if there is, he simply doesn't give a shit about us humans.

Posted by Redneck Jim">Redneck Jim 2008-05-14 12:54|| 2008-05-14 12:54|| Front Page Top

#16 From the Jewish perspective, we are Chosen only in the sense that we were the first to choose the monotheistic God. And, like ptah says, anyone who chooses God become Chosen. We don't claim a monopoly on that, and it's only the ignorant who believe otherwise.

Agreed also with phil_b about Rantburg's atheists. Y'all are a very tolerant and soft-spoken bunch, especially given the religious arguments that occasionally rage through these pages.

Redneck Jim, the Jewish perspective is that God gave us free choice for us to use. If He takes care of everything, preventing evil and requiring good, we become pets, not free men. Your own children you require to become independent and make their own decisions about all the details of their lives, and they leave childhood for adulthood. You still care what happens to them, but you don't interfere, right? Once we left the Garden of Eden, however metaphorically, we became, individually and as a group, responsible for deciding how to live, and dealing with the results.

Posted by trailing wife ">trailing wife 2008-05-14 14:10|| 2008-05-14 14:10|| Front Page Top

#17 Not to start a religous war but I have...

Four Words:

Free Will

Shit Happens

Were God to simply 'make everyone behave' then that would impose his will on us and obliterate our 'Free Will' - we would be little more then robots. In order to 'Do Good' we have to have the equal capacity to 'Do Evil'. The criminals the alphabet soup police agencies are arresting are, usually 'doing evil' and the police in those agencies are 'doing good'. There are some exceptions and cases where the roles may be reversed (Saddam's Iraq for example). The same person who slaughters millions by genocide also has the capacity to save millions by preventing a genocide. War is also an exercise of free will.

As for shit happens - well shit happens. Sometimes your 'free will' may influence shit happening to you. Choose to live in a quake zone (or not take precautions such as building codes) and you may get a building dropped on your head. Choose to live a certain lifestyle and your chances of getting HIV goes way up.

Have you ever been in Second Life? BORING! It never rains. you never have to eat or shit or watch out for sharks. That is what life would be like if 'God' prevented earthquakes / fires / rain. You don't have to watch out for theves or rapist (because 'God' or the admins would ban them) never have a war or death. You don't even have to walk - you can fly or teleport whereever you want to go.

I, myself would not want real life to echo 'Second Life'. And yes, someday something will kill me -- shit happens.

Posted by CrazyFool 2008-05-14 14:19|| 2008-05-14 14:19|| Front Page Top

#18 As a realist I know sh*t happens.

When I go into a burning house I pray to God to give me the strength to fight my natural instict that fire=bad get away.

When my daughter is difficult I pray to Jesus for the compassion and understand so not to lose my temper.

If I go golf on Sunday I am unafraid to be turned into a pillar of salt.

Since so many people believe in something is why I posted my earlier comment - obviously this letter was not written in Germany - to point out that it is not just the religion but how it is practiced. Compare New Oleans (what a disaster how can the population help?) to Ryadh (the school is burning but we are not supposed to see uncovered women) to Myanmar (sucks to be them glad to be part of the ruling class). Sarcastic Voltaire commented (my quote is hazy): if there is no God, people would still have the need to invent one.

Posted by swksvolFF 2008-05-14 14:41|| 2008-05-14 14:41|| Front Page Top

#19 ~no swipe CF, my philosophy also ya beat me to it~

Posted by swksvolFF 2008-05-14 14:43|| 2008-05-14 14:43|| Front Page Top

#20 RedneckJim - thats a naive and sophomoric approach, consisting of mainly angry noise (very little reason or rational use). Your argument bases itself on the presumption of atheism, which is pretty much begging the question
as well as setting up a straw man in terms of your "facts".

In a nutshell, you were saying;

1. If God is all good, He would destroy evil.
2. If God is all-powerful, He could destroy evil. (Meaning we are not needed to do so).
3. But evil is not destroyed.
4. Hence, there is no such God.

