He was a very bright man, and he is wright about religion being childish.

Uh oh, now what are all the religious windbags who quote Einstein talking about 'god not playing dice' going to say? When the smartest minds speak, they talk about the childishness and superstitiousness that religion is.

Albert Einstein described belief in God as "childish superstition" and said Jews were not the chosen people, in a letter to be sold in London this week, an auctioneer said Tuesday.

"For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions," he said.

BigJohn,

Be careful...Einstein could have used some character education...he was a terrible husband and father. More importantly, perhaps, is that it is possible his theories are, after all, wrong. There are rumblings in the physics community. This will take a while to sort out, though.

"Einstein Letter: Religion is 'Pretty Childish'"


YEAH!

And it took a Backsliding Slob like Bush and his slavish little servants to Finally Prove it to everyone else!

BigJohn,

Be careful...Einstein could have used some character education...he was a terrible husband and father.


As are many people. Doesn't make what he said any less meaningful.


More importantly, perhaps, is that it is possible his theories are, after all, wrong. There are rumblings in the physics community. This will take a while to sort out, though.

Posted by jonryker


What on earth is this based on? Your personal opinion? Link please.

Be careful? What exactly are we being careful about?

Well I will be certain to read very carefully any statements from the religious right as I am sure the attacks on him will begin. Actually, they already have as noted here...

...he was a terrible husband and father. More importantly, perhaps, is that it is possible his theories are, after all, wrong. There are rumblings in the physics community. This will take a while to sort out, though.

What exactly does him being, according to the post, a terrible father and husband have anything to do with him believing in religion? There are plenty of "religious" men who meet that qualification (Haggard comes quickly to mind).

As far as his theories being proved wrong? Some of his earliest theories have stood for almost 100 years but he would have been the first to want them disproved if they were wrong. Just because they may not be 100% accurate doesn't diminish him in any way. However, I have yet to see any credible scientist step up and make such a claim.

Attacking the scientist's work simply because you don't like what they have to say is an age old tactic. Sad to see it is alive and well.

Einstein is correct. Religion is childish.

But, energy is forever.

"When the smartest minds speak..."

Freeze that. Einstein in his field was most adept indeed. But as with most people who are luminaries in their areas of expertise, in other areas of their lives, they can be rather pathetic, socially inept, prone to forgetfulness and madness, terrible interpersonal skills, definite obsessive/compulsive behavioral traits, bizarre eccentricities, mood swings, some prone even to violence and suicide.

In Nature there is always balance.

Adding to one side of the equation demands subtracting from the other.

Most of us are incredibly average though we all like to believe that we are something special. I suppose in a sense, individually, each one of us is, but when viewed as part of the teeming billions...

Einstien's views in this case are simply that: Einstein's views. He had no more or no less proof of the existence of a Supreme Being than any of us does today.

Faith is not quantifiable.

Redneck

Do you ever make a post that is not about Bush? We get it already, you dont like him. Hell, I dont like him much either but not everything is about Bush.

Ddenton,

It isn't my opinion that Einstein's works are being questioned by a growing number of physicists...it is fact. It doesn't mean he's wrong. It does mean, however, that for the first time in a long time, people are actually questioning whether or not he's right about his physics.

The beef recently seems to be about his assumption that space itself is continuous. The quantum mechanics guys have never been able to square this, and people are starting to look for alternatives, because they're really being held up in a lot of areas between small-scale physics and large-scale physics.

Also, things aren't behaving gravitationally at the galactic level like they should according to anybody, including Einstein, so General Relativity is being questioned here.

This isn't a bad thing. It is healthy. I'm just pointing out that those who would assume Einstein knew more than everybody else did probably should reign that instinct back a bit.

I was also trying to point out that even if his science was good, he was definitely NOT the sort of person one should take seriously for a religious opinion. Rather, he appeared to be impeded.

For you dumbasses out there, I don't say this because I disagree with him in principle....I am an atheist and have been for a long time....I simply would not consult a self-centered person for tips on how to live life.

"Do you ever make a post that is not about Bush?"

YEAH!

As if!

Get used to it ---- you've got another "Fifty Years" of it to look Forward too!

And it's of Your Own Making (by insisting it takes fifty years to Judge)!

I know, there is nothing more you Windings want than to forget about the seven years of your own praise of "conservative" Bush this and "conservative" Bush that, of which keeps returning and falling at your feet in big steamy piles of mess!

But that not my problem --- but yours!

"I am an atheist..."

Posted by jonryker

God doesn't believe in atheists. Therefore, you do not exist.

Ok, I just wante to make sure that you are sounding like an ass on purpose. Another 50 years huh, well at least you wont be reproducing.

The "adults" are here to get their daily pat on the back from old gramps, Zatoichi.

Speak softly, and don't make eye contact. They are a sensitive, fragile bunch.

I simply would not consult a self-centered person for tips on how to live life.

