What do you or don't you believe?

[_marg]

Marg,

This discussion is also about your claim that you share a similar God belief to what Einstein did. If we can not pin point what your belief is because of lack of information from you, then we are unable to agree with you that you share a similar God belief to Einstein.

Well, we both believe:

1. God exists

Einstein wrote in 1954 in a letter: " The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."


If he believed in a God ..why would he say it is "nothing more than an expression"? ..nothing more than a product of human weakness? Let's just say he believed in a creator, a non interfering sort/deist. if that was the sort of god he believed in why would he refer to God as being "nothing more than an expression" ? Why not explain what his particular god belief entailed?

2. God is responsible for writing the laws of the Universe.

The word God can be used metaphorically as whatever is responsible for particular laws of the universe, but that isn't a tacit acknowledgment of a thing or an actuality we call "God" existing as an actuality.

3. God is a superior reasoning power

Again "God" can be used in a metaphoric sense.

4. God is a spirit, not anthropomorphic.

The only problem with this is that Einstein would need to define "spirit" in order to understand what he meant, and of course I'd need to see the sentence he used it in and context.

by the way, Dawkins does use some quotes to illustrate Einstein wasn't a deist. 'God is subtle but he is not malicious' or 'He does not play dice' or Did God have a choice in creating the Universe' All those quotes are not from a deist.

Do yourself a favor and don't use Dawkins to tell you what Einstein believed. Dawkins is untrustworthy as that article proves.

They could be from someone who believes in an interfering sort of God which I'll label theist, but we know Einstein didn't believe in that. So what is left?

Uh, a God that doesn't interfere?

Well Kevin..."God is subtle but he is not malicious" is about a God who does interfere with mankind, just not maliciously but subtly..that's why a person making such a statement is not making it as a deist, or as one who believes in a complete hands off in the affairs of mankind sort of God. So if Einstein isn't a deist as those quotes indicate, then he must believe in an interfering sort of God. Yet we know from other quotes he didn't believe in the god of religions, in an interfering sort of God. So there is a contradiction. And that contradiction can be explained by him using the word "God" in those quotes as a metaphor.

As to your beliefs, if you are a Christian you are not a deist. If you are a Christian you do not share similar God beliefs to Einstein.

by the way, one other point, you do not understand "atheism" fully. This has been explained to you previously many times and you refuse to acknowledge that the only thing common to all atheists is a lack of committed belief in a God. That is not saying that God does not exist or one has knowledge God does not exist. Hence I can appreciate why an atheist in the public eye might choose to refuse labels because of people such as yourself who jump to conclusions and misconstrue what is intended. Einstein from what I've read so far appears to have been non specific exactly what his god beliefs are, but he certainly didn't believe in a religious God and from that letter of 1954 doesn't even appear to think the word God is meaningful. If Einstein said flat out 'I believe in an intelligent being which created the universe..then you could say he was a deist' without a doubt. But he doesn't even go that far. Instead he says 'the word God is nothing more than an expression and a product of human weakness'. Let's assume he was non committal to the existence of any conception of a God...that would be the essential characteristic that all atheists share in common. Since he has been non committal to a clear acknowledgment of a creator which exists or existed as an entity, by default he is an atheist. That is an individual, who as an atheist, lacks committed belief in the existence of a creator as an actual entity, whatever man can conceive of that entity. If Einstein was a committed believer in a God he would have made that clear. The lack of clarity indicates he was not a theist.

[_dartagnan]

Einstein wrote in 1954 in a letter: " The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."

If he believed in a God ..why would he say it is "nothing more than an expression"? ..nothing more than a product of human weakness?

Context. He is specifically referring to the God of the Bible, which hasn't any meaning for him. And a "product of human weakness" is what the Bible is.

Let's just say he believed in a creator, a non interfering sort/deist. if that was the sort of god he believed in why would he refer to God as being "nothing more than an expression"? Why not explain what his particular god belief entailed?

He has. Did you miss the post with all the citations?

The word God can be used metaphorically as whatever is responsible for particular laws of the universe, but that isn't a tacit acknowledgment of a thing or an actuality we call "God" existing as an actuality.

