What do you or don't you believe?

[Tator]

I also provided more Einstein quotes on this thread:

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... 3&start=84

I will share a couple quotes here, in regards to whether or not Einstein believed in a "god" that created the universe, as Kevin asserts:

This quote from Einstein appears in Science, Philosophy, and Religion, A Symposium, published by the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941.

The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exists as an independent cause of natural events.

To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot.

But I am convinced that such behavior on the part of representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress.

In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests. In their labors they will have to avail themselves of those forces which are capable of cultivating the Good, the True, and the Beautiful in humanity itself. This is, to be sure, a more difficult but an incomparably more worthy task…

and from an interview:

EINSTEIN:

I believe in mystery and, frankly, I sometimes face this mystery with great fear. In other words, I think that there are many things in the universe that we cannot perceive or penetrate and that also we experience some of the most beautiful things in life in only a very primitive form. Only in relation to these mysteries do I consider myself to be a religious man. But I sense these things deeply. What I cannot understand is how there could possibly be a God who would reward or punish his subjects or who could induce us to develop our will in our daily life.

BUCKY:

You don't believe in God, then?

EINSTEIN:

Ah, this is what I mean about religion and science going hand-in-hand! Each has a place, but each must be relegated to its sphere. Let's assume that we are dealing with a theoretical physicist or scientist who is very well-acquainted with the different laws of the universe, such as how the planets orbit the sun and how the satellites in turn orbit around their respective planets. Now, this man who has studied and understands these different laws-how could he possibly believe in one God who would be capable of disturbing the paths of these great orbiting masses?

No, the natural laws of science have not only been worked out theoretically but have been proven also in practice. I cannot then believe in this concept of an anthropomorphic God who has the powers of interfering with these natural laws. As I said before, the most beautiful and most profound religious emotion that we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. And this mysticality is the power of all true science. If there is any such concept as a God, it is a subtle spirit, not an image of a man that so many have fixed in their minds. In essence, my religion consists of a humble admiration for this illimitable superior spirit that reveals itself in the slight details that we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds .

(quotes from einsteinandreligion.com)

Note the bolded sentences. Einstein did not believe in a "divine will" as the cause of natural events, nor did he believe in one God "who would be capable of disturbing the paths of these great orbiting masses?"

How in the world anyone can read these statements and still assert Einstein believed in some God who created the universe is beyond me.

I think it is clear Einstein did not want to be used by aggressive atheists. Would he have wanted to be used by aggressive theists, either? I doubt it, since when EVs in the US began using some of his statements, he wrote a letter calling it a lie.

[_beastie]

Mudcat asked what an "agnostic atheist" is.

Kevin responded thusly:

It is just a cute way for an atheist to assert his atheism with an attempt at justification. Because "agnostic" atheism means he doesn't believe God could be known to exist anyway, so there is no reason to believe it.

It is also a nifty way for an atheist to claim his mind is not open to any evidence to the contrary since any prospect of knowing about God's existence is impossible. Why try knowing something if it is impossible to know?

Of course the second qualifying assertion is based on what one must ask. Why should we assume God cannot be known? Why would any type of atheist feel the need to assert such a thing? And who are atheists to make this kind of claim anyway, given that their first premise already rejects the idea?

Mudcat,

Dart (Kevin) is responding through his own anti-atheist prejudice.

Let me clarify why, when I'm being specific, I use the term "agnostic atheist".

Despite popular misconceptions that agnostics are simply fence sitters who can't make up their mind, technically speaking, the term refers to the accessibility of certain types of knowledge to human beings. In regards to godbelief in particular, the question is if a godbeing existed, would it be possible for human beings to "know" that in any reliable fashion? My stance is no.

By definition, a godbeing a being who exists in some dimension beyond our ability to perceive. This eternal dimension is even beyond our ability to pretend to understand. The Flatlander essay does a good job describing the dilemma. The world of the Flatlanders is two dimensional, and all beings on it are two dimensional, capable only of registering information about the external world via two dimensions. If a being from a three dimensional world visited the Flatlander world, the two dimensional flatlanders would be incapable of creating any sort of accurate understanding or picture of that three dimensional being due to their own limitations. The only "solution" would be for a Flatlander, in some magical way, to be transported into a three dimensional universe and see as a three dimensional being sees. Unless that can occur, the Flatlander's conception of the three dimensional being is inaccurate and limited.

