God, How Does He Feel To You?

[Guest]

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.

This does not logically follow. You keep asserting this with nothing to back it up. What will you offer, askanatheist.com?

A theist believes in a personal God

No, that is not the definition for theist. And that explains your problem right there: your own ignorance. If you want to play semantics, you should at least get your ducks in a row. I already illustrated that deism is merely a subset of theism. Deists are theists. And arguing that he was a deist in no way helps your case here since it is indisputable that Dawkins was wrong in claiming Einstein was an atheist.

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.

And it also goes on to say deism is a subset of theism. If you want to deal with my link, then don't pretend to deal with it, just deal with it! You completely ignored the part where it distinguishes between deism and theism:

"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, with the possible exception of Unitarian Universalism and Confucianism."

And the other wiki explains theism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism

Notice you'll find not a single remark about "personal" God as a requirement for the term. This is your requirement that you wish to impose on my use of the term. Chap was wise enough to ask for the definition of theist which I was using, yet you seem determined to ignore it. I made it perfectly clear how I used the term. A theist is simply someone who believes in God. It doesn't matter if it is a "personal" God or not. I don't know why it is so important for you that Einstein wasn't a theist. As if that helps your case any. He clearly believed science pointed to the existence of God.

Our entire point of disagreement here was when I stated that Einstein was NOT a theist. You replied, yes he was!!!

Yes, and he was. He was a deist and a theist. The two are not mutually exclusive. You have done nothing to prove otherwise!!!!
Einstein never denied being a theist!!! That is your preferred inference, but he never said that. You're just trying to derail from the fact that Einstein claimed to believe in God, contrary to what Dawkins has been asserting for years.

Yet he clearly said he didn't believe in a personal god!!!

Which is something I had previously said!!!!

A "personal god" is a god who interferes with his creation.

You're beating about the bush. You still haven't established your claim that theism means belief in "personal" God. If you believe in an impersonal God you're still a theist.

People on these boards spend too much time debating the pedantic definition of theism/deism/atheism/agnosticism, and trying to pigeonhole other people (Hitler, Einstein, etc.) into one slot or another.

LOL... you mean like your buddy Richard Dawkins? Einstein being an atheist is clearly an important pigeonhole for atheists that they are willing to lie about it. All I did was prove Dawkins was lying, and that intelligent scientists like Einstein can believe as I do. Somehow you guys are less trigger happy to declare Einstein a moron.

It's hard to believe veterans like Beastie and Kevin can still be interested in this topic. Maybe they need to get checked out for obsessive-compulsive disorder. Get some new drugs or something.

I don't even know why beastie is arguing. She has no case. I simply said Einstein was a theist, contrary to what her mentor had been publishing, and she went ballistic with the straw men and semantic games.

This is why I found Kevin's earlier statement: "who said God was nature?" so amusing.

And you cannot answer the question because you know this is your straw man. I know he never equated God with nature. You're back to yoru old games, just trying to avoid the refutation staring you right in the face. Quick, think of something else to divert. I have already explicated how and why atheists have tried to make so much of Spinozas "influence" so they could spin Einstein's religious view into something it really wasn't. If you still maintain Einstein was a pantheist who equated God with nature, then you have to deal with the fact that he explicitly denied that. Let's see if you'll ignore it a second time:

"I don't think I can call myself a pantheist."

Einstein can't, but hey, beastie can. That's what matters, right?

I think it's relevant to figure out what he believed or did not believe.

ROFL!! If that were true, you'd actually pick up a book and stop relying on whatever atheist-based web articles you can google up. I have told you exactly what Einstein believed about God and teh Universe and I have used his own words. All you have done is spin and mitigate with a silly game of semantics.

[_dartagnan]

Let's review how this played out from my first comment about Einstein-

Kevin: Einstein was one among many prominent scientists who accept the existence of God.
Beastie: This is a statement that must be carefully qualified.

Notice I didn't even call him a theist. I just said he accepted the existence of God. Beastie couldn't accept that without "qualification." Why? Its true. So what's the problem? She had to note he didn't believe in a "personal" God. But I already said that in a previous post:

"How many more would have said they believe in a God that doesn't interact with our daily lives (i.e. personal God)? I know Einstein was one."

And then again here:

"Like Spinoza, Einstein rejected an anthropomorphic view of God (i.e. personal 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.'"

