God, How Does He Feel To You?

[Guest]

First, thanks again for showing that you really DO know who “won” the “debate” between religion and science. Every time you want to disparage atheists, you insist that it’s just another religion. That speaks volumes.

You think this is intended to disparage? It is a simple fact that you have never been able to come tro grips with, simply because you think it is such a horrible thing to be a part of any kind of religion. I simply find it ironic that science has become the doctrine among certain circles in academia, in an organized effort by a few zealots to attack and destroy theism. And yes, that is Dawkins' goal.

Second, what’s absurd is to pretend that ANY topic related to science is equally pertinent in this discussion. Science is a very broad umbrella, and includes engineering, social science, computer science, forestry, dentistry, psychology, etc etc….come on!!!

I am willing to focus strictly on the natural sciences if you are. But you think only biological science applies!

Of course some fields are more pertinent than others.

Only biology, right? What a joke. Biologists are not philosophers in any form. Since when does bilogy become the "pertinent" field fo expertise in discussing the existence of God? Please explain this for us. Has biology disproved God somehow? You know it hasn't.

You can make a good argument for astronomy and physics as well as biology, but please don’t pretend that such a wide umbrella gives us useful information at all. It’s silly.

I never included dentistry so stop with the straw man. You know damn well there were no dentists or park rangers included in that survey. This is just more subterfuge on your part. I am simply going by the usual atheist claim. They are the ones who keep talking about science, science, science being the bane of religion, with no qualification at all. Now that the facts belie this claim, you want to act liek I'm the one throwing up a huge umbrella, simply because I refuse to let you narrow it down to Dawkins and his zooligist minions?

Oh, for heaven’s sake.

Was that an argument?

Well, we’ll just have to agree to disagree

And that's fine with me. I will continue to show how Dawkins is a bigot and has a religious agenda of his own. And I suspect you'll continue to respond defensively as coggins does whenever someoen criticizies DCP. Again, its the same song being sung by a different crowd of religionists.

I believe that people who have intensely studied the development of life itself have background information that a social scientists does not have.

The one survey you rely upon is the smallest one taken, and it is extremely narrow so far as scientific variety goes. For you to insist only biology is pertinent, is really absurd. Theists don't typically run to biological science to prove God exists - though some do.

The reason why we are interested in what scientists believe or disbelieve has to do with the background information they possess on certain subjects in the first place.

God, if he exists, is bigger than biology. His existence will be reflected in evidences throughout the universe, which makes a small survey of biologists very superficial. More pertinent will be mathematicians, who see all the laws tied together mathematically, as evidence for a divine super intelligent mathematician. Astronomers and physicists might understand that all of the laws are not here by coincidence, and that the only common denominator among the whole is that it provides the purpose of human life. Ultimately, the notion that humanity isn't really special (something modern atheists thought they disproved), gets a surprising reinforcement with the anthropic principle, which was recently discovered by a scientist.

So I’m supposed to think that someone who has studied forestry, dentistry, economics, or some social science has background information that is particularly pertinent to evaluating whether or not the existence of a godbeing is required to explain the universe?

Stop spinning beastie. You know damn well that is not what I said.

You do realize that by even engaging in this debate, in trying to claim scientists for “your side”, you’ve again conceded who won the debate???

Do you intentionally make no sense? What "debate" are you talking about? You think there has been a debate that disproved God? Where did it take place? When? I am simply refuting the oft propagated myth that religion and science are at odds. That anyone who understands science will naturally or eventually reject theism.

So what??? Being specific about what, exactly, is meant by “god” is pertinent to ANY discussion about belief. If “God” can be defined as nature itself, then I’m a believer, too.

You can't be serious. The question of whether God is, is something entirely different from what God is. Theism only needs to affirm the former, not tha latter.

[_dartagnan]

Chap,

This is a popular tactic used traditionally by atheists to try warping Einstein's beliefs into something akin to their own; by misusing these references to Spinoza. In light of Jammer's book, they really need to come up with something better and deal with Einstein's comments to the contrary.

