God, How Does He Feel To You?

[_beastie]

LOL....yeah I sure did.... OOPS!
I would edit it out, but its too funny.

Hey, that makes me like you already!!

[_Moniker]

Heh. I like the original too!

[_dartagnan]

Context??? For every statement you find that you believe proves Einstein was a theist, you know good and well I can find one that directly contradicts it

No you can't, nor have you. But thanks for coming right out with your agenda. You're trying to create this picture of "contradiction" so you can leave the debate and say it is all just a mystery. You don't want Dawkins to be wrong, and you certainly don't want any theist to be right.

Here's some more context:

ROFL!!!

Yet, another friggin citation referring to anthropomorphism and now his rejection of mysticism!!

Something I had already established. That's all you've got isn't it? The same straw man. And you have yet to address the fact that I am citing a book written by one of Einstein's closest associates, whereas you are merely quote-mining the atheistic web for anything you can use to try reinterpreting what he believed. You don't even seem to consider the possibility that Einstein's views changed over the years at all. This is what happened with Antony Flew, so why not Einstein? You think a single citation provided "context!"

Context makes it appear clear that when Einstein talks about "Reason", he's talking about the laws and order of nature, not some deity who created the world.

One citation from an article dedicated to attacking this exact straw man, ("No Personal God") and that's beastie's "context"!! Einstein rejcted the notion of "divine personality," again an explicit anthropomorphism! I already established this, so why is beastie still beating the straw? I think it has the same effect for her as it did Paul Vitti when he shot bullets into his pillow. All these passages do is prove Einstein was in no sense "religious" as a Christian or Jew, nor did he attribute to his God the qualities of their traditional anthropomorphic God. But he clearly believed God existed. Again, "God created the world" is not a poem or a metaphor as Dawkins would have us believe. Beastie hasn't even begun to deal with this citation other than to say "I got some contradictions," which are really not contradictions at all.

Here's what I think context reveals about Einstein's beliefs. He did not believe in a God who created the universe.

Again this is so hilarious. And it needs to be pointed out again and again. I provide a citation where Einstein says God "created" the world, and Beastie spends pages providing irrelevant citations that never once mention the word "create," and then she offers her own psychoanlaysis as evidence that Einstein didn't believe God created anything at all, contrary to his explicit claim that he did!
It is funny because in her entire post, which consists mainly of Einstein citations, the only time the word "create" is found is in beastie's comments. The only person who has provide a direct citation from Einstein where he speaks of the "creation" of the world, is me. And I get a kick out the way she insist she is providing "context." Context doesn't help her at all. She bases her entire argument on her ability to psychoanalyze what Einstein meant, and her ability to completely flip flop some of his statements that completely undermine her position. Einstein believed a God exists. He said so.

That makes him a theist, period.

In regards to Anthony Flew - I'm surprised you keep referring to him after EAllusion linked you to an article that revealed how his was the case of an elderly man beginning to lose his faculties who was manipulated and used by people with an agenda other than Flew's well-being.

Maybe you weren't apying attention (probably) when I responded to that post with a citation from the co-author who pretty much put that insinuation-baiting to rest. If Flew's "faculties" have left him so incompetent, then why is he about to be published again in Skeptic? His co-author said he is willing to give over all materials used for Flew's book, to any investigative journalist. Flew knew exactly what was published, and he even read over and edited it several times.

by the way, I want to point out that this argument over Einstein began when Kevin objected to my assertion that any statement saying Einstein was a theist would have to be carefully qualified.

I was expecting you to run to the defense of Dawkins, and I was right. You follow the lead of many New Atheists who have taken this "more intelligent than thou" approact to theists. It bugs you to no end to think Einstein could have said some of these things and meant them. So you have to seek "qualification" to ease your own frustrations.

It should be clear, by now, why my assertion was accurate.

Not real. Someone is either a theist or he isn't. And even if Einstein were on middle ground, he was no where close to the opposite side, which was atheism.