And here is the pat response:

1. Free will is of moral value. That is, a world with free will is better than one without it.

2. It is a contradiction to say that God makes humans that are only capable of freely willing only the good. Free will entails choice, choice entails things to choose amongst.

3. God wills to bring about the best possible world.

4. Therefore, God thus correctly creates a world with free will, thus alternatives must exist.

5. Then God is not responsible for evil (choices), since it is not a good thing that men can only freely choose only the good.

6. For Natural disasters, its how you choose to react to them that cements the morality of the situation. Nature itself is amoral.

Aside from that, what basis do you have for saying there is evil in the world? Is this not in fact an appeal to YOUR particular feelings, opinions and moral values? have you considered asking yourself why your feelings should be considered authoritative?

Also, given that you posit evil existing, and reject a good and loving God, then what do you propose in place that can survive the scrutiny which you demand?

Furthermore, if you deny that, then are you denying that evil exists at all?

Go read up on "The Problem of Evil" - Christianity has been dealing with that for a couple of centuries and has good answers, as do a lot of Jewish authors, who, as a religion, have been arguing that issue far longer.

Posted by OldSpook 2008-05-14 15:53|| 2008-05-14 15:53|| Front Page Top

#21 And if that isn't enough to make you get a bit loopy...

Consider this argument from modal ontology:

(1) If God exists then he has necessary existence.
(2) Either God has necessary existence, or he doesnt.
(3) If God doesnt have necessary existence, then he necessarily doesnt.
Therefore:
(4) Either God has necessary existence, or he necessarily doesnt.
(5) If God necessarily doesnt have necessary existence, then God necessarily doesnt exist.
Therefore:
(6) Either God has necessary existence, or he necessarily doesnt exist.
(7) It is not the case that God necessarily doesnt exist.
Therefore:
(8) God has necessary existence.
(9) If God has necessary existence, then God exists.
Therefore:
(10) God exists.

The first premise is based on the idea that God is perfect, and that something is better if it has necessary existence than if it has merely contingent existence.

The second premise of the argument is simply the law of the excluded middle.

The third premise, Beckers Postulate, is a widely accepted principle of modal logic. All modal properties are generally accepted to be necessary.

Four follows straightforwardly from the second and third premises.

Five is entailed by premise one.

Six follows from four and five.

Seven is plausible at first glance, but is widely thought to be the greatest point of weakness in the argument.

Eight follows from six and seven.

Nine is self-evident.

Ten follows from eight and nine.

Q.E.D.
===

Now go drink. Heavily.

Posted by OldSpook 2008-05-14 15:56|| 2008-05-14 15:56|| Front Page Top

#22 Jim: just a thought, based initially in probability theory but devolving quickly to philosophy. Once one accepts the idea of eternity and limitlessness as the charater of the universe, then this entire concept is cohesive and complete:

The presumption is that for every single event there are alternative outcomes, and that in a series of parallel universes, all possible outcomes play out. If that is true, and it is consistent with some current scientific thought about the physical universe, then in every case where a bad thing happens to someone, there are all the other alternatives where the bad thing doesn't happen to someone, crafting a reality unique to each soul, and in every case providing a unique ending of existence as we know it in a positive way. So in each life things turn out well for their existence, while our appearance in another's merely represents the alternative outcome points for the infinite outcomes that our lives could have taken.

Wow, I think I hurt myself...

Posted by NoMoreBS 2008-05-14 16:26|| 2008-05-14 16:26|| Front Page Top

#23 Jim,

I hear ya; not to insult your intel but maybe take a look at the Brothers Karamazov if you haven't - some people here may bitch about that but I don't care.

I look at God from a more Deistic stand point. People want to believe fine, if not that's fine w/me to, I'd rather have an authentic aetheist that acts like a decent human being then some of the folks I see talking the talk but not walking the walk.

I believe in God's existence as I think too many coincidences are no longer a coincidence. I believe in my heart that he wants the best for human kind, however I don't believe in probably half the shit written about him in any of the holy books. I don't buy revelation or hocus-pocus miracles ascribed to God or humans prescribing human characteristics & petty emotions on to the super being. I'm sure someone will tell me to the contrary but that's my $.02.