According to Jammer, Einstein's knowledge of Spinoza was rather limited, having only read Ethics and turned down repeated requests to write about Spinoza's philosophy: "I do not have the professional knowledge to write a scholarly article about Spinoza." Jammer said they shared the same belief in determinism but the similarity was "articificial and unwarranted" to assume Spinoza influenced Einstein's science. Jammer said Einstein felt a sense of brotherhood with Spinoza but that it had more to do with the fact that they "shared a need for solitude as well as the fate of having been reared within the Jewish heritage but having become subsequently alienated from its religious heritage." Spinoza was a pantheist, which in and of itself is a form of theism. Atheists today wishing to claim Einstein as one of their own, continually ignore his explicit statement that he isn't one of them:

I am not an atheist, and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist (i.e. Spinoza). We are in teh position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many manguages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of those books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being towards God. We see the universe marvelously aranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the myetsrious force that moves the constellations.

Clearly you can see how this would resonate with theists moreso than atheists. Atheists do not believe there is a divine intelligence greater than ourselves, who is responsible for the creation and design of everything that is. Einstein believed this. This places him at complete odds with atheists, especially atheists of the Dawkins variety. Dawkins keeps saying Einstein was an atheist despite his own explicit rejection of that claim. Dawkins even cites Jammer on occassion, but it seems he has not paid much attention to what Jammer actually wrote. Jammer wrote,

"Einstein always protested against being regarded as an atheist. In a conversation with Prince Hubertus of Lowensteing, for example, he declared, 'what really makes me angry is that they [atheists like Dawkins!] quote me for support of their views.' Einsteing renounced atheism because [pay attention beastie] he never considered his denial of a personal God as a denial of God."

Like Spinoza, Einstein rejected an anthropomorphic view of God. But unlike Spinoza, Einstein believed God manifests himself, "in the laws of the universe as a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble."

I do hope that these citations can be reconciled with Einstein’s own denial of being a theist.

Denying a personal God is not denying the existence of God. Disbelief in a personal God doesn't require atheism. Einstein believed the "mind of God" was the great mystery, and that is what he wanted to discover. God is the great mathematician behind the laws of the universe.

PS: I didn't realize it is memorial day today. Have tons of Family coming over and such. Everyone enjoy your day as well.

[_beastie]

You think this is intended to disparage?

Absolutely.

I am willing to focus strictly on the natural sciences if you are. But you think only biological science applies!

It would help if you didn’t ignore what I actually said, which you do, even when you quote me.

I said:

Second, what’s absurd is to pretend that ANY topic related to science is equally pertinent in this discussion. Science is a very broad umbrella, and includes engineering, social science, computer science, forestry, dentistry, psychology, etc etc….come on!!! Of course some fields are more pertinent than others. You can make a good argument for astronomy and physics as well as biology, but please don’t pretend that such a wide umbrella gives us useful information at all. It’s silly.

Of course you saw this and actually quoted it, but don’t appear to have allowed it to register.

You chose to quote from a link Jersey Girl provided that talked about social scientists. Now you pretend I created a strawman by saying your umbrella was far too broad. So tell us: what is a social scientist?

The rest of your response pretends that I limited the field to biology alone, despite the fact that you even quoted my response that shows otherwise. You then deny that you wanted to include social scientists, despite the fact that you quoted from an article Jersey Girl provided that does exactly that.

Do you even know what you are arguing?

Do you intentionally make no sense? What "debate" are you talking about? You think there has been a debate that disproved God? Where did it take place? When? I am simply refuting the oft propagated myth that religion and science are at odds. That anyone who understands science will naturally or eventually reject theism.

The debate is in regards to what is the most reliable formula for discovering reliable “truths” about the universe. When religionists want to give their claims more credence, they dress those claims up like science. When religionists want to disparage or minimize science, they pretend it’s just another religion.

I said:

So what??? Being specific about what, exactly, is meant by “god” is pertinent to ANY discussion about belief. If “God” can be defined as nature itself, then I’m a believer, too.

Kevin’s reply:

You can't be serious. The question of whether God is, is something entirely different from what God is. Theism only needs to affirm the former, not tha latter.

I’m going to have to censor myself here, and simply restate that it is important to clarify exactly WHAT is being discussed when belief in God is discussed. As I said, if the definition of “God” is simply “nature”, then even I count as a believer. I think you would concede that any such discussion inherently that sloppy is meaningless. But I may be wrong, you may not concede that at all.

I said:

I do hope that these citations can be reconciled with Einstein’s own denial of being a theist.

Kevin’s reply:

Denying a personal God is not denying the existence of God. Disbelief in a personal God doesn't require atheism. Einstein believed the "mind of God" was the great mystery, and that is what he wanted to discover. God is the great mathematician behind the laws of the universe.