It is wildly misleading to use any of Einstein's statements as support for either theism or atheism without careful qualifications.

Wooooah. So you're admitting Dawkins lied when he said Einstein was an atheist? Even after all of the information from Jammer has come to light, Dawkins still maintains that Einstein was an atheist! This is why I can't take your rant seriously. You're very selective in who you criticize.

[_beastie]

One quick comment before bed -

Kevin, I'd appreciate if you could show me where I've defended Dawkin's use of Einstein. Thanks in advance.

Quotes of Einstein to sleep by:

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.

Oh, he didn't use the word "create"...."independent cause of natural events"... hmmm, hmm, what could that mean....

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?

Whoops, he didn't use the word "create".....according to Kevin, "God" could create the paths of these great orbiting masses and yet couldn't disturb them....

ROFL... upper hand, my foot

[_dartagnan]

Kevin, I'd appreciate if you could show me where I've defended Dawkin's use of Einstein. Thanks in advance.

You've already made it clear you admire the man greately. You've used him on numerous occassions and he represents a good percentage of the books you own on evolution. I have made it clear Dawkins has abused Einstein for his purposes.

Oh, he didn't use the word "create"...."independent cause of natural events"... hmmm, hmm, what could that mean....

And in the next breath he makes it clear he is smacking down the God of Judeo-Christian tradition who is an anthropomorphic being. You're not interested in context at all because it undermines your interpretation. You continuously fail to mention what kind of God he is arguing against. He never once argues against the existence of any God. Instead, he argues against the concept of the traditional anthropomorphic gods.

So let's spell this out clearly so people can really see where beastie's logic comes from:

Einstein said: "God created this World."

Beastie says Einstein didn't believe in "some deity who created the world."

I wonder who we should believe? I'll reiterate the citation that hits home with me more than the rest. Keep in mind that this explication is allegorical, but not ambiguous. It is within the immediate context of his denial to being in any way, shape or form, an atheist:

"I am not an atheist... We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the naguages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. Thus, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being towards God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations."

So who or what is this "someone" according to beastie? She doesn't say. Instead, she ignores this explicit citation that reveals his intimate thoughts on the subject of deity, and then hunts for more citations in the context of squabbles with Rabbis, and then disengenuously appeals to contradiction!

God is frequently described by Einstein as "superior mind...illimitable superior spirit...superior reasoning force." This suggests strongly a divine intelligence. What non-intelligent force, can in any sense "write" advanced mathematical laws that govern teh universe? He also 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."

Keep in mind that beastie insists God cannot be perceived at all by humans.

No, I don't believe for a second that Einstein used the term "spirit" in any sense that would resonate with traditional religions. I think he used spirit for lack of a better term, and he was trying to stay away from anthropomorphisms. The fact that he refers to God in terms of intelligence, is enough for most intelligent people to conclude he believed God was responsibel for the way the universe is what it is. God "wrote" the "laws of the universe." Something intelligent had to have written them.

according to Kevin, "God" could create the paths of these great orbiting masses and yet couldn't disturb them....

Are you really so ignorant that you don't realize this is precisely the position of many theists? Laws of teh universe have been set in motion by God. This is how many theologians argue that God's omnipotence is limited by his own laws. In other words, God cannot make a rock heavier than he could lift. He could not make sound faster than the speed of light, etc. So no, I don't have a problem at all believing God created immutable cosmic laws.

[_dartagnan]

[quote] Kevin objected to my assertion that any statement saying Einstein was a theist would have to be carefully qualified.[/qute]

That is not true. I did qualify his theism by pointing out, long before you did, that Einstein was not a theist in the tradtional sense. He did not accept the concept of a personal God. That makes his view unique.

But I reject your attempt to over qualify his theism to the point that it can not be called theism.

You falsely asserted that theism requires belief in a personal God. You pulled this out from left field with nothing to back it up. The distinctions you tried to make between are not sound. They appear to be based on nothing more than your need to distance Einstein from theism as much as possible.

