There's been a lot of talk in the past two days about the true beliefs of Albert Einstein. A new letter has come to light suggesting that he was a pantheist at best. Richard Dawkins discusses it at Richard Dawkins discusses Einstein's new letters.Albert Einstein died in 1955. I don't care whether he believed in a personal God, or a Spinoza God, or no God at all. What he believed has no bearing on whether supernatural beings exist or not. The beliefs of Francis Collins and Ken Miller are equally irrelevant.
What counts is the arguments they advance to bolster their beliefs and in the case of Albert Einstein we don't have a very good record of what those arguments are. This isn't true of some other scientists (Collins, Miller) where we can examine the claims to see if they are rational.
9 comments :
Well, if you pick up Hitchen's compilation 'The Portable Atheist', and read the quotes contained therein, as well as Einstein's 1940 Nature Letter it's pretty clear that while Einstein may not have believed in a god per se, he certainly had a certain sympathy for the large part that religion plays in the lives of most people. His views were probably affected by his strong association with the Jewish people, though not with Judaism itself.
However, I am actually concerned about Francis Collins. While I've heard that he's a very nice and intelligent gentleman, it's upsetting that he could write a book subtitled 'A scientist presents evidence for belief', without presenting any such evidence at all!
Albert Einstein (TM). One of the earliest and still one of the most effective brand names in pop culture.
Whatever he believes must be true.
That's because while Albert Einstein can be wrong, Albert Einstein (TM) is never wrong.
Amen, Dr. Larry.
As for lim leng hiong . .. please give us some examples of where Einstein was wrong.
Just one or two would suffice.
To Waldteufel:
OK.
Eg.
The Einstein-Szilárd letter.
On quantum theory:
"Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the 'old one'. I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice."
"I am quite convinced that someone will eventually come up with a theory whose objects, connected by laws, are not probabilities but considered facts, as used to be taken for granted until quite recently. I cannot, however, base this conviction on logical reasons, but can only produce my little finger as witness."
It amazes me that so many people debate the meaning of what Einstein IMO expressed perfectly clearly.
He felt there was an order in the workings of the Universe, but that this order was not imposed by a personal deity concerned with the doings of people (e.g., the God of the Bible). He did not call himself an atheist because he felt human beings, himself most certainly included, had nowhere near the knowledge necessary to conclude where the Universal order came from.
I can't disagree with this at all - I certainly don't think I know whether our Universe began with or without intervention. (I've read books and articles where the idea of creating "pocket universes" that then undergo inflation is contemplated - who's to say that this experiment hasn't been performed, and that the Universe in which we now find ourselves isn't the result?)
I'm not sure Larry would disagree with these basic sentiments, though as I understand what he's said on the subject, he feels that practically speaking, there's no reason to speak, behave or reason as if God exists, and thus it's most accurate to describe himself as an atheist. Of course Larry can speak for himself on this subject.
It amazes me that so many people debate the meaning of what Einstein IMO expressed perfectly clearly.
Einstein himself said, "I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."
I cannot agree. Although at times Einstein expressed his lack of belief in a personal god, at other times he used the words "God," "religion" and "faith" in ways not consistent with their usual definitions. He was setting himself up for quote mining.
For example, you may have seen the one-liner, "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." If you read it in context you will find that his use of the word "religion" was unconventional; he assigned the setting of moral and purposive values to "religion," even though he did not mean anything theistic or supernatural by this. Einstein's use of language on these topics was not a model of clarity.
bayesian bouffant wrote:
Although at times Einstein expressed his lack of belief in a personal god, at other times he used the words "God," "religion" and "faith" in ways not consistent with their usual definitions. He was setting himself up for quote mining.
For example, you may have seen the one-liner, "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." If you read it in context you will find that his use of the word "religion" was unconventional; he assigned the setting of moral and purposive values to "religion," even though he did not mean anything theistic or supernatural by this.
Ah, so the fact that I try to read in context and avoid quote mining is my problem, then. ;-)
Carlo wrote
However, I am actually concerned about Francis Collins. While I've heard that he's a very nice and intelligent gentleman, it's upsetting that he could write a book subtitled 'A scientist presents evidence for belief', without presenting any such evidence at all!
I called Collins on that specific point during the Q&A after a panel discussion at Ohio State a few months ago, saying his "evidence" was no more than a God of the gaps argument. His response was to (sort of) concede the point, and he added that things like the 'fine tuning' argument and the existence of Moral Law (his caps) were "indicators." He further said that if science produces a corroborated theory of the origin of moral behavior it wouldn't affect his evangelical faith at all.
Essentially what he does is switch meanings of "evidence" in midstream, depending on whether he is operating as a scientist or a theist.
Language is not a consistent thing. And guess what, folks. Einstein's still good in my book.
Over religion, I feel like einstein; sometimes its so necessary to point out its stupid dimensions. Its fake and virtual confortations. I think a recent leetr of einstein was sold were he calls religion infatile and superstious. Yes, it can certainly be.
But to thos that woudl question Einstains consistency would ind plenty of matrial because religion is somethug that people do. And people are very interesting, some very interesting things can happen within a social-religious context that are many times much more immediate than what science can reach. "Do unto others", such a simple thing, as we know, was prmulgated in highly religious context, as well as many other genms of wisdom.
So yes, it is OK to feeel inconsistent about telgion, sometimes appreciating it, sometimes, nauseated by it.
Post a Comment