dartagnan wrote:The All About Atheists website assures us that:
"Albert Einstein is sometimes claimed by religious theists seeking the authority of a famous scientist for their theistic views"
That sounds a lot like what people here are saying. I suspected this was a hoax when I first read this from Dawkins, so I decided to do a little experiment. I decided to search as many religious websites claiming Einstein as one of their own, just to see how many I could find. Here are thee results after googling "Einstein + Christian":
1.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/einstein.html - The website tells us: "Einstein did
not believe in a personal God."
2.
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Wolves/einstein.htm - This website tells us: "Albert Einstein was NO Christian."
3.
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/b ... /10284.htm - This website tells us: "Einstein was by no means a Christian."
4.
http://www.christianpost.com/Education/ ... index.html (repeated article from above)
That was about the extent of any Christian apologetic sites talking about Einstein's religion,
none of which asserted him as a Christian. In fact, their statements contradict what so many atheists are pretending to refute. Oh, and good luck trying to find a Muslim site claiming Einstein was a Muslim. Or a Hindu, or a Buddhist, or a Mormon, etc.
Who are you arguing with? Not me. Bizarre.
In any case, the claim is that Christians and other traditionally religious folk are fond of saying that Einstein believed in God and then they think or hope you will think that this is the God of Abraham. I don't know who is saying that Christians claim that Einstein was Christian. Not me. Not Dawkins as far as I know.
Wrong target--shoot again.
So you find a bunch of websites that argue that Einstein was an atheist and conclude... what? Who is "desperate" and who isn't? Is that what you think you are proving.
Count websites, conclude desperation. Check.
Concerning Einstein himself (not Dawkins or who is desperate or not), here is what your simple approach does not take into account. Einstein was playing both sides in some sense and to many it looks like he is giving mixed messages. He speaks in religious flourishes but then sometimes hates religion and thinks the Bible is childish.
That's why this has been a debate for so long.
One quote will not settle any
interesting question.
Now you can find a quote where he denies being an atheist and then jump up and down shouting "see! see!" and think it is over. Very simple minded.
Another approach is to see what God belief normally entails and then compare that to the total body of Einstein's statements on religion and related subjects. The better approach is to also ask what Einstein meant by the word God. What thinkers on the topic did he admire etc?
You don't care about such details because you think this is all about a tally where there appears two columns-one labeled "atheist" and one labeled "theist". You want to keep score in this utterly unnuanced way.
Even now, Tarski is still trying to pull a rabbit out of his mathematical arse by pretending he is as much of an atheist as Einstein was. I pummeled Tarski in a previous thread when he proved himself ignorant of Einstein's views.
No you didn't. This is your whole idea of how to win an argument. Just do a victory dance.
By ignoring the detailed, well documented (from books, not websites) point by point refutation and starting a new thread regurgitating the same vomit in a slightly different flavor.
Seriously, first it went like this:
Dawkins: "Einsten was an atheist."
Kevin: "Einstein was not an atheist"
Einstein: "I am not an atheist."
Tarski: "Kevin is the liar. Dawkins is closer to the truth."
More proof of simple mindedness. Also, where did I say Kevin is a liar? I hope you can find it lest you yourself be proven, well, a liar.
Tarski ignored my point here and then proceeded with a new thread, trying to attack the argument from a different, but equally hopeless, angle.
What argument?
Is your whole deal to prove Dawkins a liar? Or do you wish to clarify what Einstein really thought about God and how he was using the word?
And now Tarski shows us why he really has no business speaking on anything outside of mathematics:
Einstein said "From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist."
This was mined from one of several atheist blogs (impressive research, eh EAllusion?).
It is a legitimate quote and you don't know where the “F” I got it, nor do you realize that it
logically doesn't matter where I got this legitimate quote.
Does Tarski really believe this citation proves Einstein was really an atheist?