Posted by jonryker


Good thing you're not telling others how to live their lives. That might make you a hypocrite.

Did Adam and Eve have belly buttons?

Adam and Eve produced two sons. Cain and Abel. Well, who did Cain and Abel schtup to get their wives?

Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeve!!!!?!?!?! ?!

Ddenton,

Only if I were offering religious advice, which I do not.

I also do not abandon my wife and kids in order to do what I want to do, and then marry another woman who essentially is my housekeeper for the rest of my life. At least, I don't see my life going that way.

I don't consider religious people to be stupid. I do consider people who argue about the scientific correctness of religion to be stupid.

I do consider people who argue about the scientific correctness of religion to be stupid.

This is America, pal. You and your crummy opinion are welcome here!

If religion isn't correct Dinosaur boy, then how much validity does it really have?

Two of every species on the Ark, and on and on and on...

I'll place Einstein's treatise on religion on my bookshelf right next to Jerry Falwell's treatise on theoretical physics.

I love the hidden assumptions that seem to be made with this kind of post. They just don't stand up to logic and it doesn't take an Einstein to see so.

1. Einstein is a genius in physics; therefore, he is a genius in regard to religion, politics, human nature.

2. Scientific knowledge supersedes all other epistemologies. br />

3. Because we know more about the world in a scientific way, we are wiser and know more about the world philosophically, theologically, artistically, etc.

Apparently for some scientists the "Word of Einstein" on issues outside of science is to be accepted dogmatically.

Of course, Einstein is right in a way, though not in the way he seems to be thinking. Religion is, indeed, childish, but all of today's knowledge and understanding is childish from the perspective of tomorrow.

Keep in mind too that a child's understanding of the universe is not necessarily wrong--it may simply lack sophistication and nuance.

No matter what we know or what we learn, we are perpetual children in this universe. Once we learn to embrace that notion, to turn away from self inflated pride and arrogance in all its forms--on a personal, racial, cultural, national, intellectual, philosophical, spiritual level--we will we truly gain wisdom and in doing so embrace the bedrock belief of the judeo-christian tradition.

This is truly what the myth of Genesis is about--Pride--man's pride and arrogance in setting himself above everything else.

This is also basis of the incarnation--the deity demonstrating the opposing virtue--humility. The being that is truly above everything else, humbled himself and took on human form--born at the height of human political power (The Roman Empire) but not to the emperor but to a family of lowly peasants in the social, artistic, philosophical and political backwater of the day--Judea.

The incarnation erases Adam's sin (the desire for humans to be like gods) because it in a sense grants Adam's wish. Because of Christ, humanity shares something with God that not even the angels have.

The felix culpa--humanity fallen and then redeemed is in a better place than never having fallen at all.

Thanks for the post Zat.

Cheers

I want to know what Einstien said on his death bed?

About Cain and Ables wives don't you know your Bible.
Genisis 6:4 The sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. God made spouses for Adam and Eves kids. That is also how everyone came from the same mother. You should read about mitochondria eve, its a DNA test that proves we all come from the same mom.

In the Bible God is represented as male and mankind is represented by the female. That is why you have the parable of the wedding banquet and Isreal being described as a prostitute.

"Did Adam and Eve have belly buttons?"

Of course! How else could they turn each other on?

"Adam and Eve produced two sons. Cain and Abel. Well, who did Cain and Abel schtup to get their wives?"

Well, you need just a bit of correction here. Cain whacked his bro' in a fit of jealousy. And then Cain was cast out of Eden and he went east of Eden to the land of Nod where he encountered some babage (probably an illegal from south of Eden) whom he married, had lots of evil chilluns, and founded a kingdom - easy to do with no competition.

"Two of every species on the Ark, and on and on and on..."

The not-so tasty and not-so warm and fuzzy animals were put in steerage - lots of room down there.

"Genisis 6:4 The sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. God made spouses for Adam and Eves kids. That is also how everyone came from the same mother. You should read about mitochondria eve, its a DNA test that proves we all come from the same mom."

Posted by rick1234567890

Yoiks!! Methinks it be thee who knowest not the Bible.

Genesis

6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

6:3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

"The quantum mechanics guys have never been able to square this, and people are starting to look for alternatives, because they're really being held up in a lot of areas between small-scale physics and large-scale physics.

Posted by jonryker at 2008-05-13 02:31 PM"

Recently? Like since the 1950's, you mean?

Jon - If your point is that Einstein did not come up with a unified theory, and that people have been trying to do so and are currently trying to do so, you're right. But that is not a recent phenomenon.

The Fool says is his heart, there is no God.
Psalm 14:1...Nuff said.

For you dumbasses out there, I don't say this because I disagree with him in principle....I am an atheist and have been for a long time....I simply would not consult a self-centered person for tips on how to live life.