[_Chap]

Kevin objected to my assertion that any statement saying Einstein was a theist would have to be carefully qualified.[/qute]

That is not true. I did qualify his theism by pointing out, long before you did, that Einstein was not a theist in the tradtional sense. He did not accept the concept of a personal God. That makes his view unique.

But I reject your attempt to over qualify his theism to the point that it can not be called theism.

You falsely asserted that theism requires belief in a personal God. You pulled this out from left field with nothing to back it up. The distinctions you tried to make between are not sound. They appear to be based on nothing more than your need to distance Einstein from theism as much as possible.

You are being a bit too confident here. Originally "deist" and "theist" were equivalent words, but by the later 19th C. a common distinction had developed between a deist who believed in a God accessible to natural reason alone, and a theist who believed in a God who made himself known through revelation, like the Christian God. And since I am around the Oxford English Dictionary today, I can cite a usage by Cardinal John Henry Newman, who said in his Grammar of Assent (1870) that no-one was to be called a theist who did not believe in a personal God.

I have found this distinction to be fairly common in theological writing. Einstein does not sound like a theist in Newman's sense (or in Beastie's). But since the meaning of a word is in its use, why not pass on to more substantive issues, after having distinguished your personal usage from the one preferred by Beastie, Newman and others?

[_dartagnan]

Well, the question was asked, how was I using the term, and I made it perfectly clear how I was using it.

Beastie didn't care about that.

I use it in the simple modern understanding. A theist is someone who believes in a supreme deity. Einstein clearly believed something appropriately called "God" created the world and is responsible for the laws of the universe. He never once objected to the label "theist" but he did object strongly against being called an atheist.

[_beastie]

Beastie:

Kevin, I'd appreciate if you could show me where I've defended Dawkin's use of Einstein. Thanks in advance.

Kevin:

You've already made it clear you admire the man greately. You've used him on numerous occassions and he represents a good percentage of the books you own on evolution. I have made it clear Dawkins has abused Einstein for his purposes.

Yes, I already knew you would not be able to find one statement of mine supporting Dawkins’ use of Einstein.

Of course I admire his expertise in the field of evolution – you’d have to be an ignorant idiot not to. Yes, I’ve read several of his books on evolution – anyone with a serious interest in the subject can’t afford to ignore his works. (by the way, I remain unconvinced you’ve read any books on the subject of evolution, so your ignorance concerning his level of expertise is understandable) But you’re not talking about his position on evolution here – you’re talking about his position vis-à-vis religion. Every time the topic of the God Delusion has come up, I’ve specifically stated that I have mixed feelings on the subject. I know all us atheists look alike to you, Kevin, but we’re not all alike.

In regards to his specific use of Einstein, I have remained silent because I no longer own a copy of the book for me to peruse, (although I have read it) so I did not want to draw conclusions based on your statements alone, because I don’t think you are a reliable source. You make it sound like Dawkins simply referred to Einstein as an atheist in the same way you referred to him as a theist – without the careful qualifications I stated were necessary. So I went to amazon to look inside his book for references to Einstein, and found that he, unlike you, actually did provide those qualifications. Now, whether or not you agree with his assessment, the fact is that he carefully qualified his assertions. So I’ll go on record saying you, Kevin, have abused Einstein for your purposes, and Dawkins did not, due to the fact that he provided the necessary qualifications for his assertion. Note that this is a different question than whether or not I agree with Dawkins’ final analysis. It is simply stating that he, unlike you, knew that the question was murky and additional information was required.

You are now claiming that you had, indeed, added the necessary qualifications before I did, but you are rewriting history. Your first mention of Einstein was this simple assertion:

Do we actually know how many scientists are theists? Not "religious" people in particular, but scientific minded people who believe the evidence in the universe supports the idea that a deity exists.

Einstein was one among many prominent scientists who accept the existence of God.