I never said that denying a personal god is the equivalent of atheism. I was responding to this exchange of ours:

I said:

Einstein was definitely not a theist.

Your reply:

Yes he was. You need to read a book on this, written by one of his close associates, Max Jammer, and not rely on Dawkins or the web.

To be honest, I suspect part of the problem in this conversation is that you’re being sloppy and careless. You are not differentiating between deism and theism in your replies. I would have expected you to understand the difference, since you use these terms yourself. Your replies on this thread do not indicate that you understand what these terms mean – either that, or you’re reading/responding in a rush and being careless.

[_Chap]

This is a statement that must be carefully qualified.

Dawkins tried to claim Einstein was actually an atheist. Again proving he has an agenda to make science a doctrine of atheism. Dawkins didn't know what the hell he was talking about unfortunately.

Einstein was definitely not a theist.

Yes he was. You need to read a book on this, written by one of his close associates, Max Jammer, and not rely on Dawkins or the web.

I will provide more citations later, but suffice it to say Einstein did in fact see plenty of evidence in the universe that God exists and he adamantly denied ever being an atheist. Dawkins knew this but ignored his statement to that effect. Again, something we'd expect from a Mormon apologist.

Einstein once said:

"My religiosity consists of a humble admiration of the infintely superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God...Everyone who is seriously engaged in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble."

Just so we know whether it is worth joining in here, could you kindly:

(a) Tell us, as succinctly as you can, what someone has to believe in for you to say "he not only believed in a deity, but was actually a theist" (assuming that"believes in a deity" and "is a theist" are not the same thing so far as you are concerned.)

(b) Tell us, as succinctly as you can, whether you would class Spinoza as a theist.

[edited once for typo]

I wonder if dartagnan would mind answering these questions directly?

He uses the word 'theist' but it is not clear what he means by that. So I ask for clarification.

I then use Spinoza as a test case, simply to see if, in dartagnan's sense, he counts as a "theist". Einstein's views are not relevant here.

Short answers, please?

[_dartagnan]

Absolutely.

Then that is your choice. But the fact is atheists are humans who engage in religious activity the same as any theist. There are nontheistic religions.

Of course you saw this and actually quoted it, but don’t appear to have allowed it to register.

Huh? You completely misrepresented the survey, even the one provided by Jersey Girl. You said:" what’s absurd is to pretend that ANY topic related to science is equally pertinent in this discussion."

Whoever in the hell said this to begin with? It is your own straw man.

Science is a very broad umbrella, and includes engineering, social science, computer science, forestry, dentistry, psychology, etc etc….come on!!! Of course some fields are more pertinent than others. You can make a good argument for astronomy and physics as well as biology, but please don’t pretend that such a wide umbrella gives us useful information at all. It’s silly.

Again you fail to actually read what has been presented. You make it sound like the only way a theist could get the percentage down to below half (from your outrageous 95%) is to include all social and medical sciences!.But again, you don't comprehend much. Here is what Jersey Girl's article said:

When Ecklund compared faculty in the natural science disciplines of physics, chemistry, and biology with those in the social science disciplines of sociology, psychology, political science, and economics, she found “distinct frameworks” for the ways in which individuals view religion and spirituality as well as how they make ethical decisions related to their research. Nearly 38 percent of natural scientists surveyed said they did not believe in God, but only 31 percent of the social scientists gave that response. Among each of the two general groups, one discipline stood out: Forty-one percent of the biologists and 27 percent of the political scientists said they don’t believe in God."

The conclusion was that social scientists are more lilkely to believe in God, but the gap between the two categories was only a 7% difference. So in this survey, which is far more exhaustive and inclusive than your that silly poll taken at NAS, it was concluded that only 38% of natural scientists are atheists. So all your nonsense about dentistry and park rangers was smoke and mirrors that only a Mormon apologist could appreciate. It was intended to derail from the point made: Dawkins is out of his gourd.

Do you even know what you are arguing?

Yes, most scientists do not reject the existence of God. Contrary to yoru wishful thinking, most natural scientists don't either. These include experts in the fields of chemistry, atronomy, biology and physics etc. Having said that, sociology, psychology and history are social sciences that Dawkins tries to rely upon in his numerous dogmatic attacks against theism

The debate is in regards to what is the most reliable formula for discovering reliable “truths” about the universe

Since when was that the debate? No wonder you're confused. And you think biological science is the best field to discover these truths?

When religionists want to give their claims more credence, they dress those claims up like science. When religionists want to disparage or minimize science, they pretend it’s just another religion.