Posted by jonryker at 2008-05-13 02:31 PM

Well that self centered person was commonly used in reference to further the 'religious cause' by many religious people for other things he said. So apparently by their logic and actions what he says is very important. And who but theoretical physicists would have a good perspective on the 'mind of God'. Religion (Christianity) deals with the 'heart of God' mostly, that's why they don't worry when things don't make sense. But people who are interested in 'the mind of God' frequently see that religion is childish in it's views.

Things like Adam and Eve, like Noah and his ark, that is just the stuff of fairy tales. It requires a lot of magic to believe it and is refuted with evidence.

Yes, Einstein should have known when he was postulating his thoeries that the world would eventually disprove him.

Shall we make a list of intelligent people that were way ahead of their time and caused a giant leap in intelligensia but later proved wrong?

Einstein, Aristotle, Freud, Hawking, Karl Marx, Kenseyan Economics, The people that said we would have flying cars by the year 2000......

It is true that just because Einstein said something, that fact alone doesn't make it true. Forgetting religion for a moment, Einstein never accepted quantum mechanics because he felt that the "random" motion ascribed by quantum mechanics to individual particles was in fact not random, and that calling it random was a "cop-out." Einstein, like many scientists before him, believed the universe follows a perfectly predictable clockwork order based on natural laws, such that if it were possible to know the position and motion of every particle in the universe, and the precise nature of every physical law, the future could be predicted down to the last detail. Quantum mechanics tells us instead that while it APPEARS that the universe follows clockwork laws at the level of perception of humans, this is just a function of random events summing up (much like if you spin the roulette wheel enough times you'll notice an approximately equal distribution of each number on the wheel, but you'll see a different pattern of distribution if you cast 2 dice a number of times). But this randomness means that no physical law is guaranteed "with 100% certainty" to apply in any particular situation, which is something Einstein found very troubling ("God does not play dice with the universe.")

I would like segue from this to the objection raised in Grendel's post to the idea that "scientific knowledge supersedes all other epistemologies". I feel strongly that scientific knowledge is indeed superior to knowledge from all other epistemologies, because science has a simple, yet effective process for reaching the truth that is not found in other epistemologies. Science involves witnessing events in the real world, proposing an explanation, and then attempting to come up with a test for that explanation that can determine whether the explanation is not adequate. This rigorous process has produced several revolutions in scientific understanding, and the track record for science is incredible, from proving that most disease is caused by microorganisms (a radical concept in the day when disease was thought to be direct action of the wrath of God) to demonstrating that everything we know in the universe is made up of different arrangements of a few fundamental particles.

Science is, by my estimation, superior to belief systems that hold up dogmatic beliefs and ancient texts as the truth, despite evidence to the contrary. Although scientific "truths" (theories) may appear to be just as dogmatic, they have had to withstand a withering barrage of criticism from other scientists, and many attempts at disproof through experiment, in order to reach the level of a scientific "law" or "theorem." Any failed experiment along the way could have been enough to derail one of these theories, much like the abandonment of the "phlogiston" theory of fire or the "ether" theory of light waves after they were found to contradict experiments.

Einstein may have been wrong about quantum mechanics, which has held up to modern experiments better than more classical theories about the motion of particles. But luckily, even Einstein's prominent position in science still does not cause his statements to be treated like dogma. It is a testament to science that it can continue to advance even when major players object to new theories (Einstein rejected quantum mechanics, and Edwin Hubble rejected the Big Bang theory, despite the fact that his findings laid the groundwork for that theory). It is this path to progress, based on a simple process of observation->hypothesis->experiment that we owe so much to in our modern age.

The Fool says is his heart, there is no God.
Psalm 14:1...Nuff said.

Posted by Gunadoo at 2008-05-13 05:21 PM

God is all knowing, all powerful. It is described in the Bible. We know that the Bible is the inspired word of God. How do we know that is true, because it says in the bible it's true, therefore it must be.

Hey Gunadoo, you owe me $1000 btw. How do I know you owe me $1000, because I am saying you do. And I'm a good reliable source, just ask me, I'll vouch for me.

More importantly, perhaps, is that it is possible his theories are, after all, wrong. There are rumblings in the physics community. This will take a while to sort out, though.

Posted by jonryker



you are in WAY over your head here ... stick to the shallow end, or else enlighten us with the info you've uncovered.

Which "rumblings" are you talking about, and what do you know about them?

Can't wait.

God doesn't believe in atheists. Therefore, you do not exist.
Posted by ZOT

Another person claiming they know about God.

Jesus Christ (sarcastically)

You don't have to be an Einstein to see that religion is childish myth. Marx was on to something when he called religion opium for the masses. It dulls their senses to a natural world they can't accept.