Posted by Broadhead6 2008-05-14 17:16|| 2008-05-14 17:16|| Front Page Top

#24 Jim don't ask, trust me on this.

Posted by Job 2008-05-14 17:46|| 2008-05-14 17:46|| Front Page Top

#25 BH6, its been said that "Organised Religion has driven more people AWAY from God than it has drawn to him"

After seeing fanatics dripping with hatred due to Islam, zealous Christian fundamentalist more focused on condemning and damning than the teachings of the forgiving Christian God, and even "looney lefties" in my own Catholic Church who seem to value collectivism and convenience over Christ and Communion, the above rings true.

Sometimes I wonder if its time to hit the reset button. The fact that God hasn't done so yet is evidence to me that He is benevolent. I'd have rebooted this corner of the universe long ago. And all that means is that I have a long ways to go as human myself.

Posted by OldSpook 2008-05-14 17:51|| 2008-05-14 17:51|| Front Page Top

#26 Yall seem to all focus on "Free Will" and ignore things NOT under HUMAN control, such as Volcanoes, Tidal Waves, Tornados, Cyclones, Hurricanes, and other things lumped as "Acts of Nature/God".
Y'all said "Live elsewhere" OK name someplace that does NOT have weather related storms and disasters, no place is Tornado-free, Storm Winds- free, or such.

OK answer me this (Civil ansers please)
Is God all powerful?
Or is God NOT all powerful?

If God IS all powerful, these things are under his direct control.

If God is NOT all powerful, then not only are these things NOT under God's control, but there simply is NOT a "All Powerful GOD.

Pick one, either one.
Is there a God in charge? or are all the books lies?

Posted by Redneck Jim">Redneck Jim 2008-05-14 19:27|| 2008-05-14 19:27|| Front Page Top

#27 As far as "Free Will goes, say you're trapped under a fallen(Windblown) Tree, the water is rising (Rain,) and you're likely to drown, where's any possible "Free Will" here?

To exercise "Free will" you need to have enough facts to chose, neither the fallen tree, or the rising water are any way Your choice.

Posted by Redneck Jim">Redneck Jim 2008-05-14 19:34|| 2008-05-14 19:34|| Front Page Top

#28 There is the concept that not only is man fallen from a previous state of grace, but that the planet has also changed from original intent and grace, which if G-d intervened in directly (as in the restoration of a paradisical world wished for by many like you--and especially wished for by victims of natural disasters) it would fundamentally and forever change the very fabric of the universe.

So . . . G-d is not "in control" in the way you say others claim He is, which kind of sucks, because if His Will was DONE on earth as it is in heaven, then that Will would indeed prevent such horrible destructions from occurring.

As it is, for now, we wait in a fallen world, and are at times victims of the inclination of nature.

IMO G-d gets where you're coming from in any case and why it seems all so chaotic and unfair--because it IS chaotic and unfair. But like I said, the time isn't quite ripe for the change that's coming--because it's a permanent change, and irreversible, and the finality also ushers in the finality of the human race.

Posted by ex-lib 2008-05-14 20:14|| 2008-05-14 20:14|| Front Page Top

#29 As far as "Free Will goes, say you're trapped under a fallen(Windblown) Tree, the water is rising (Rain,) and you're likely to drown, where's any possible "Free Will" here?

Oh yes- we get stuck under a fallen tree with rising water every day. Why, I was trapped under an oak and then a pine tree while the floods came.

And all before lunch.

Posted by Pappy 2008-05-14 21:33|| 2008-05-14 21:33|| Front Page Top

#30 Redneck Jim, the only disaster I could be subjected to is wild fire. I've been evacuated twice with real scares both times, a third time it wasn't as close thanksfully. I tried to live in the best place, and I think I do ;) I'm hoping that I got enough snow this past winter to keep it from burning.

Oldspook, I have stopped going to church every week, it doesn't feel right. Too many feel they can stand in judgement of others as though they are God.