The metaphor explanation was an ad hoc excuse made up by Dawkins. Again, you're simply rehashing arguments from a discredited source. Jammer was a close associate of Einstein. Dawkins never knew him. Who should we trust here?

The only problem with this is that Einstein would need to define "spirit" in order to understand what he meant, and of course I'd need to see the sentence he used it in and context.

He doesn't "need" to do any such thing. Einstein made it clear human minds are too feeble to understand this "superior reasoning power" and spirit which created the world. There are plenty of theists who don't claim to know anything about God other than he exists. Are we going to deny them the "theist" category simply because they can't come up all the details either? The fact that he is unknowable is an attribute in itself.

Einstein insisted, "I want to know how God created this world... I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." That isn't a metaphor. Metaphors don't have minds nor do they think.

Well Kevin..."God is subtle but he is not malicious" is about a God who does interfere with mankind, just not maliciously but subtly..

Wow, are you're stretching. You just threw in the word "interfere" illicitly for no reason. What did Eistein mean by saying God is subtle? Einstein explained exactly what he meant by that comment when asked. This was his explanation: "Nature hides her secret because of her essential loftiness, but not by means of ruse." So how do you get an "interfering God" out of that? And why are you trying to argue he believed this anyway? An interfering God would be something akin to an anthropomorphic God.

So if Einstein isn't a deist as those quotes indicate, then he must believe in an interfering sort of God. Yet we know from other quotes he didn't believe in the god of religions, in an interfering sort of God. So there is a contradiction. And that contradiction can be explained by him using the word "God" in those quotes as a metaphor.

That is absurd. You're pulling all kinds of strings to make Dawkins' metaphor theory seem plausible. But you're ignoring too much data while inventing the rest. Einstein didn't contradict himself at all. It is funny that you would need to go that route to even begin supporting Dawkins' case.

As to your beliefs, if you are a Christian you are not a deist. If you are a Christian you do not share similar God beliefs to Einstein.

Well, I'm not a Christian, so there.

by the way, one other point, you do not understand "atheism" fully.

No, I understand it perfectly. I simply reject modern attempts to qualify it beyond recognition.

This has been explained to you previously many times

With no authority to back it up, just assertion.

and you refuse to acknowledge that the only thing common to all atheists is a lack of committed belief in a God.

CFR.

Where in the hell have I ever "refused to acknowledge" this?

Einstein from what I've read so far appears to have been non specific exactly what his god beliefs are, but

He is more explicit than other theists I know.

he certainly didn't believe in a religious God

That's the same straw man beastie tried to pull on me. Nobody has ever argued that Einstein believed in a God of any of the other religions. I thought I firmly established this already.

and from that letter of 1954 doesn't even appear to think the word God is meaningful.

Well you have to appreciate context, and it doesn't seem like you have exposed yourself to any of the other citations I have provided here, none of which appear in Dawkins' silly book.

If Einstein said flat out 'I believe in an intelligent being which created the universe..then you could say he was a deist' without a doubt. But he doesn't even go that far.

Yes he does. You haven't been paying attention:

"I want to know how God created this world...someone must have written (the laws of the Universe)"

Metaphors don't create things nor do they write

Instead he says 'the word God is nothing more than an expression and a product of human weakness'.

Sure, in one instance in a totally different context of biblical theology. What about the dozen or so other citations where he mentions God with clear meaning?

Let's assume he was non committal to the existence of any conception of a God...that would be the essential characteristic that all atheists share in common. Since he has been non committal to a clear acknowledgment of a creator which exists or existed as an entity, by default he is an atheist.

But he isn't. He flat out denied it: "I am not an atheist." How much clearer could he have been? This is why Dawkins cannot be trusted. He continues to claim Einstein was an atheist even though Einstein himself rejected that claim.

If Einstein was a committed believer in a God he would have made that clear.

He did. Unfortunately more people will read Dawkins instead of Jammer. The result? More ignorance.

Speaking of which, where did JAK disappear to?

[_marg]

Well, I'm not a Christian, so there.

I'll get to the rest of your post later, not tonight though. However, does this mean, that you don't believe Jesus as per the N.T. had any connection to any divine/God entity? Does this mean you believe Jesus was entirely human only, with no supernatural powers, no partial divinity, or whole divinity?

[_moksha]

I'm apathetic. and pro female hottie.