Life is but a momentary glimpse of the wonder of this astonishing universe, and it is sad to see so many dreaming it away on spiritual fantasy. [Carl Sagan]

I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking. The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides. [Carl Sagan, 1996 in his article In the Valley of the Shadow Parade Magazine Also, Billions and Billions p. 215]

I worry that, especially as the Millennium edges nearer, pseudoscience and superstition will seem year by year more tempting, the siren song of unreason more sonorous and attractive. Where have we heard it before? Whenever our ethnic or national prejudices are aroused, in times of scarcity, during challenges to national self-esteem or nerve, when we agonize about our diminished cosmic place and purpose, or when fanaticism is bubbling up around us-then, habits of thought familiar from ages past reach for the controls.

The candle flame gutters. Its little pool of light trembles. Darkness gathers. The demons begin to stir. [Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science As a Candle in the Dark]

Well, needless to say, I find most assertions religion is childish to be, er, childish.

"Dreaming it (the universe) away on spiritual fantasy...."

I don't know anyone that does that. This probably something you believe that is made up. A myth, if you will.

Hmmmm.....anonymous poster v. Einstein.....

I'll take Einstein.

Grendel's right when he states one major unexamined premise y'all have is that scientific methodology supercedes all other epistemologies.

Science is just one way of knowing. Y'all are comfortable with it because you seem to feel you understand it. All the rest you gather wood for in order to burn at the stake.

It's not versus Einstein at all. But you have to at least consider the possiblity there were a few subjects the Great Man was out of his depth in. Now, if you'd like to argue otherwise, I'm sitting here grinning in advance.

There you go again Zed, looking for excuses to avoid reality.

I live in the same world you do, Ray. Salt of the earth, and all that.

I've often thought you are a smart man, and likely a rich one, but I don't want to be you. No advantages.

I live in the same world you do, Ray.

Not mentally you don't, Zed.

I've often thought you are a smart man, and likely a rich one, but I don't want to be you. No advantages.

Perhaps if I was a celebrity you might think different. Many a scientist wishes he could be another Einstein.

Science is just one way of knowing. Y'all are comfortable with it because you seem to feel you understand it. All the rest you gather wood for in order to burn at the stake.

Posted by Zed at 2008-05-13 07:39 PM

Name some other ways of 'knowing', and we'll do a comparison.

i wish i could believe in god. it would be so much easier to "know" that there is an all powerful being watching over us. i tried. i can't.

there's just you and me and right now.

"Name some othe ways of knowing...."

We could try intuition for a start.

"Perhaps if I were a celebrity....?"

Britney Spears?

Ray, don't get me wrong. I'd say you'd make a good neighbor. I just don't want your Edsel when you die.

"There's just you and me and right now...."

Not at all. Even the most deterministic of scientists don't think that.

Intuition, while often useful, is not always correct. Many scientific theories themselves began as a hypothesis based on intuition, but only those that can pass the rigor of experimentation become accepted.

Which statement seems strongest to you:

"I know this is true because I feel it." (intuition)
"I know this is true because it is written in my Holy book." (religion)
"I know this is true because everyone else seems to believe it is true." (groupthink)
"I know this is true because it agrees with experimental evidence." (science)

We could try intuition for a start.

Posted by Zed at 2008-05-13 08:52 PM

Ok, that's something. Not let's devise a test to compare the knowledge gained through intuition and that through scientific method.

Oh wait, in order to test intuition, we need to use the scientific method. Oh my.

I never imagined you would even think of Britney Spears.

If you don't take the Edsel, then you can't have the rest of my classic car collection either.

The intuition verses empirical debate goes as far bas as Plato and Aristotle. Aristotle turned out right.

The fatal flaw in theism is that the concept has no connection to anything real. That leaves it strictly an imaginary concept. Once we accept the idea of an invisible god, it's character could be anything that appeals to us.

Once we accept the idea of an invisible god, it's character could be anything that appeals to us.

Posted by Ray at 2008-05-13 09:14 PM | Reply

Or, its nature could be anything that doesn't appeal to us. Coming to a belief in a generic god does not necessarily provide any comfort and it isn't necessarily an "opiate" in any sense that Marx may have meant. This is one of the reasons why I turned to the crutch of atheism for a while. It was easier than dealing with all of the bigger existential questions. You know -- all the questions that science can't answer.

"...the crutch of atheism..."

FF fer Anton.

"...the crutch of atheism..."

FF fer Anton.

Posted by Dave at 2008-05-13 09:32 PM | Reply

Dave, I know it may sound funny. But, I actually remember the exact moment I become a (temporary) atheist -- I was in my late 20s and I was driving in my car early in the morning with the window down. I just grew tired of thinking about "eternal" things and chose not to believe in god (for a while, anyway). Also, I'd point out that despite what atheists often say (usually as a dig at theists) the notion of no afterlife never bothered me in the least. Frankly, taking a never-ending nap doesn't sound half-bad.

"In order to test intuition, we need to use the scientific method...."

No one can say you aren't chained and bound to one particular world view.

Everyhting that flies is not a helicopter.