No quote flatly proves anything interesting. It provides evidence for exactly what it says. It provides evidence that he felt that his beliefs were such that a Jesuit priest would not only disagree with him about the nature of God but actually rationally conclude that he was an atheist. We don't know, but it surely looks like he imagines that the priest (educated for sure on various theologies) would just say something like "Einstein, you say you are not an atheist but based on the details, you surely seem to be after all" or something to that effect.
So what it indicates is that he felt that from the point of view of a theologically educated person such as a Jesuit priest, he was an atheist. Obviously, Einstein wanted to use the word God to refer to something-- but what? Answer that!
You don't care. You don't even seem to care about it for yourself. It looks more political than anything.
I pause to note that I know atheists that use religious flourishes when talking physics or math. It's for effect. But I am sure you would just put them in the theist column.
Tarski highlighted the second half of that statement and left the most important part alone as if it didn't qualify it's meaning.
Highlighting does not function to erase what is not highlighted genius.
Of course it did. Does he really think we're this stupid?
I am sure not everyone here is stupid.
You should all feel insulted by his usage of the citation, which he clearly borrowed from some lame website.
Oh so now you not only know where I got the quote but that it was a lame website? Got it.
Of course, it can't be that being professionally interested in, having written about, and having given a series of lectures to Ph.Ds on Einstein's physics, I might just have the usual books about the man sitting on my shelf right now?
Think about it again.
Einstein was simply saying that he would be considered an atheist from a Jesuit's perspective.
Which is saying what? Think harder. Just how close to atheistic do you have to be before a Jesuit priest thinks not just that you are unorthodox but an actual atheist.
Possible answer? Think Spinoza. Why not?
So Tarski infers from this that he and Harris are not atheists at all! And this is our forum's logic expert?
Infer?
What a weird choice of words here. Clearly you missed the point.
According to you, anyone who once says "I am not an atheist", is not an atheist in any important sense -period --done. So, what am I? Atheist or not?
To give you an idea how absurd this is, consider that from antishock's perspective, I'm a Christian. From EAllusion's perspective, I'm a creationist. From JSM's perspective, I'm all about ID. From Schmo's perspective, I'm the bane of his existence. But from my perspective, I'm none of these. So the question isn't how Einstein is viewed by Jesuits. Their perspectives mean squat. The question is what was Einstein's perspective on his own belief system? He said, point blank, I am not an atheist! That isn't good enough for Tarski.
Yes it is --as long as you then go on to inquire what he meant by that, what he meant by God etc. You don't want to go there.
He is still misusing the Spinoza citation.
Of course, you don't say how.
I mean what does it say when I a guy can't take someone at his word when he says "I am not an atheist", and still tries to pull all kinds of sound bites from the secular web to prove he really was?
I'm not an atheist (possibly in the same sense that Einstein is not). Do you take my word?
Once again, you know nothing of what if any websites I have visited. Pure irrelevant nonsense.
So, although I am not an atheist, I am an atheist from the viewpoint of every religious person I have ever met. Indeed, I am atheist even from the vantage of those Jesuits and that's sayin' something.
No, to be sure, Tarski is an atheist. Einstein was not.
Whoa! WTF? I just told you I wasn't. (try skeptic or agnostic or even Einsteinian-that would be closer.)
If I concede to 99% of his statements about the nature of reality and God then what am I again?
Hell my new signature alone should prove Einstein's philosophy was the antithesis to Tarski thinking.
OK, that's it. You are clearly out of your mind. Your sig reads
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein
He was promoting the importance of experiment, i.e., the empirical route to knowledge.
This lends precisely zero support to your claims about Einstein's theological notions.
Is your whole point that since Einstein said he didn't want to be called an atheist then Dawkins is a liar? If so, it is surely a boring and sophomoric project.
Now your ass is kicked. Go home and cry to mommy. I devastated you. Yay me!
(see I can do it too
).
when believers want to give their claims more weight, they dress these claims up in scientific terms. When believers want to belittle atheism or secular humanism, they call it a "religion". -Beastie
yesterday's Mormon doctrine is today's Mormon folklore.-Buffalo
