4 ms·

Einstein explicitly stated to believe in God (but not in the christian or hebrew one), and he explicitly derived this from the supreme intelligence which he fou

by lst 18y ago

Einstein explicitly stated to believe in God (but not in the christian or hebrew one), and he explicitly derived this from the supreme intelligence which he found in natural laws. And philosophy is science, but it's no natural science. And Flews book "There is a God" seems written in a really intelligent way, no signs of "brain damage". Many many good scientists convert from atheism to some kind of deism. Yes, they convert, because it's a radical change of the very base of our thinking.

gravitycop 18y ago
Einstein explicitly stated to believe in God Source? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#Religious_views http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#Religious_views In 1929, Einstein told Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind." In a 1950 letter to M. Berkowitz, Einstein stated that "My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment." Einstein also stated: "I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, 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." [...] Einstein clarified his religious views in a letter he wrote in response to those who claimed that he worshipped a Judeo-Christian god: "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.
- lst 18y ago
  You cite from 1929? There are many many citations, and often contradictory ones. He certainly changed his opinion during his lifetime. My source is a book (here in Europe, from 2008, not english). If you google a bit, you can find any kind of contradictory stuff, so internet and truth are not always friends (and we all know this).
  - gravitycop 18y ago
    >> Source? > My source is a book What is the name? Who is the author?
    - lst 18y ago
      Do you know Italian? If yes, it's a book I'd recommend to everybody: Author: Antonio Socci (a really good and meticulous italian journalist) Name: "Indagine su Gesù" It's a plain scientific research about the life of Jesus (with many many citations from every direction, including many atheists). The book sells very well these days...
      - lst 18y ago
        ...and sorry for this annotation: The US certainly suffers 'superficiality' more than any other country. If you want to find really scientific stuff about religion, you often need to go back to good old Europe...
      - gravitycop 18y ago
        Author: Antonio Socci Name: "Indagine su Gesù" Thank you. Do you know Italian? No. I know Google Translate. http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fpaparatzinger2-blograffaella.blogspot.com%2F2008%2F11%2Fcaccia-delle-orme-razionali-di-ges-il.html&sl=it&tl=en&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fpaparat... Socci continues in this introductory chapter showing the positions of the greatest contemporary scientists, from Einstein to Hawking, by scholars of the Big Bang to those of DNA: all agree that the most reasonable answer to the mystery and the great dell'infinitamente 'infinitely small, as well as in front of the surprise at the amazing complexity of even the most minute living organism, is to admit a Creator. In short, something we call God But if science and reason - more and more, contrary to what one wants to believe - leads to the recognition of the existence of a God, the more dense is the enigma if we try to go down ' existence the essence. Could you please provide the evidence (quotes, etc.) that Socci cites?
        lst 18y ago
gjm11 18y ago
Flew's book "There is a God" may or may not be written really intelligently, but it doesn't appear to have been written by Flew. His comment on this: "My name is on the book and it represents exactly my opinions. I would not have a book issued in my name that I do not 100 per cent agree with. I needed someone to do the actual writing because I’m 84 and that was Roy Varghese’s role. The idea that someone manipulated me because I’m old is exactly wrong. I may be old but it is hard to manipulate me. That is my book and it represents my thinking." I don't see any credible way to interpret that other than as admitting that he didn't actually write the book. You may define "science" in such a way as to make every philosopher a "scientist" if you wish. For that matter, you may define it so as to make every banana a "scientist". However, if you want to communicate with other people then I recommend that you use words in something like the same sense as others do. Antony Flew is not a scientist.
- lst 18y ago
  I seem to recognize the pattern: Everybody seems to encourage (even in a contradictory way) the proper opinion, and refutes quite absolutely the proper change of it... Poor humanity, if everybody thinks like this...

by lst 18y ago

gravitycop 18y ago

Einstein explicitly stated to believe in God Source? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#Religious_views http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#Religious_views In 1929, Einstein told Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind." In a 1950 letter to M. Berkowitz, Einstein stated that "My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment." Einstein also stated: "I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, 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." [...] Einstein clarified his religious views in a letter he wrote in response to those who claimed that he worshipped a Judeo-Christian god: "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.

lst 18y ago
You cite from 1929? There are many many citations, and often contradictory ones. He certainly changed his opinion during his lifetime. My source is a book (here in Europe, from 2008, not english). If you google a bit, you can find any kind of contradictory stuff, so internet and truth are not always friends (and we all know this).
- gravitycop 18y ago
  >> Source? > My source is a book What is the name? Who is the author?
  - lst 18y ago
    Do you know Italian? If yes, it's a book I'd recommend to everybody: Author: Antonio Socci (a really good and meticulous italian journalist) Name: "Indagine su Gesù" It's a plain scientific research about the life of Jesus (with many many citations from every direction, including many atheists). The book sells very well these days...
    - lst 18y ago
      ...and sorry for this annotation: The US certainly suffers 'superficiality' more than any other country. If you want to find really scientific stuff about religion, you often need to go back to good old Europe...
    - gravitycop 18y ago
      Author: Antonio Socci Name: "Indagine su Gesù" Thank you. Do you know Italian? No. I know Google Translate. http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fpaparatzinger2-blograffaella.blogspot.com%2F2008%2F11%2Fcaccia-delle-orme-razionali-di-ges-il.html&sl=it&tl=en&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fpaparat... Socci continues in this introductory chapter showing the positions of the greatest contemporary scientists, from Einstein to Hawking, by scholars of the Big Bang to those of DNA: all agree that the most reasonable answer to the mystery and the great dell'infinitamente 'infinitely small, as well as in front of the surprise at the amazing complexity of even the most minute living organism, is to admit a Creator. In short, something we call God But if science and reason - more and more, contrary to what one wants to believe - leads to the recognition of the existence of a God, the more dense is the enigma if we try to go down ' existence the essence. Could you please provide the evidence (quotes, etc.) that Socci cites?
      - lst 18y ago

gjm11 18y ago

Flew's book "There is a God" may or may not be written really intelligently, but it doesn't appear to have been written by Flew. His comment on this: "My name is on the book and it represents exactly my opinions. I would not have a book issued in my name that I do not 100 per cent agree with. I needed someone to do the actual writing because I’m 84 and that was Roy Varghese’s role. The idea that someone manipulated me because I’m old is exactly wrong. I may be old but it is hard to manipulate me. That is my book and it represents my thinking." I don't see any credible way to interpret that other than as admitting that he didn't actually write the book. You may define "science" in such a way as to make every philosopher a "scientist" if you wish. For that matter, you may define it so as to make every banana a "scientist". However, if you want to communicate with other people then I recommend that you use words in something like the same sense as others do. Antony Flew is not a scientist.

lst 18y ago
I seem to recognize the pattern: Everybody seems to encourage (even in a contradictory way) the proper opinion, and refutes quite absolutely the proper change of it... Poor humanity, if everybody thinks like this...