I know of no easy way to even conceptualize intuition using the scientific method. That means you can't even experiment with it.

Why don't you commit to the idea that only those things you can experiment with are real? That would be fun.

To some degree, both atheism and religion are both crutches, since they both give some level of peace of mind for those "big questions." Of course, most people prefer the answer given by religion, although I would prefer to know the truth, since just because you want there to be a God or an afterlife does not necessarily make it so.

For me, I choose atheism because:

1) There a multitude of competing religions, and not all of them can be right (in fact, most of them have to be wrong).
2) There is strong scientific evidence that humans have been around (even in our current form) for much longer than any major human religion has existed.
3) The religions themselves appear to have little or no supporting evidence. They must be taken "on faith."
4) Science has made great strides in answering questions previously thought to be unknowable (why does the sun shine? why is the sky blue? how did plants and animals come to be?) and I think this trend will continue to answer these sorts of questions, in a more definitive way, in the future.

IMO, major religions continue to have followers only because most people are taught their religion during their childhood, in a cycle that goes back hundreds or thousands of years back to times before science had any answers to any questions, and before most people were even aware there were competing religions. It is literally baggage from the past.

"Major religions continue to have followers only because most people are taught their religion during childhood...."

I was baptized at the age of fifty. After living all my life atheist, agnostice, or indifferent. I got the where I am by thinking and by feeling.

"Before sceince had any answers to any questions...."

It never answered anything that was useful for me. I'm pretty sure at this point it never will.

Oh wait, in order to test intuition, we need to use the scientific method. Oh my.

Tell me by what test does one assess the validity of the scientific method?
You can't use the scientific method itself, since you can't test the validity of something by relying on the thing itself as the gauge.

Ray, is right in mentioning Platonic thought as an alternative to Aristotle's empiricism.

However. . .

The intuition verses empirical debate goes as far bas as Plato and Aristotle. Aristotle turned out right.

Sez you.

I know one classical philosopher (PhD.) who would adamantly disagree. (BTW he is a fascinating guy--he first got his MBA and worked in the business world for years and then one day decided to chuck it all and pursue his love of ancient Greek language and philosophy).

Cheers

I know of no easy way to even conceptualize intuition using the scientific method. That means you can't even experiment with it.

Why don't you commit to the idea that only those things you can experiment with are real? That would be fun.

Posted by Zed at 2008-05-13 09:43 PM

Nonsense. We can define what intuition is. We can test how 'good' it works.

You can't prove things are real until you verify that they are real, but that has little to do with intuition anyway. You were stating that inuition is a good way of 'knowing' something, but to test that theory, we need to study it. You don't fully trust something until you study it.

Tell me by what test does one assess the validity of the scientific method?

Posted by Grendel at 2008-05-13 09:57 PM

You tell me. Then we'll use that one. We'll compare the two methods, see which one gives the best answers.

It never answered anything that was useful for me. I'm pretty sure at this point it never will.

Posted by Zed at 2008-05-13 09:52 PM

I'm pretty sure it has, unless you consider driving your car, using the internet or your phone, or receiving medicine not useful.

Well, Big John--Most of that is just trivia. Medicine is nice, but there's more than one way of getting to that.

"We can define what intuition is...."

Feel free to hold forth with your OPERATIONAL definition. I'm here to explain why it likely won't serve.

Nonsense. We can define what intuition is. We can test how 'good' it works.

I don't know about testing, but I know that if I want to assess whether a person loves me or if my life has meaning (which are real experiences --as real as experiencing a sunny day), I think I would rather trust my intuition then the scientific method.

Imagine the conversation.

"Honey, I love you."

"Yes, well I just can't take things on faith, you know. I would just like to verify it scientfically. You won't mind hooking yourself up to this EEG and undergoing a MRI of your brain. If certain electrical impulses are present or certain portions of brain become active while thinking of me then we will have some concrete evidence in support of that thesis. Of course, we will need a control group and peer review of the results and . . .hello? hello?"



The ideas in some of these interesting posts (on both sides) reminds me of the blinded Earl of Gloucester from Shakespeare's King Lear.

GLOUCESTER
What, with the case of eyes?

KING LEAR
O, ho, are you there with me? No eyes in your
head, nor no money in your purse? Your eyes are in
a heavy case, your purse in a light; yet you see how this world goes.

GLOUCESTER
I see it feelingly.



Gloucester's line sums up human thought and knowledge perfectly. To be human is to take all that is rationale and empirical and to filter it through the emotional--to see it feelingly.


Some knowledge may be gained by attempting to dismiss the second, but true wisdom, humanity and experience of reality is only gained by not by denying the second but by embracing and welcoming it fully.*

Cheers and good night

*The great irony is that when you ask the scientist who only deals in cold empirical facts why he or she became a scientists--the answer is always: because of the love of knowledge!

