Slashdot Mirror

I'll rephrase that, then.

How many of us had the good luck to be raised without theism, so that by the time we were adults and capable of making our own decisions, we were already atheists?

I'd argue that a majority of atheists were theists of some kind, once. Einstein was raised Jewish. It seems likely that he believed in a Jewish god at one time, and rejected it later. The question is whether any of his quotes on religion came from when he was still Jewish.

Can you guarantee they won't change? Our scientific models assume constant physical laws because that is what we have observed thus far. All of science is based upon finding models of observable interactions so that we can attempt to predict the result of future interactions to some degree of accuracy. If the laws of the universe change (and we still exist) then we will have some new models to build. Also, to argue that there must be a Beginner for there to be a beginning is a chicken-and-egg argument. When was the beginning of the Beginner and who is the Beginner of the Beginner? Lastly, I think it is inaccurate to state that Einstein was devoid of a belief in God, he simply didn't subscribe to the notion that it was an entity that muses over our dealings and asks us to do good.

Copied off of Wikipedia with reference: [Brian, Dennis (1996), Einstein: A Life, New York: John Wiley & Sons, p. 127, ISBN 0-471-11459-6 ] "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." - Einstein

If only Spinoza choose to call his God-concept by any other name, his ideas would be understood more frequently for what they are: atheism in awe for the Beauty of Nature and the Universe; not theism, or pantheism, etc.

This ranks with his cosmological constant as his biggest mistake.

Actually, they may be related. There are theistic implications to there being a beginning. Maybe Einstein didn't like a beginning (hence the need for a cosmological constant) because he didn't like the implications that there was a Beginner.

More reflection would have also noted that if you have laws you need to assume a Law
-giver. If you have free-floating laws of physics not grounded in anything, you have no valid reason for assuming they won't change. This is the problem Hume raised and which atheistic materialism cannot account for.

So what you are saying is that its a talking shop, its a bunch of arguments and therefore its basically pointless.

arguing that theism has been undermined by scientific discoveries is a major part of scholarship

That isn't scholarship, its pointing out the bloody obvious. Yet you claim that Einstein couldn't have grasped these complex points.... Philosophy of religion is pointless, it came out of arguments between religions, it then involved the concept of atheism and all it has ever achieved is more hot air than a republican party convention.

Name a single decent achievement from philosophy of religion.

The reality is, as has been proven by science for thousands of years, philosophy of religion is a subject which is continually being undermined by science.

There are plenty of atheists employed in the philosophy of religion, and arguing that theism has been undermined by scientific discoveries is a major part of scholarship within the philosophy of religion. Philosophy of religion is a separate field from theology.

Buddhist societies in east and southeast Asia have a much better record on tolerance of homosexuality than any in the Judeo-Christian-Islam spectrum. Einstein didn't follow any religion but I think he was getting at the Buddhist / Daoist penchant for introspective thought and attempted harmony with one's surroundings. I think he's envisioning a 'religion' free from dogma, theocracy, theism etc. No modern religion does that yet but I personally have much fewer problems with those favouring Daoism, Buddhism, Shinto, Zen than with dogmatic deity based religions. Yes Buddhism and Daoism have deities but they're not the omniscient, omnipresent, benevolent creator of Judeo-Christian-Islam. Not having any religion is best but rather maybe a peaceful and altruistic view of the universe and everything in it might help a more enlightened future human population concentrate on the importance of science!

arguments with any sort of solipsism is pointless. Whether solipsism is pointless or not is a personal matter but it does not provide you anything useful in explaining and regulating things which view of the world/religion/(a)theism are meant to.

couldn't agree with this post more! There is one quote from Einstein that pretty much clears up this whole discussion. I don't know it word for word, but this is a close paraphrase: "The only rational idea of any sort of God would be a kind of cosmological theism" He didn't say he even believed in that though. He only said that this would be the only rational conception of a "God" that he could imagine. Of course the term 'cosmological theism' is open to interpretation. Having said that, I could imagine he would have meant something along the lines of God is the complete 'equation' of the universe. (Not conscious, not all good, not even an entity at all, just physics)

while I agree that anybody with capacity t o understand what religion is can join discussion on (a)theisms I have to point out that:
1. religion does not have to have a personality in it so your statement is overly exclusive, that is important especially if you think of AE's views
2. you do not have to be taught in religion or philosophy but it helps if you can think systematically. That is lacking on both/all sides of the divide

Er... all of us were born atheist. Many of us were later taught theism, and then some of us still later rejected that. Nobody is born believing in God, any more than they are born believing in Father Christmas.

"...Other Catholic clergymen chimed in: 'There is no other God but a personal God . . . Einstein does not know what he is talking about. He is all wrong. Some men think that because they have achieved a high degree of learning in some field, they are qualified to express opinions in all.' The notion that religion is a proper field, in which one might claim expertise, is one that should not go unquestioned. That clergyman presumably would not have deferred to the expertise of a claimed 'fairyologist' on the exact shape and colour of fairy wings. Both he and the bishop thought that Einstein, being theologically untrained, had misunderstood the nature of God. On the contrary, Einstein understood very well exactly what he was denying. "

Spinoza didn't believe in a personal God either. In Ethica, his philosophical masterpiece, Spinoza says that God is "immanent" in nature, not some supernatural entity beyond the world, interfering or having feelings.