For fellow star trek geeks, I liken it to the character "Q" in Star Trek. For normal (ie, non star trek geeks) people, Q is an alien who possesses power to control time and space, and therefore appears "godlike" to human beings. But he's not God - he's just a member of an alien species who have developed certain powers human beings don't possess. But to a human beings, he looks like God would look. Only other members of the Q continuum would have the ability to recognize what Q really is.

So even if a godbeing exists, my stance is that it would be impossible for human beings to recognize this in any sort of reliable fashion.

The term atheist simply means a lack of belief in god.

It is entirely appropriate to use the term "agnostic" as an adjective for either atheism or theism. There are theists who are humble enough to admit that, fundamentally, whether or not a godbeing exists is a question outside our ability to answer, but they still believe. Perhaps they understand the meaning of the word "faith" more than those who insist that god can actually be reliably detected in some way, through logic, reason, intuition, scripture, etc etc.

[_TrashcanMan79]

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?

I think there probably was a historical Jesus, but I don't view the New Testament as a reliable source of information about him. As for the resurrection, it's not that I feel it has been disproven - I just don't find the arguments in favor of the resurrection to be very convincing.

[Guest]

As I am new, I ascertain that this board seems to have a greater diversity of beliefs than the 'other board'.
I recognize quite a few monikers from the other board and there are many I don't. In an effort to get a better picture of MD, I hope you will answer.
Are you LDS, ex-LDS, athiest, EV, RCC, Agnostic, etc...?

For those that don't know me, I an evangelical with a few views that differ from the mainstream. Though I was an agnostic for a decade or so, prior to my conversion.

I'm a nihilist, which I like to think leads me to existentialism with a cherry on top.

*edited for spelling and additional thought*

My special ladyfriend and I were driving to a nursery today, and this topic came up. We were discussing the hippies at UC Berkley protesting some trees being removed to make way for some sports facilities. Her position was the hippies' struggle was meaningless since their protest would never change the innate behavior of replication and expansion found in all forms of life which could only be contained through life's innability to sustain that kind of behavior, and that at a fundamental level the hippies were only doing what they do to impress other hippies. One big crunchy circle jerk.

I then mentioned that I wasn't sure if I had segued to nihilism from existentialism, or vice versa. I believe human beings are amoral, but in their effort to make sense of their existence attach meaning to it that serves to distract them from what they're really doing, which is living just like everything else that lives. We're not much different than most species. Out of that realization I've determined what's important to me, and have pursued it to the best of my abilities. Oddly enough this isn't the depressing, stuck-in-a-morass emotional state religionists think nihilists/atheists/existentialists embrace. Quite the opposite, actually. Out of meaningless something good has happened. There's no pressure to be anything else that what I want to be, and that's it. What I choose to make of my life, how to conduct myself, really depends on what I want out of it. What makes me happy, given my set of circumstances, is what I'm doing. That, is a little bit of Heaven on Earth.

[_the road to hana]

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?

Kevin/dart, if you no longer consider yourself LDS, or Christian, I'm confused about why you still have this particular website up and running:

http://www.angelfire.com/ga/kevgraham/

Is it just a case of having established a website years ago, and then neglecting to take it down?

[_Mudcat]

Let me clarify why, when I'm being specific, I use the term "agnostic atheist".

Despite popular misconceptions that agnostics are simply fence sitters who can't make up their mind, technically speaking, the term refers to the accessibility of certain types of knowledge to human beings. In regards to godbelief in particular, the question is if a godbeing existed, would it be possible for human beings to "know" that in any reliable fashion? My stance is no.

By definition, a godbeing a being who exists in some dimension beyond our ability to perceive. This eternal dimension is even beyond our ability to pretend to understand. The Flatlander essay does a good job describing the dilemma. The world of the Flatlanders is two dimensional, and all beings on it are two dimensional, capable only of registering information about the external world via two dimensions. If a being from a three dimensional world visited the Flatlander world, the two dimensional flatlanders would be incapable of creating any sort of accurate understanding or picture of that three dimensional being due to their own limitations. The only "solution" would be for a Flatlander, in some magical way, to be transported into a three dimensional universe and see as a three dimensional being sees. Unless that can occur, the Flatlander's conception of the three dimensional being is inaccurate and limited.