To some degree, both atheism and religion are both crutches, since they both give some level of peace of mind for those "big questions."

Posted by Duckman at 2008-05-13 09:45 PM | Reply

I basically agree with you. Pretty much anything can be used like a "crutch" -- drugs, booze, sex, work, money, religion, worldviews, etc.

Just to be clear: I don't have anything against atheists. When I was an atheist, I wasn't a self-loathing atheist. Plus, my father-in-law is an atheist/agnostic (it depends upon the day, I think) and he is one of the smartest, kindest and generally most decent people I've ever known. I've known a number of great religious people, too. My great-grandmother truly was a saint -- and the saintliness she showed to others was motivated by her religion. There are also assholes in both camps, as I'm sure you've noticed if you hang around here much.

Peace.

Organized religion is a crutch for the scared and the stupid. Being a crutch, it does serve it's purpose of giving consolation to those in need of support.
Einstein was precisely right to call it childish. Mature honest adults do not (or at least should not) need to rely on a fairy tale in order makes sense of this existence.

Well, Big John--Most of that is just trivia. Medicine is nice, but there's more than one way of getting to that.

Posted by Zed at 2008-05-13 10:28 PM

Again, nice to say, another to do. Tell medicine is 'nice' to someone dying in their 30s in Sub Saharan Africa. We don't stop and think about how nice and easy our life is thanks to science. It has become our way of life. You claim it isn't that useful, it seems a shallow claim.

Grendel, how about an answer to my 10:03 post?

I would rather know what Einstein thought about religion. Who cares what the drunk asshole next to me in a bar thinks!

I don't know about testing, but I know that if I want to assess whether a person loves me or if my life has meaning (which are real experiences --as real as experiencing a sunny day), I think I would rather trust my intuition then the scientific method.



and often you will be wrong, however science can develope a test to see if someone loves you because "love" is the electro-chemical reaction in your body.

"You claim it (science) isn't useful...."

Not what I said. What I said is that most of your examples of what I should be grateful for from science are trivial, and they sure are.

In regards to medicine, systems have been developed in a fashion unrelated to the scientific method. In the West, we just now have our docs learning them and applying experimental science in an attempt to understand why they work.

"Love is the electrochemical reaction in your body...."

May great and good friend, you are well and truly lost.

No, sorry. Science cannot test for love. I've met one or two that insist that they can. But their insistence is emotional in nature, something they don't realize and find to be funny.

"Something they dont realize and I find to be funny...."

Many of the apocalyptic prophecies in the Bible seem to parallel the grim predictions of many modern scientists.

What I said is that most of your examples of what I should be grateful for from science are trivial, and they sure are.



trivial?

tell that to a cancer survivor to whom life saving medicine has given them years to their life

tell that to a couple who was unable to achieve fertility and science enabled them to have a child

tell that to a child with leukemia who medicine has given them years to their life

knowledge and the spread of it is due to science-internet, the written word, mass publication

mathematics-has given us art in the form of architecture

science will find us ways to save our earth from destruction

years added to people's lives, convenience given to people so that they can have the luxury of poetry, art, sport, etc instead of living to make the necessities to sustain life

etc.

you and other religous people' concern with the afterlife prevents and impedes the improvement and enjoyment of this life and that is likely from the crippling knowledge that the 70 or 80 years you have are it, finito.

No, sorry. Science cannot test for love.


sorry but it can, love is a feeling, a sensation within your body, that sensation caused by electro-chemical reactions in the brain and body

"They have such great chemistry together."

I will admit there is currently no love machine, but that does not make love an immeasurable.

try taking ecstasy and tell me science cant make love.

correction cant simulate love

you and other religous people' concern with the afterlife prevents and impedes the improvement and enjoyment of this life


How so?

"Love is a feeling, a sensation...."

Only in part. Then to make things more complicated, different people experience different sensations with those same good old electrochmical stimuli.

the (for lack of a better word) obsession with the afterlife gets in the way of maximizing the benefits of this life.

using an extreme example, religous zealots who commit suicide bombings. These individuals give up their lives for the concept that there is something after this life worth dying for.

also religon becomes the crutch to stop seeking answers, once you have knowledge on why (bible etc), you stop seeking understanding of why.

just two examples of how

Zat is an interesting man. His education has progressed to the point where he doesn't undertand what things he doesn't understand. Because of this blind spot, he feels perversely omnipotent intellectually.

"Obsession with the afterlife...."

I know no one that has such an obsession. There are some, I'm sure. Just like you have engineers who are obsessed with the weird idea everything can be measured.

Only in part




what is the other part?

Right now Zat is thinking, "I have no blind spots", thereby reinforcing his personal sense of omnipotence once again. Powerful, but crazy.

if it gets in the way of something than obsession is an appropriate word

As for mitochondrial Eve, she existed some 80000 years ago in AFRICA. She was not alone.
Depending on whom you wish to credit, there have been 7 distinct incarnations of "humans" in the last 500,000 years. There were humans in North America BEFORE your supposed biblical persona identified themselves.