Posted by Jan 2008-05-14 21:38|| 2008-05-14 21:38|| Front Page Top

#31 God does play dice...

Posted by Crolusing tse Tung2778 2008-05-14 21:53|| 2008-05-14 21:53|| Front Page Top

#32 Right now, my impression is that you are pretty angry and negative about the world, so those are the feeling with which you color everything.

Jim, you stated false arguments of the same sort. First, you changed the subject from percieved evil to something different, a natural accident. So a context change indicates that you have acceded to a loss of your original argument. Lets look at this one.

First, How did you get to where the tree is? Did you magically appear there?

No, you CHOSE to walk. Thus you had free will. Had you chosen to not go there, you'd not be under the tree. So your poor choice doesnt deny the existence of free will, nor of God.

Also, you presume that God directly causes these things, thus you presupposed God's existence, and thus a purpose for the event you describe and ascribe to a malicious God - thus antoher change to the argument, you do not deny the exitence, you deny the benevolence - which is a different argument completely, and to which I can also dissect and rebut (its a very old argument that has long ago been answered).

ALso, another flaw is that you temporally and contextually limit the circumstance, thus eliminating by your presuppositons the existence of God by that assumption - i.e. by placing those limits you pre-deny the existence of an omnipotent and benevolent God, thus assuming the conclusion and then using that assumption to prove the conclusion (which is a fallacious, and thus incorrectly formed argument).

Also there are other issues with the argument. Lets first restate your argument a bit more clearly:

1. Moral evil is explained by free choice.
2. But some natural evil does not result from free choice.
3. Natural evil (eathquakes, hurricanes, etc)cannot be explained by free choice of creatures.
4. Hence, God must be responsible for natural evil.
5. But natural evils cause innocent suffering and death.
6. Therefore, God is responsible for innocent suffering and death
7. Thus a benevolent and omnipotent God does not exist.

Problems:

Point 5 is not clearly true - Judaism and Christianity share the common root of the fall of man, that man chose to break wiht God, and this introduces assymetry and evil into the world, basically "breaking" it. This is a basic assumption that the world is broken and the Messiah will come to make it whole again.

6 is also wrong, in that it assumes God is evil for taking innocent life - a categorical mistake. God created the life and is not evil for taking it. The other side of this is that we did not create life, thus we are evil when we unjustifiably take it.

Premise 3 is also refuted (in Judeao-Christianity) by the evil introduced by the disobediance of man to the laws of nature and will of God.

Furthermore,

Some physical evil may be a necessary byproduct of a good process. Rain, hot air, andcool air are all necessary for food and life, but a byproduct of these forces is a tornado.

Some physical evil may be a necessary condition for attaining a greater moral good. God uses suffering to get our attention much as our pain response prevents us from damaging our bodies. Many have come to God, a great good, through suffering.

Some physical suffering may be a necessary condition of a greater moral good. Just as labor pains resolve in the birth of a child, even so is character born of pain.

Some physical evil is a necessary concomitant of a morally good physical world. For instance, it is good to have water to swim and boat in, but a necessary concomitant is that we can also drown in it.

To state it a bit more provacatively, our bodies are equipped to enjoy sex for procreation and pleasure, even though it makes violence and pain of rape possible.

It is good to have food to eat, but this also makes dying of food poisoning possible

I coudl go on, but this shows the argument you being as being insufficient as the "proof" that you assume it to be.

You also might consider that the Judaeo-Christian holy books do reference this sort of thing as well, the book of Isaiah specifically addresses the word of God about this:

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the LORD. "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts."

So you may want to ask yourself: do you claim to know the mind of God in saying that you know his purpose? Or do you deny that there is God and therefore no purpose?

Either way, its a CHOICE you have made, feely so. A choice to beleive nor not. Not a proof, at least not of anything other than that you assume free will exists. And so you again return to the free will argument.