For fellow star trek geeks, I liken it to the character "Q" in Star Trek. For normal (ie, non star trek geeks) people, Q is an alien who possesses power to control time and space, and therefore appears "godlike" to human beings. But he's not God - he's just a member of an alien species who have developed certain powers human beings don't possess. But to a human beings, he looks like God would look. Only other members of the Q continuum would have the ability to recognize what Q really is.

So even if a godbeing exists, my stance is that it would be impossible for human beings to recognize this in any sort of reliable fashion.

Hi Beastie,
I actually enjoyed "Flatlanders", though I walked away from the read with a different perception. My thought was that the sphere character, my have been a 'theoretical' Christ type. In other words, maybe Jesus is as much God as you can squeeze into a 3-dimensional universe. Granted the authors intent seems much to the contrary...., that's just me extrapolating.
I too am a Trekie, though I am most partial to the old Kirk episodes and the new stuff with the Quantum Leap guy.

Thanks for responding,

Mudcat

[_beastie]

I actually enjoyed "Flatlanders", though I walked away from the read with a different perception. My thought was that the sphere character, my have been a 'theoretical' Christ type. In other words, maybe Jesus is as much God as you can squeeze into a 3-dimensional universe. Granted the authors intent seems much to the contrary...., that's just me extrapolating.
I too am a Trekie, though I am most partial to the old Kirk episodes and the new stuff with the Quantum Leap guy.

But even the very process of "squeezing in" to a different (lesser) dimension alters characteristics beyond recognition. Anyway that a godbeing could manifest itself to human beings would require such extraordinary "translating", so to speak, so we could comprehend at all, it would inevitably result in misrepresentation. Kind of like "seeing through a glass darkly", but so darkly we can't have any certainty at all just what it is we are even seeing.

For me, I would only accept any supernatural event if it could be reliably demonstrated that any non-supernatural alternative was even more wildly unlikely than the supernatural one. In other words, the supernatural would be absolutely required... and I haven't seen anything in this life that requires the existence of a godbeing.

I'm strictly a Jean Luc kind of gal. Next Generation and the movies are the only ones I really like. I adore Q, though, and he's such a perfect analogy.

[_Jason Bourne]

I lean towards natural theology, and agree with just about everything Einstein had to say about God. Maybe I should start my own church teaching Einsteinism. ;)

Didn't it recently come out that Einstein was a strong agnostic?

Dart, seemed you have really run the gammet of religious beliefs. If I recall weren't you a one time baptist EV type?

[_dartagnan]

Beastie,

I also provided more Einstein quotes on this thread

None of which refute or contradict the fact that Einstein clearly believed in a divine intelligence which is the cause for everything we see.

I will share a couple quotes here, in regards to whether or not Einstein believed in a "god" that created the universe, as Kevin asserts:

Again, I provided a citation from Einstein that states rather unambiguousy: "God created this world." And you completely ignore this and choose to go quote mining on teh web for something you can use to reinterpret Einstein in a manner that suits your purposes. I have the upper hand here. You cannot come to grips with teh citations I have provided other than claiming there is a contradiction! That is precisely what Book of Abraham apologists do. They think that if they can fabricate enough contradictions, then they are justified in relegating the whole thing to the "mystery" bin. As long as it is a mystery, nobody can declare anything definitive. For the LDS apologists, nobody can claim the Book of Abraham was made up, and for beastie, no theist can claims Einstein was a theist.

Hilarious how the two operate in the same exact ways.

and from an interview:

Again with the irrelevant references to an anthropomorphic God. I have already stated on numerous occassions that Einstein did not accept the concept of an anthropomorphic God. And yet you're providing citations to that effect. It is a straw man.

Note the bolded sentences. Einstein did not believe in a "divine will" as the cause of natural events, nor did he believe in one God "who would be capable of disturbing the paths of these great orbiting masses?"

And if you would have bolded the next line you would see the straw man again. Einstein was rejecting the traditional concept of God as he always had done: "I cannot then believe in this concept of an anthropomorphic God who has the powers of interfering with these natural laws." But I have already provided proof that Einstein eventually believed that the order of the universe was by divine intelligence, a superior reasoning force that is responsible for writing the laws. No need to provide the citations again since beastie has already shown a willingness to ignore them no matter how many times they're posted.