Just so you know, there is one dicipline far older than science.
It is called- LIFE.
Too many of you spend your time cultivating myth and fear.
Try cultivating brains.
Your own.

If it gets in the way of something bad, then the word you are searching for is "adaptive".

the (for lack of a better word) obsession with the afterlife gets in the way of maximizing the benefits of this life.


That depends upon the path needed to achieve the afterlife.


Take Catholicism for example. The best way a Catholic can reach the afterlife is to make this world the best possible place for all who inhabit it. This carrot is far more motivating than the philosophy of carpe diem which is prevalent with some who are atheist.

"Obsession with the afterlife...."

I know no one that has such an obsession. There are some, I'm sure. Just like you have engineers who are obsessed with the weird idea everything can be measured.

Posted by Zed at 2008-05-14 09:02 AM | Reply

I have to agree, Zed. I'm befuddled by some atheists' obsession with the so-called obsession theists allegedly have with an "afterlife." Some theists don't believe in an afterlife, anyway. Secondly, a belief in an afterlife isn't necessarily an obsession and doesn't necessarily render someone a dullard in this life despite what Marx or anyone else might have wrongly asserted. Personally, my view is if there is an afterlife, and it's good, I'll take it. If it's bad, that'll suck. If there is no afterlife, I guess I'll be taking a very long dirt nap. In any case, I'm not losing sleep over it. So much for my "obsession."

If it gets in the way of something bad, then the word you are searching for is "adaptive".

Posted by Zed



and if it gets in the way of something good...

"BEFORE your supposed Biblical persona identified themselves...."

Or maybe they did. Or maybe they are doing so now (ask Zat about that one).

You wouldn't know. You're waiting for some archeologist to inform you of what the possibilties are. As you say, grow a brain.

"If it gets in the way of something good...."

Tell me, how many "good" things has scientific progress gotten in the way of? You're chasing down a hole you won't escape from.

That depends upon the path needed to achieve the afterlife.


Take Catholicism for example. The best way a Catholic can reach the afterlife is to make this world the best possible place for all who inhabit it. This carrot is far more motivating than the philosophy of carpe diem which is prevalent with some who are atheist.

Posted by JeffJ



umm not exactly correct. the best way for a catholic to reach the afterlife (well we will all die so Ipresume you mean heaven) is to accept jesus into your life, take the eucharist and be forgiven for sin.

the catholic doctrine dicates what is the best possible place, thus the need to spread the word.

therefore one infringes on the beliefs of others.

therefor putting the afterlife over the current life.

the works of charity etc in religous doctrine are worthwhile, the philosphy of do unto others is the best way to live.

the notion that we are sinners is an inhibition to the full experience of life. Living in fear of sin is not fully enjoying life.

Zombie Zed lies again ....

"Zat is thinking, "I have no blind spots""

You couldn't begin to fathom what my cattle are thinking.

Tell us all again how you're smarter than Steve Weinberg.
I need another laugh this morning.

Zombie Zed has resurrected the dead; Ask him.


ROFL MAO!

Hey Zed! China needs you now!

"If it gets in the way of something good...."

Tell me, how many "good" things has scientific progress gotten in the way of? You're chasing down a hole you won't escape from.

Posted by Zed


why? cause you avoid an answer? some would call that a deflection.

religon leads to suicide bombers

religon leads to fear

religon leads to fanaticism

religon is used as a cruth to avoid experience and examining the world around us to justify prejudices, to reward ignorance.

is science perfect? no, (usually because the application of science by improperly controlled power) but I would take measurable quantities than to place my security, the security and happiness of my children on power of a myth.

No, sorry. Science cannot test for love.

You under estimate the abilities of science, and quite frankly your strident closed minded faith hampers your intellectual ability to see beyond the emotional aspect of your faith to a more worldly realistic aspect of measured ideas.

Science at this time may not have all the variables because of the unrational behavior involved with the mind and the convolution of people feeling love in so many separate variations.

People getting divorced........real love?????
People staying married........real love?????

What is more important than knowledged asked the mind, caring and seeing with the heart answered the soul.

The mind is a powerful thing.

When the mind is enlightened, the spirit is freed, and the body is no longer required.

TH,

I am short on time.

I'll conclude with this:

The logical constructs between one "therefore" to another are at best illogical.

Also, you are taking how some who are religious might view the afterlife and applying said speculative view as doctrine for all who are religious.

Your arguments are a combination of ignorance of the subject at hand coupled with an irrational prejudice toward all things religious.


All of that said, your civiilty on this thread is appreciated.


Gotta run.