So beastie went on a rant trying to prove something I already said. It doesn't matter to me if Einstein believes in a personal God or not. As far as I can tell Einstein's religious beliefs are exactly like my own. We both argue for the existence of God based on science.
Then beastie took it a step further:

beastie: Einstein was definitely not a theist

This is based on a rigged standard designed by beastie. For her, theist has to be synonymous with "belief in a personal god". Why? Because Einstein didn't believe in a personal God, and apparently it makes matters much easier for atheists if Einstein can't be considered a theist.

Was he a deist? Maybe, although it's difficult to tell, since he doesn't seem to differentiate between God and nature itself.

More ignorance that has already been refuted by Einsteing himself. He never said God and nature were synonymous. The idea here is to distance Einstein from theism in any way possible. If they cannot prove he was an atheist, they'll be damned if he turns out to be a theist! Atheists generally don't care what Einstein believed. They are only interested in the comments he made that they can twist to their advantage.

[_beastie]

I'll just let Einstein speak for himself:

"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."

[_dartagnan]

Oh? As if I don't? As if I haven't already provided far more commentary from Einstein?

In this context-free comment Einstein is rejecting belief in a God of any of the religions. He is rejecting a claim that he is a religious person. Nobody has denied this. He doesn't have an athorpomorpic, personal view of God. Nobody denied this.

What Einstein does believe is that a God exists and he is expressed in the scientifc evidence available to man. The point here is simple. One can believe in the existence of God and not be "religious." Theists only have to believe in a God. They don't have to be religious. What Einstein wasn't was an atheist. This is just one of many goofs by Dawkins that makes his credibility suspect.

Antony Flew's belief system is pretty much in line with this. You see theists praising his conversion from atheism even though he also rejects the notion of a personal God.

I'll put up some more citations from Einstein later but I will leave with this one:

"It is a different question whether a belief in a personal God should be contested. Freud endorsed this view in his latest publication. I myself would never engage in such a task. For such a belief system seems to me preferable to any lack of any transcendental outlook of life, and I wonder whether one can ever successfully render to the majority of mankind a more sublime means in order to satisfy its metaphysical needs."

Einstein agreed with Spinoza that he who knows nature knows God, but not because nature is God, but because the pursuit of science in studying nature leads to religion.

[_Moniker]

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.

I'm sooo not down with LDS funnies. Went right over my head! :)

I didn't realize there was a connection between following the WoW and spiritual sensations from God. You would think I would have caught on to that, at some point, yet, I didn't....

[_Moniker]

Now I attribute these sensations to brain chemistry

No emotion is felt without brain chemistry getting in on the act. But it is not proved that all human perceptions are a result of brain chemistry. I am looking at my monitor. Does it really exist, or is my brain just confusing me?

No its not confusing you. But if you had a dream about asking that very question (and I have had such "philospophy dreams" as I call them) then the answer would be yes. One should not just focus of the immediate preception in asking what is real. its all about consitent connections and intersubjectivity (other people and sometimes a little time need to be in on the act if there is a question).

I don't ever have philosophy dreams. :/

[_beastie]

Here's a link to a page that provides additional context:

http://einsteinandreligion.com/spinoza2.html

From a letter to Eduard Büsching, Oct. 25, 1929, Einstein Archive, reel 33-275, quoted in Jammer, p. 51:

When its author sent a book There Is No God to Einstein, Einstein replied that the book did not deal with the notion of God, but only with that of a personal God. He suggested that the book should be titled There Is No Personal God. He added further:

We followers of Spinoza see out God in the wonderful order and lawfulness of all that exists and in its soul as it reveals itself in man and animal.It is a different question whether belief in a personal God should be contested. Freud endorsed this view in his latest publication. I myself would never engage in such a task. For such a belief seems to me to the lack of any transcendental outlook of life, and I wonder whether on can ever successfully render to the majority of mankind a more sublime means in order to satisfy its metaphysical needs.

I bolded the sentence Kevin omitted.
Note: this quote says nothing about whether or not Einstein believed in "god" in the way most imagine - an external being. What Einstein is commenting on in this quote is whether or not human beings should be divorced from their belief in God. In other words, he's referring to whether or not a belief in god enhances life - not whether or not it is an accurate reflection of reality.

From a letter to Murray W. Gross, Apr. 26, 1947, Einstein Archive, reel 33-324, Jammer, p. 138 - 139:
When question about God and religion on behalf of an aged Talmudic scholar, Einstein replied:

It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropomorphic concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near to those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order and harmony which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem — the most important of all human problems.