Nice bait and switch. I am not here defending theological claims by any religion. You always have to do this in order to maintain some kind of foothold before launching into the usual Dawkinisms. But you're beating a straw man.

I’m going to have to censor myself here, and simply restate that it is important to clarify exactly WHAT is being discussed when belief in God is discussed.

Essentially a divine intelligence that exists and is greater than ourselves. While the three great religions believe this, this doesn't mean everyone who believes this is necessarily a defender of all their theological claims. This was Einstein's position. For him the evidence was too strong for him, as a scientist, to deny. He said we were like children wandeirng into a giant library, knowing perfectly well that something wrote those books.

As I said, if the definition of “God” is simply “nature”, then even I count as a believer.

Another straw man. Who said God was nature? Try to keep up please.

I think you would concede that any such discussion inherently that sloppy is meaningless. But I may be wrong, you may not concede that at all.

I wouldn't even argue that. But you're not interested in my arguments. You're only interested in whatever argument you can create for me.

I never said that denying a personal god is the equivalent of atheism

My point was that Einstein wasn't an atheist, and you told me to refute the statement he made saying he didn't believe in a "personal" God. Why would you say that if you didn't think it made your case that Einsteing denied theism?

To be honest, I suspect part of the problem in this conversation is that you’re being sloppy and careless. You are not differentiating between deism and theism in your replies.

"Deism is a sub-category of theism, in that both entail belief in a deity. Like theism, deism is a basic belief upon which religions can be built. In contrast to theism, there are currently no established deistic religions" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

Hence, deism is essentially theism. It is a subset of theism. Einstein believed in the existence of God. This places him at odds with all atheists who now wish to find some kind of silver medal by making the meaningless distinction between deism and theism. DOes rendering him a deist change the fact that he believed God exists? If deism is distinct from theism simply because there are no organized deistic religions, then I guess that makes me a deist too. But in the context of this debate, between the atheists who argues no God, and theists who argue God, it is better to keep this simple as possible.
It doesn't matter if Einstein's personal belief is followed by a specific Church. That was never my point and is completely irrelevant. My point is that Einstein was a brilliant scientist who knew as much about the natural world as anyone possibly could, yet nothing in his obtained knowledge precluded him from accepting the existence of a divine intelligence who wrote the laws of the universe. In fact, it could be argued that Einstein's expansive knowledge base in the sciences is what led him to that belief. This all flies in the face of Dawkins claims that science and religion ar at odds.
That is my point.

Can you accept that? Probably not.

I look forward to reading the next straw man you have lined up.

[_The Dude]

God doesn't feel like anything to me because I consume chemicals that interfere with spiritual sensations. Caffeine, etc. ;)

Oh? I didn't know caffeine interfered. I wasn't aware of that. Last night I was in a lala poetic mental state. I'm rather blah and just a mass of flesh and bones stuck to the ground by damn gravity today -- nothing soaring today. :)

Huck and Moniker,

In the mission field it was commonly taught that caffeine and other addictive substances forbidden by the Word of Wisdom can interfere with spiritual sensations from God. For example, when we tried to get an investigator to pray about the Book of Mormon, and he/she couldn't get the right answer from Holy Ghost, we would blame caffeine or nicotine. Similarly, when it came to justifying why the LDS were not allowed to drink coffee, we would turn around and blame spiritual consequences. Even if we couldn't convince people that chemical reactions in the body are more powerful than God (you sound skeptical), we could nail them with the argument that God requires obedience, and if you don't follow the Lord's health plan, you are disobedient and don't necessarily merit the "right" spiritual sensations from God. You really didn't know about this belief?

So if God feels like nothing to me (I am skeptical that supernatural gods even exist!) -- it must be the drugs.

[_dartagnan]

I wonder if dartagnan would mind answering these questions directly?

He uses the word 'theist' but it is not clear what he means by that. So I ask for clarification.

I don't use it in any complicated sense. By theist I simply refer tos omeone who believes in the existence of a superior intelligence (God).

I then use Spinoza as a test case, simply to see if, in dartagnan's sense, he counts as a "theist". Einstein's views are not relevant here.

Short answers, please?

I don't know enough about Spinoza's belief system to make a declaration one way or the other.