If we long to believe that the stars rise and set for us, that we are the reason there is a Universe, does science do us a disservice in deflating our conceits?....For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. [Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science As a Candle in the Dark]

Is it fair to be suspicious of an entire profession because of a few bad apples? There are at least two important differences, it seems to me. First, no one doubts that science actually works, whatever mistaken and fraudulent claim may from time to time be offered. But whether there are any miraculous cures from faith-healing, beyond the body's own ability to cure itself, is very much at issue. Secondly, the expose' of fraud and error in science is made almost exclusively by science. But the exposure of fraud and error in faith-healing is almost never done by other faith-healers. [Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science As a Candle in the Dark]

Einstein was right about many things because he allowed himself the freedom to think things through. -donnerboy

"I think computer viruses should count as life. I think it says something about human nature that the only form of life we have created so far is purely destructive. We've created life in our own image."
-Stephen Hawking

"You claim it (science) isn't useful...."

Not what I said. What I said is that most of your examples of what I should be grateful for from science are trivial, and they sure are.

In regards to medicine, systems have been developed in a fashion unrelated to the scientific method. In the West, we just now have our docs learning them and applying experimental science in an attempt to understand why they work.

Posted by Zed at 2008-05-14 08:35 AM

Let me post what you said, because that is what you said:

It never answered anything that was useful for me. I'm pretty sure at this point it never will.
Posted by Zed at 2008-05-13 09:52 PM


Science has answered many a things you find useful. You are attempting to change what you said earlier.

The other systems of medicine were through trial and error, not too far out from a scientific method, though different than how we do it now, and it takes a little longer to see the results. Of course those other methods included swallowing quick silver to live longer, I wouldn't recommend you do that.

"But the exposure of fraud and error in faith-healing is almost never done by other faith-healers. [Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science As a Candle in the Dark]"

Does Dr. Sagan provide a source for that statement? I'd like to see the research he referenced to prove this negative. I'm betting he's just full of shit. I'd expect more from a scientist. Although, to be fair, I don't know how he defines "faith-healers." Nevertheless, a simple google search will find a large number of exposes of religious hucksters by religious persons and organizations.

DON'T QUESTION MY RELIGION YOU PRODUCT OF SATAN!

- religious nut job

DON'T QUESTION MY ASSOCIATIONS, MUSLIM IDEALS, BACKGROUND or USE MY MIDDLE NAME YOU PRODUCT OF SATAN!

- Barack Hussein Obama's Campaign Manager 2008

You should read about mitochondria eve, its a DNA test that proves we all come from the same mom.

I am sure the Zulus, Aboriginies, Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, Chinese and Scientists all have your back on this one!!!

AMEN! BWHAhahahahahahahahahaha!

Why is the White Christian Guy always right? Gee-Whiz! Don't question him either or he will run and get his Dad!

"Genisis 6:4 The sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. God made spouses for Adam and Eves kids. That is also how everyone came from the same mother. You should read about mitochondria eve, its a DNA test that proves we all come from the same mom."

Why aren't their names mentioned in the "begats"?

God made spouses for Adam and Eve's kids. Sure he did. "whew! got that one answered intelligently!"

You just gots to bull-eve! The big guy made the universe in 6 days.... GOOD GRAVY!

You have the "reality" of your own perception, atheist or religious, and a belief system formed based on your own sensory experience and organization of your processors, your nervous system. Rest easy so long as you can survive and function in this world. The next world will take care of itself.

Grendal is A Moron.

Religion is only an Epistimology to the religious, who need it to be to verify their group delusion.

I have waited for most of my adult life for this info about Einstein to come out and stomp on the tiny childish feet of the religious who used Einstein as an example of a reconcilitory point between Sciene and religion.

Fuck man - christians - can't live with them, can't feed them to the lions!

Does Dr. Sagan provide a source for that statement? I'd like to see the research he referenced to prove this negative. I'm betting he's just full of shit. I'd expect more from a scientist. Although, to be fair, I don't know how he defines "faith-healers." Nevertheless, a simple google search will find a large number of exposes of religious hucksters by religious persons and organizations.

Posted by anton at 2008-05-14 01:10 PM

yeah.. that's it Anton... Dr Carl Sagan was full of shit I am sure... perhaps you should read a bit more about him before you say such things.

So how many hits did YOUR google search come up with or are YOU the one full of shit here?

I think the point here is that you will find that Science is "self-correcting" whereas Religion is "self-perpetuating". And while humans are humans and do get caught up into mob mentality even in science you really don't see scientists killing each other over whether their particular pet theory of the Universe is correct or not now do you?

And as far as faith healers outing each other I would like to see your examples of these hucksters outing each other please...Meanwhile I would hazard to guess that Carl was correct when he made the statement.. but that is just a guess on my part.

Think of how many religions attempt to validate themselves with prophecy. Think of how many people rely on these prophecies, however vague, however unfulfilled, to support or prop up their beliefs. Yet has there ever been a religion with the prophetic accuracy and reliability of science? [Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science As a Candle in the Dark]