Where do you stand on mud wrestling and the demolition derby?

[_marg]

But he isn't. He flat out denied it: "I am not an atheist." How much clearer could he have been? This is why Dawkins cannot be trusted. He continues to claim Einstein was an atheist even though Einstein himself rejected that claim.

This is the problem Kevin, you are certain Einstein was a committed believer in a creator of the universe..and in that respect you say you share the same belief. You say he flat out denied being an atheist, therefore he must have been a theist but what did he mean by "atheist" when he used that word?

Let's look at a quote of his, written by him:

"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."

- Albert Einstein, letter to Guy H. Raner Jr., Sept. 28, 1949, quoted by Michael R. Gilmore in Skeptic, Vol. 5, No. 2

In this sentence when Einstein says he is not an atheist, he is referring to the sort of atheist which you limit atheism to, it is described by some as hard atheism, the stance or belief that no god exists. In context, he describes the "atheist" he is referring to as a professional atheist whose fervor is due to painful liberation from indoctrination. So this is not an atheist who lacks a belief, who is non committed because of lack of evidence, who is fence sitting on the issue. This is a committed non believer. When Einstein describes himself as agnostic..yes he is agnostic because he appreciates man may never "know" if there is a God, that is in agreement with soft atheism or one who lacks a God belief. So Kevin in the context of the quote I obtained, it does not say Einstein is not an atheist, it says Einstein does not consider himself to be a particular kind of atheist, a professional, one with fervor, in other words a hard atheist. In essence every single person either believes in a god or they lack a belief in a God. Every person is in one camp or the other. Those who are fence sitting when it comes to God belief are atheists..they are soft atheists, even if they don't describe themselves as such. Now one can use agnostic as an adjective and apply it to atheism or theism to indicate whether one believes whether or not knowledge of God is obtainable. But when one describes themselves as agnostic as a noun rather than an adjective, more often than not what they are describing is a fence sitting perspective, a non committal belief with regards to God, a withholding of a position of committed belief due to lack of confirming evidence, in other words a soft atheist position. They are not against belief in God they just don't commit. So when I read Einstein's quote I see him describing himself as a soft atheist.

Now the question here is are you an agnostic, in any way shape or form? Haven't you described yourself as knowing with certainty god exists? If so you do not hold the same position as Einstein with respect to any potential God.

[_Bond...James Bond]

I'm apathetic. and pro female hottie.

Where do you stand on mud wrestling and the demolition derby?

Don't like mud wrestling [I hate dirty] but being of solid southern stock am all for demolition derbies.

[_Mudcat]

I'm apathetic. and pro female hottie.

But are you apathetic when in the presence of female hotties, or do your beliefs create cognitive dissonance at that point?

Welcome to the board, Mudcat.

I'm an ex-Mormon.

KA

Hi KA,
I remember some of your posts from MADB.
Thanks for the welcome. Out or curiosity, do you still believe in God? Jesus? etc?

TrashcanMan is a reluctant agnostic who will sometimes, for no real reason, refer to himself in the third person. Born and raised in the LDS Church, I lost my faith a little over a year ago - the so-called "New Atheists" and biblical criticism (a la Spong, Ehrman, Price, and many a Mormon apologist) did me in.

Hi TM,
I asked Kimberly Ann this as well, but it sounds like you've walked away from the experience with (no?) belief in Christ. Do you feel the resurrection, or Jesus existence, etc.. has been disproven?

Thanks for your anwers,

Mudcat

[_Bond...James Bond]

I'm apathetic. and pro female hottie.

But are you apathetic when in the presence of female hotties, or do your beliefs create cognitive dissonance at that point?

Get real. Like female hotties would be in the presence of ole Bond. :P

[_Scottie]

Hey Mudcat.

I am ex-LDS, on the border between agnostic and atheist.

[_Trevor]

For example, Jay Gould once wrote that religion and science aren't necessarily incompatible and said if this were true, then half of his colleagues must be idiots. Dawkins responded to this comment by saying something like, "I just don't believe Jay could have really meant much of what he said in that."

Interesting that Gould said that. I was under the impression that the ratio of atheists to theists among scientists was much more lopsided than that. I didn't imagine that half of anyone's scientific colleagues would likely be theists.