I think deist is a term that was used to distinguish between theists who followed an organized religion and theists who didn't. It probably had more meaning in the 19th century when most people were affiliated to a specific religion. Today I think the distinction is really meaningless in the debate between theism and atheism. Technically, I guess I am a deist too. I never really gave it much though, but I fit the profile. The point is I believe there is enough evidence to suggest the existence of a power and an intelligence superior to our own.

I think Beastie's need for "qualification" regarding Einstein is telling. It is like saying "if we can't have him, neither can you"! But the deism "qualification" doesn't change the fact that Einstein falls into the theist camp. It doesn't bother me at all that he wasn't a Muslim, Christian or Jew. He was a brilliant scientist who believed science pointed towards God.

[_beastie]

Kevin,

I really don't understand how you can not understand the difference between deism and theism, when you linked a site that pretty clearly explains it. You said:

I think deist is a term that was used to distinguish between theists who followed an organized religion and theists who didn't.

And yet the site you linked says:

Deism is the belief that there is a God that created the physical universe but does not interfere with it.

When Einstein stated he does not believe in a "personal god", he was stating that he is not a theist. The most that can be hoped for is to prove Einstein was some sort of vague deist. But even that rests upon a careful analysis of what Einstein meant when he referred to "god", which is something you think is irrelevant.

Until these things are cleared up, further conversations will be pointless.

[_dartagnan]

I really don't understand how you can not understand the difference between deism and theism, when you linked a site that pretty clearly explains it.

I do understand the difference. But that distinction is irrelevant to my point that Einstein believed in God. It does nothing for your case. Einstein believed in the existence of God. Period. He wasn't an atheist. He was a theist to the extent that he believed God existed.

When Einstein stated he does not believe in a "personal god", he was stating that he is not a theist.

Deism is a subset of theism! He never once in his life denied being a theist.. You are infering that based on a ridiculous understanding of the term. You simply don't understand the fact that disbelief in a personal God doesn't preclude someone from believing in an impersonal God. The distinction between deism and theism has nothing to do with whether the God is "personal" or not.

The most that can be hoped for is to prove Einstein was some sort of vague deist.

Vague deism!
You continue to mitigate and obfuscate in order to claim your silver medal. Go ahead. I doubt you'll ever acknowledge Dawkins was wrong to say Einstein was an atheist. That's like expecting coggins to admit Joseph couldn't translate Egyptian.

But even that rests upon a careful analysis of what Einstein meant when he referred to "god", which is something you think is irrelevant.

So did Einstein apparently. Einstein believed God existed. He didn't think he needed to attribute qualities to him in a logic model to satisfy everyone's acceptance of his belief.

Until these things are cleared up, further conversations will be pointless

It is pointless because you cannot stay on topic and refrain from your silly straw men arguments.

Again, my point is simple: that contray Dawkins, Einstein denied being an atheist. In spite of this denial, Dawkins continues to portray him as such. That is dishonety. Einstein believed a God existed. He believed science pointed to that existence. He believed that humans could never really understand God because our minds are too "feeble." This guy sounded more like Dan Peterson without the Mormonism, than anything you or Schmo have ever said about "reliable knowledge" only coming through a scientific method.

Your little game of sematics over the" isms" does nothing but derail from this painful fact that Dawkins was out of his gourd. Einstein had more in common with theists than he ever did with atheists. If he were alive today he'd have nothing to do with Dawkins. He said he hated it when atheists tried to represent him as one of their own.

[_beastie]

Deism is a subset of theism! He never once in his life denied being a theist.. You are infering that based on a ridiculous understanding of the term. You simply don't understand the fact that disbelief in a personal God doesn't preclude someone from believing in an impersonal God. The distinction between deism and theism has nothing to do with whether the God is "personal" or not.

What a frustrating conversation. Of course I understand that disbelief in a "personal God" doesn't preclude someone from believing in an "impersonal God". But when Einstein said he didn't believe in a "personal God", he was denying being a theist. A theist believes in a personal God, a God who intervenes in the matters of mankind, a God who "reveals" himself to particular human beings, who then create religions.

Look again at what your own source says, Kevin:

Deism is the belief that there is a God that created the physical universe but does not interfere with it.

Our entire point of disagreement here was when I stated that Einstein was NOT a theist. You replied, yes he was!!! Yet he clearly said he didn't believe in a personal god!!! A "personal god" is a god who interferes with his creation. So what in the heck was he clarifying when he said:

From a letter written in English, dated March 24, 1954, Einstein wrote, "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

This is particularly funny:

Another straw man. Who said God was nature? Try to keep up please.