(see page 2)

I objected on page three, saying the statement must be carefully qualified, and added more of his statements to show why. That began the entire argument.

Now you act as if it is appropriate to allow the conversation to take place with your own given definition of “theist”. Yet you refuse to allow Dawkins to do so, as well. He provided a very specific definition of the term (which is the definition I’ve always seen used). After sharing some of the letters angry ministers wrote to Einstein after he declared he did not believe in a personal God, Dawkins says this on page 39:

The one thing all his theist critics got right was that Einstein was not one of them. He was repeatedly indignant at the suggestion that he was a theist. So, was he a deist, like Voltaire and Diderot? Or a pantheist, like Spinoza, whose philosophy he greatly admired: ‘I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.’

Let’s remind ourselves of the terminology. A theist believes in a supernatural intelligence who, in addition to his main work of creating the universe in the first place, is still around to oversee and influence the subsequent fate of his initial creation. In many theistic belief systems, the deity is intimately involved in human affairs. He answers prayers; forgives or punishes sin; intervenes in the world by performing miracles; frets about good deeds and bad deeds, and knows when we do them (or even think of doing them). A deist, too, believes in a supernatural intelligence, but one whose activities were confined to setting up the laws that govern the universe in the first place. The deist God never intervenes thereafter, and certainly has no specific interest in human affairs. Pantheists don’t believe in a supernatural God at all, but use the word God as a non-supernatural synonym for Nature, or for the Universe, or for the lawfulness that governs its workings. Deists differ from theists in that their God does not answer prayers, is not interested in sins or confessions, does not read our thoughts and does not intervene with capricious miracles. Deists differ from pantheists in that the deist God is some kind of cosmic intelligence, rather than the pantheist’s metaphoric or poetic synonym for the laws of the universe. Pantheism is sexed-up atheism. Deism is watered-down theism.

Dawkins then goes on to discuss why he thinks that Einstein was using “God” in the metaphoric sense.

Kevin demands that we accept his own definitions on this thread. But he refuses to give Dawkins the same right. By Dawkins’ definitions – which are the same definitions I’ve seen used in every book that touches the subject – Einstein was most definitely not a theist. Now Kevin can blow a gasket over that, because he insists that since deism is a subset of theism, it’s right and proper to call deists theists. Personally, I think that’s pure nonsense and completely cloaks the yawning chasm between the two ideas, but even aside from my opinion, Kevin ought to show some consistency and allow Dawkins to define terms and then proceed to discuss the topic based on those same definitions.

Kevin’s quote:

"I am not an atheist... We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the naguages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. Thus, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being towards God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations."

Where did you get that quote, Kevin? Do you know what the ellipses omit? Do you know what was chopped off the beginning? This was from a 1929 interview, and the accuracy is somewhat contested. However, here is the full quote, when asked whether or not he believed in the “God of Spinoza”.

I can't answer with a simple yes or no. I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's pantheism, but admire even more his contributions to modern thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and the body as one, not two separate things.

This page also discusses the controversy behind the quote:

http://www.einsteinandreligion.com/spinoza.html

Now why would your source omit the portion about “I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist”? It certainly sounds to me like Einstein wasn’t quite certain about whether or not he was really a pantheist, otherwise he wouldn’t have used such uncertain terms. Why couldn't he just answer "no"?

So, Kevin, where did you obtain the manipulated quote??

The rest of it just more of the same. Kevin doesn’t seem to have the slightest awareness that he is doing the exact same thing of which he accuses me – only paying attention to particular statements. At least I have the honesty to admit that Einstein’s statements on the subject are actually confusing. Kevin acts like it’s so clear, but ignores the fact that to make some statements clear he “runs to context”, which means go to an entirely different statement and ignore the one that required him to “run to context” in the first place. I can only take so much of it. In the end, all of these back-and-forth quotes prove one thing: I was right when I said it was important to figure out what Einstein meant by “God” in the first place.