Spinoza's concept of Deus sive natura (the God from nature) does not fit in the concept that most people mean when they speak of God. Schopenhauer wrote that because Spinoza called the substance God, he created his own problem of people misunderstanding him. Schopenhauer thinks Spinoza used the term God to make his ideas less objectionable. If only Spinoza choose to call his God-concept by any other name, his ideas would be understood more frequently for what they are: atheism in awe for the Beauty of Nature and the Universe; not theism, or pantheism, etc.

Einstein has the same problem: he stated many times not to believe in a personal God; the quote from this letter is just one quote among many others, many times equally clear as in this letter. But because Einstein, like Spinoza, did use the term God (for instance in the dice comment), even if it meant something that falls outside of most people's definition of God, theists like to talk about him as if he were one of their own.

In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins explains why Einstein's God-quotes do not contradict his unbelief.

This is a quote from Albert Einstein, which summarises his position best (in my opinion):

I am a deeply religious nonbeliever. This is a somewhat new kind of religion. I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism. The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive.

Certainly theists trying to ascribe some form of theism to Einstein are mistaken. However, the atheists can be just as bad. I have already seen in Internet forums that atheists are using this newly found statement of Einstein to boost their cause, arguing along the lines of "Einstein was a genius, and he didn't believe in God, so clearly rejecting the existence of God is the smart thing to do." Einstein, though a brilliant physicist, was not trained in the philosophy of religion. It's a pity that when atheists could refer to eminent philosophers of religion like Mackie in his The Miracle of Theism (Oxford University Press, 1983) or (pre-conversion) Flew as examples of how to argue well against theism, they instead use completely inappropriate figures like Einstein.

If he had any sort of plan laid out, your request (or lack thereof) would make no difference whatsoever.

No, because the context "the boss" operates under includes you, and the self-definition that occurs from the interaction you dismiss. Even if the boss knows what you want, and when you could receive it, it's still necessary for you to -be that person- of someone pursuing the job. Many, many, such cases of God knowing the outcome beforehand, but involving a person for the purpose of helping define that person, are described by theism's defining documents. So much so you could hardly miss the point--unless you tried very hard to, and in that respect I don't want to dissuade you too much from your Natural Deselection that you want. Short-term, though, I suggest not actually trying it with any managers you may have--"Since you already know how good I am, just put me in the top position now, so I don't have to bother trying in any way, or demonstrating anything skill-wise, or learning the specifics of how to demonstrate anything". Probably wouldn't work particularly well, practically speaking.

As far as the "no internal logic", well, okay, just directly, knowingly lie then. Desperate as it obviously is to dismiss specific, clear, cogent arguments with a universal dismissal of all possible arguments in a domain you don't like, I'll just sign off comfortable that I know you're simply lying, as you're already perfectly clear on yourself.

You're simply constructing a supposed dilemma based on a deliberately-incorrect description of theism (okay, perhaps not deliberately, as it looks equally likely you're just directly parroting Dawkins with no individual thought applied at all).

I can believe God is omniscient and omnipotent, and as such responsive to requests as moderated by his greater understanding of all relevant factors. Same basic thing on a much smaller scale as asking your boss for a promotion, which you may or may not get, based on his knowledge of the company's needs and your present and future value to the company. This should not be difficult to understand.

I presumed no such thing - I'm simply reacting to the Christian insinuation that god values life.

The question itself presumes it, and that's what's under discussion. You're context-dropping the issue of "life", evaluating a death by relative comparison to an alternative you don't have. Not stating that doesn't make it less the case.

Is it your contention that god doesn't really give a damn when or how we die?

No, it's my contention you're just asserting an outcome as of a definitive overall positive/negative nature, when you would have no possible way of actually doing that, in that you simply don't know the outcome if we admit the notion of God to evaluate his actions, as you propose. If we stipulate for consideration that God does exist, we have an alternative to the outcome you suggest theism would indicate, that being what theism actually does suggest, and which more than zero members of the religion would consider a natural follow-on premise. In short, if God exists, God could put the dead immediately into a positive existential state after death. This would change the overall qualia of the event of death, and you can't "close the loop" with respect to required information to properly evaluate the event of death, given your own premise presented for consideration.

I neither propose to blame god nor to hold him blameless...

Except for the part where you just directly did, given the scenario at hand for discussion.

I'm simply curious about what sort of mental gymnastics are required in order to reconcile such mutually exclusive beliefs.

No "gymnastics" required at all, if we start with discussing a religion's characteristics by describing characteristics that it actually has, rather than ones it would be convenient to claim it has, such as the nature of "prayer". I would find it very strange to hear of any theist actually praying "No matter what, keep my alive, God, regardless of any wider effects which I acknowledge you see far better than me". It's well-understood that within the theological framework, we would have a positive condition to go to afterward, and thus the overall consideration of "when" tends toward factors that humans lack significant relative capacity to evaluate precisely, such as, effects on others with respect to the timing of this unavoidable event--as theists tend to lack the difficulty you display in grasping the inevitable as the inevitable.

It's atheism. It's an 'ism'.
A - not
theism - belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world (copied from Merriam Websters).

Not collecting stamps would be aphilately. Well, maybe not.