/atheism/ - Atheism

He use god as a metaphor. God doesn't play dice means there are no random events in nature.

This is probably wrong but that was his idea of reality.

>>13520

It was. He said it in response to some findings in quantum physics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_Einstein#Agnosticism.2C_deism.2C_and_atheism

>Einstein stated in his final letter: 'I am not an atheist.'…

You can read into the rest yourself. It's very particular and not a simple "theist/atheist" distinction and people unskilled on the topic like it to be.

>>13537

That line was supposedly reported by a Catholic about 13 years after Einstein died when he could not refute it.

>>13538

>That line was supposedly reported by a Catholic about 13 years after Einstein died when he could not refute it.

…?

How could it simply be "reported" when it's a quote from one of his letters? It's a known letter, and one in response to the book Glimpses of the Great. Now where did you get the idea that it was "reported by a Catholic"?

>>13539

Supposedly, he said that in an interview in response to the book you named. His words were that he was not an atheist or a pantheist, thereby refuting what wikipedia implies about his pantheism. As for the former sense, perhaps he meant he could not be certain there was no god or was not an anti-theist. Or he could even have believed in a deity unlike Christianity.

Before he died though his last letters consistently showed he was an atheist, or at least one who believed any religion that had a personal god (Jusaism, Christianity) was a childish belief. I attach more credence to letters he wrote in the 50's before he died.

>>13545

Spinoza's so-called god was a call to worshipping reason and natural law, i.e. a natural order or beauty. That's not really a god; the word god has simply been appropriated. Spinoza was labeled an atheist and persecuted in his day.

Also here's a letter he wrote a year before he died. He politely but clearly states to another Jew that he thinks the God religions follow is childish bullshit. It is irritating when Christians try to claim him for their own.

http://www.hillmanweb.com/reason/inspiration/einstein.html

>>13547

You're just willfully ignoring the obvious and most likely possibility, which is supported by his own words. Quote from another letter, referenced in the link I just posted:

"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly,” he wrote in another letter in 1954. "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."

And don't quote wiki. Their article on Einstein's faith suggests he was a pantheist and is BS. I have never seen Einstein say simply, I believe in god, I am a Deist, or I am a Pantheist.

>natural law isn't what you think it is.

You should know what a term with multiple usages means in this context.

Btw here is the wiki article on Einstein, which I haven't read for a while.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein%27s_religious_views

It's actually fairly balanced and would not be so bad if Theists would stop cherry-picking from the first paragraph that he was a Pantheist. The first paragraph is very misleading whenyou identify the context. By contrast, in the last section Einstein (probably privately) derides corrupt behavior of the Catholic church and sounds like an anti-theist.

Btw, humble Einstein > god-complex Hawking. Hawking is always a smug show off, even when he appears in commercials or sci-fi.

>>13549

>You're just willfully ignoring the obvious and most likely possibility, which is supported by his own words

I am simply telling you what these lines say and not trying to extrapolate other ideas onto them.

And if you want to toss quotes around, please try this:

>“We followers of Spinoza see our God in the wonderful order and lawfulness of all that exists and in its soul as it reveals itself in man and animal. It is a different question whether belief in a personal God should be contested. Freud endorsed this view in his latest publication. I myself would never engage in such a task. For such a belief seems to me preferable to the lack of any transcendental outlook of life, and I wonder whether one can ever successfully render to the majority of mankind a more sublime means in order to satisfy its metaphysical needs.”

This is one of his letters. Of course he denies the idea of a personal god but he finds it preferable to the materialist as it retains at least some idea of transcendental reality based on this quote.

>>13551

Yes, I gave you that exact same link here >>13537

This doesn't help your point, nor does specifying the Catholic Church.

>>13554

>This is one of his letters. Of course he denies the idea of a personal god but he finds it preferable to the materialist as it retains at least some idea of transcendental reality based on this quote.

That's just your interpretation, and it is incorrect. Where does he ever talk about liking mysticism, aside from likening science to a sense of wonder which is as religious as he ever gets? He is only interested in the portion of the universe he is able to observe through science, and turned his back on mysticism and escapism:

>" Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true…

>"….It is quite clear to me that the religious paradise of youth, which was thus lost, was a first attempt to free myself from the chains of the 'merely personal,' from an existence dominated by wishes, hopes, and primitive feelings. Out yonder there was this huge world, which exists independently of us human beings and which stands before us like a great, eternal riddle, at least partially accessible to our inspection and thinking. The contemplation of this world beckoned as a liberation, and I soon noticed that many a man whom I had learned to esteem and to admire had found inner freedom and security in its pursuit. The mental grasp of this extra-personal world within the frame of our capabilities presented itself to my mind, half consciously, half unconsciously, as a supreme goal. Similarly motivated men of the present and of the past, as well as the insights they had achieved, were the friends who could not be lost. The road to this paradise was not as comfortable and alluring as the road to the religious paradise; but it has shown itself reliable, and I have never regretted having chosen it."