Again - what are you arguing here other than stating that you are angry with an outcome, and you *feel* it to be evil, and you do not understand how it coudl be enything other than what your subjectivity tells you it is? That makes you feel angry and you in your anger blame God or the lack of God for such things.

So do you agree that evil exists? If not then what? And what do you propose as the alternative?

Try answering those things, ask yourself. Have the courtesy to at least consider the questions, rather than reposing the same angry arguments wothput attempting to more deeply understand the problem.

You need more tools than just a hammer in your toolbox.

Ask yourself the fundamental question of teleology: Why did the universe begin in a very simple state (Big Bang) but has since grown ever more complex, to the extent that it is hospitable to human life, even more so than is necessary for survival?

Is there a purpose for existence? Or is it all completely arbitrary and random?

This goes back to Aristotle, then forward to Augustine, Kant, and all the way to Satre and Kierkkegard, and modern day philosophers.

So in the end, what do you CHOOSE to beleive?

That should guide any honest self examination.

Posted by OldSpook 2008-05-14 22:08|| 2008-05-14 22:08|| Front Page Top

#33 Einstein wasn't an atheist. He believed in the supernatural, but his belief was close to Deism. Throughout his life he made references to "Der Alte".

His point was that a deep knowledge of science, particularly physics, rules out a lot of fairy tales as being contrafactual.

Without seeing the letter it's hard to draw conclusions from the article.

Posted by KBK 2008-05-14 22:52|| 2008-05-14 22:52|| Front Page Top

#34 Jews are the chosen people

Well I'll be God Damned... you mean my people were passed over?~!!~?

/kicks the dirt and walks away...

~:)

Posted by RD">RD 2008-05-14 23:21|| 2008-05-14 23:21|| Front Page Top

#35 Brought this conversation up with the wife - she said, "Maybe he was having a bad day." - as KBK notes - without reading the rest of the letter maybe he was.

Along those line I would regard myself as a Doubting Thomas. I can only speak for myself and will, if golfing on a Sunday is a crime, engage the article; for example only for myself:

Pure example not true but consider -
I respond to a structure fire, it looks bad; kid inside - I say a little prayer to myself, "God, give me the strength..." while donning equipment and it calms my nerves and focuses my mind. Say I have a Good Part in the rescue and the kid is saved. That little prayer is, in my soul, what got me through that initial shock...was the kid saved by someone who believed in childish superstition? That is, if it gave me meaning and direction, like the concepts of hot and cold are words for feeling, it saved that child's life. Therefore, (the) God (I know) saved that child.

Posted by swksvolFF 2008-05-14 23:34|| 2008-05-14 23:34|| Front Page Top

#36 I knew there was a reason I never studied philosophy. ;-)

Silly RD! I'd choose you, were I God. I'd choose Redneck Jim, too, and then he'd be sorry, poor dear. As for the man trapped by tree and water, like others in inescapable situations, he can choose whether to be calm or angry about the situation, whether to give up or fight to the end to escape, or to accept with gratitude the time he has left, how little or much that may turn out to be. There are plenty of people suffering from cancer or a stroke, who are trapped with pain and permanent disability, and the possibility of an earlier death than planned. Functionally it's the same situation as the one he posited, although a good deal less private.

Posted by trailing wife">trailing wife 2008-05-14 23:39|| 2008-05-14 23:39|| Front Page Top

#37 Thanks TW

/Ima warm and fuzzy now!

~:)

Posted by RD">RD 2008-05-14 23:43|| 2008-05-14 23:43|| Front Page Top

23:59 3dc
23:43 RD
23:39 trailing wife
23:38 Talibunny
23:34 swksvolFF
23:32 RD
23:21 RD
23:11 trailing wife
23:10 Mike
23:10 Mike
23:09 trailing wife
22:52 KBK
22:42 JosephMendiola
22:39 DarthVader
22:39 JosephMendiola
22:35 Frank G
22:34 JosephMendiola
22:31 JosephMendiola
22:21 tipover
22:10 Shieldwolf
22:08 OldSpook
22:06 JosephMendiola
22:03 JosephMendiola
22:02 Jan