I bolded the sentence that I'd like Kevin to respond to. We agree that Einstein did not believe in a personal, anthropomorphic God. So now we see he also cannot imagine a "will or goal outside the human sphere." This seems to eliminate the deist conception of God. What are we left with?

http://einsteinandreligion.com/faithcomments.html

My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment.

— Letter to M. Berkowitz, October 25, 1950; Einstein Archive 59-215

I am a deeply religious nonbeliever.... This is a somewhat new kind of religion.

— Letter to Hans Muehsam March 30, 1954; Einstein Archive 38-434

What confuses the picture is that Einstein, while referring to himself as agnostic and a nonbeliever, also referred to a God. Given his deep attachment and near reverence for spinoza, I think that is an important avenue. This is why I stated it is important to know what Einstein meant by the word "God", and why we had to ferret out the god/nature question (which Kevin deemed meant I wasn't following the conversation...heh)

Einstein's poem about Spinoza:

From Jammer, p. 43; the complete poem is available in German in the Appendix of the book.

How much do I love that noble man
More than I could tell with words
I fear though he'll remain alone
With a holy halo of his own.

The other element to consider is that Einstein's thoughts, like any thinking human's, likely evolved and changed over time.

But at any rate, for a theist to use Einstein as an example of a scientific believer without qualifying what, exactly, he believed in, is extremely misleading. He certainly is an example of a nonbeliever (in any traditional sense) who still felt religious feelings, like the topic of this thread.

[_dartagnan]

I bolded the sentence Kevin omitted.
Note: this quote says nothing about whether or not Einstein believed in "god" in the way most imagine - an external being.

You're still ignoring Einstein's direct denial of being a pantheist? You do understand that pantheism sees nature and God as one in the same, right? But you're still trying to make it sound like this is what Einstein believed, even though he denied it. You're still trying to read into various comments something that isn't there. I already explained why Einstein referred to nature and God. He did not see God and nature as synonymous, though I can understand how some snippets might confuse people who insist on relying on web articles for their information.

What Einstein is commenting on in this quote is whether or not human beings should be divorced from their belief in God. In other words, he's referring to whether or not a belief in god enhances life - not whether or not it is an accurate reflection of reality.

Now look who is omitting! He is referring here specifically to the belief in a "personal" God. For you to say he thinks a general "belief in God" is not necessarily "an accurate reflection of reality" is just more spin maneuvering on your part. Again, Einstein believed God exists. For him, nature and God were not synonymous. Deal with his denial of such belief and stop trying to quote-mine your way out of it.

I bolded the sentence that I'd like Kevin to respond to. We agree that Einstein did not believe in a personal, anthropomorphic God. So now we see he also cannot imagine a "will or goal outside the human sphere." This seems to eliminate the deist conception of God. What are we left with?

Oh so now you're saying he wasn't even a deist!?

It doesn't "seem" to eliminate any such thing. Einstein already said we were like children walking into a giant library filled with unknown languages, though we know something wrote them. He referenced the mind of God. He said God can be found through nature, but not that nature was God. The universe was created for us. The laws of the universe were written to make life possible. He believed the mind of God is responsible for the laws and mathematical formulas used to develop it, so it is impossible to mesh this with your weird interpretation of one of his much earlier statements.

But at any rate, for a theist to use Einstein as an example of a scientific believer without qualifying what, exactly, he believed in, is extremely misleading.

I never said he was a "scientific believer." What is that anyway? But the word "believer" in his context was in reference to a traditional religious person who believed in the God of Christianity. When he said he was a religious non-believer, he was not saying he didn't believe in God, only that he would be considered a non-believer by traditionalists. What we do know is that he wasn't a pantheist as atheists often like to recreate the picture.

All of this, just to keep arguing something nobody ever disagreed with; that Einstein wasn't a "traditional" believer.

But he was much closer to traditional theism than he ever was to any form of atheism.

[_Bond...James Bond]

I don't ever have philosophy dreams. :/

REally? I think every dream is [at least partially] philosophical.

[_beastie]

But he was much closer to traditional theism than he ever was to any form of atheism.

Unbelievable.

He did not believe in a personal god.

He did not believe in a "will or goal" outside the human sphere.

And yet, according to you, he's closer to traditional theism??


Unbelievable. There's nothing else I can say. Unbelievable.


("scientific believer" meant a scientist who believes in god)