"

>"

Once again, this "god" he refers to nothing but a natural order. It's obvious when you read Einstein's letters that he often uses words in non-standard ways that are context-sensitive, defining them in the same letter. He was a free-thinker and probably felt limited by the regular usage of words. He defined "god" loosely in his own way to mean exactly what he wanted it to mean, because at his core he probably subscribed to theological noncognitivism and was an ignosticist.

With Einsten, X means whatever he defines it to mean, and he always takes pains to clearly clarify what definitions he is using with no unnecessary words. That's why his writing style is worthy of admiration.

>>13555

>That's just your interpretation, and it is incorrect.

Lets work through what I said in >>13554

>It is a different question whether belief in a personal God should be contested.

The subject is declared as the contesting of belief in a personal god.

>Freud endorsed this view in his latest publication

This is a continuation of the subject in relation to topical news. Freud has contested belief in a personal god.

>I myself would never engage in such a task.

Einstein states that he would never engage in the subject at hand. The subject, still, being the contesting of a personal god.

>For such a belief seems to me preferable to the lack of any transcendental outlook of life…

He explains why he would never engage in the task of contesting belief in a personal god. Einstein states that belief in a personal god is a preferable state to the "lack of a transcendental outlook of life". In the most common understandings of the term and in relation to the discussion of Spinoza and gods the term 'transcendental' would be referring to divinity or basically the supernatural. Transcendence is an element of Spinoza's God, which I have already shown to be the case here >>13547

'Outlook of life' would just be a view towards living in nature. In the frame of the sentence, the preferable state would be to at least have a "transcendental outlook of life" instead of lacking one.

Did I misunderstand anything here?

You say my understanding is incorrect. Please explain.

>>13555

>Where does he ever talk about liking mysticism, aside from likening science to a sense of wonder which is as religious as he ever gets? He is only interested in the portion of the universe he is able to observe through science, and turned his back on mysticism and escapism

He says he is both fascinated and potentially supports the notion of Spinoza's God. For Spinoza God itself is transcendent, as I have already told you.

>"Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true…

Again, you're specifying rejecting Christianity, which is largely irrelevant.

>"….It is quite clear to me that the religious paradise of youth…

You need to remember that religious and theist are not synonymous terms. His theism is in question, not his religiousness.

>Once again, this "god" he refers to nothing but a natural order

He speaks of Spinoza's God and Spinoza very often. Spinoza's God is not JUST the natural order.

It bothers me how far you are willing to go to make your view seem correct:

>and probably felt

>he probably subscribed to

Stop assuming and please look at the facts.

>>13518

yes, quote-mining and misinterpreting Einstein's religious views is common among theistards. But cool down OP, there's a share of religious scientists and intelligent religious people, and Einstein isn't the god of science.

I think the pantheist label is adequate. Pantheism is often rejected by traditional theism on the grounds that it's materialistic and impersonal. It's as irreligious as deism but doesn't place god outside the world and doesn't necessarily assume that god is an intelligence.

In other words, pantheism can be a poetic figure used to avoid the atheist label, but it's actually closer to atheism than anything else.

This counts as more evidence in favor of the ignostic hypothesis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism

>>13553

>Make holographic version of a long dead scientist

>Still keeps him bound to that chair

People in the future are assholes.

>>13553

>Steven Hawking

>worth mentioning in the grand scheme of physicists

Yeah that scene never made sense except for the fact Hawking is a living person. Tbh he's only famous because of ALS.

>>13588

>>13566

Retards are the devil's children, and according to the Baptists, Hawkin was one.

http://www.landoverbaptist.net/showthread.php?t=4317

These guys have the patience for elaborate role playing.

>>13619

I'm not a Nazi nor a communist.

>>13580

Curious what that picture and those quotes have to do with transcendence and how he defined it. Seems to me you're trying to conflate things.

>>13659

If you still don't get it, I give up.

>>13619

>I will free the individual by shackling him to my particular desired "social goals".

>>13717

this