How in the world anyone can read these statements and still assert Einstein believed in some God who created the universe is beyond me.

Beastie refuses to acknolwedge context as usual. She is so upset that one of her mentors, blatantly lies about the "atheist" status of Einstein, that she is willing to bend over backwards to at least make sure nobody can suggest he was a theist without her "serious qualification." Beastie wants to quote mine from atheist websites and read teh entire life of Einstein as if it can be encapsulated in one or two lines. She doesn't want to take into consideration all of the citations I provided throughout his life because she doesn't know how to deal with them.

I think it is clear Einstein did not want to be used by aggressive atheists. Would he have wanted to be used by aggressive theists, either?

Aggressive theists? What a joke. Einstein complained about being misrepresented by atheists and those who wanted to portray him as a member of their particular faith. He never once complained because someone accused him of simple theism. Not once.

I doubt it, since when EVs in the US began using some of his statements, he wrote a letter calling it a lie.

Those are the anthropomorphic God worshippers that Einstein wanted nothing tod o with, sure. They do not represent theism. And their statements came before Einstein rejected them. By contrast, Dawkins' statements were made long after Einstein claimed he was not an atheist. So who is being more deceptive here?

Dart (Kevin) is responding through his own anti-atheist prejudice.

What a ridiculous comment. Anti-atheist? What in the hell makes me anti-atheist? I don't believe in Hell. I've never criticized anyone for being an atheist. I merely point out that Dawkins is a liar and a bigot, does that make me "anti-atheist." Gee, pull another tool out of the LDS apologetic handbag why don't ya. Just call all opposition "anti." Are you even aware of the way you're replicating Schryverism?

Let me clarify why, when I'm being specific, I use the term "agnostic atheist". Despite popular misconceptions that

There goes the usual straw man, as one would expect an LDS apologist to knock down. "Despite what the anti-Mormons say..." What is being said? By whom? Have a citation? From me? Of course not. So why are you pretending to refute something I said? Because you're just showboating and blowing smoke.

In regards to godbelief in particular, the question is if a godbeing existed, would it be possible for human beings to "know" that in any reliable fashion? My stance is no.

Geez, isn't that exactly what I said? Yes, I believe it is: ""agnostic atheism means he doesn't believe God could be known to exist anyway, so there is no reason to believe it."

By definition, a godbeing a being who exists in some dimension beyond our ability to perceive.

Now this is why the entire "agnostic atheist" usage is absurd. Here you are making a ridiculous claim without backing it up. How can an atheist, who says X doesn't exist, get to determine what kind of attributes X can or must have? It is incoherent. Its like saying "I don't believe in Jigabees because if they existed, I couldn't know about them anyway."

Who says God "by definition" is "beyond our ability to perceive"? Many theists believe God can be and is perceived. Just because you don't perceive him doesn't suggest it is impossible that he can be perceived by others.

It is entirely appropriate to use the term "agnostic" as an adjective for either atheism or theism. There are theists who are humble enough to admit that, fundamentally, whether or not a godbeing exists is a question outside our ability to answer, but they still believe.

Yes, but that makes perfect sense since a theist believes God exists, and can therefore attribute qualities to it that would justify the assertion that it is impossible to be perceived. For an atheist to say he or she doesn't believe in God because he or she is a strict materialists, and he only believes what science shows him, well, I have no problem with thsi whatsoever. But it is quite an arrogant twist to say you do not know God exists, and neither can anyone else!

[_dartagnan]

Trevor, this comes from page 33 of McGrath's "The Dawkins Delusion?"

As Gould observed in Rocks of Ages, based on the religious views of leading evolutionary biologists: “Either half my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs."

The fact that America's leading evolutionary biologist should make such a statement outrages Dawkins. How could he say such a thing! Dawkins dismisses Gould's thoughts without giving them serious consideration. "I simply do not believe that Gould could possibly have meant much of what he wrote in Rocks of Ages." This creedal statement is Dawkins's substitute for a response. It simply will not do. For Gould has simply articulated the widely held view that there are limits to science.

Of course this makes perfect sense since the more accurate survey information indicates that atheism isn't nearly as popular among natural scientists as beastie humorously suggested (90%!). The fact that a neighborhood of 50% would fail to categorize themselves as atheists, raises more problems for people like Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens and of course, beastie.