Einstein, Religion and Atheism

3017amen

I was inspired by suppositions made in another Religion thread which I think were somewhat misguided. The sojourn lead to an uncovery of sorts from the many quotes by Albert Einstein on cosmic religious feeling and thinking.

After doing some research, it seems as though he was widely misunderstood and misinterpreted with respect to his religious views for which he had many. And so I thought I would provide some interesting quotes to see what consensus could be reached there.

Please note that since there are a lot of agitated or angry atheists on this site, I do expect the usual trolling behavior, designed of course to distract from the subject matter. Since religious topics seem to be quite emotional for folks (particularly, in this instance, some atheists) usually those kinds of posts reflect more on the poster's lack of respect and understanding about the subject matter itself. Just so you know, I'm a Christian Existentialist.

With that, I'll make the case that Einstein was an agnostic, but had a deep appreciation about the wonders of the universe, and also had an aversion toward Atheist philosophy and their believe or value systems. Also, I will offer a brief commentary on his thoughts about determinism and Kant's philosophy further down the list... . Feel free to offer your interpretation or argue against mine, and resist the temptation of emotionally charged responses, as it is unlikely I will dignify those with a response :razz:

Here is the first quote with my interpretation below it (the other quotes you can provide your interpretation):

“The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the "opium of the masses"—cannot hear the music of the spheres.”

As you may know, that was a metaphor from Einstein's appreciation of the harmony found in the universe. Much like those who believe abstract mathematics (a metaphysical language) has an independent existence of it's own, Einstein believed that music also had an independent existence that was discovered from time to time buy those who were seeking its truth.

Since music may be considered a universally understood, subjective-truth, it also seems sadly apparent that the fanatical atheist might consider that so-called harmony in the universe as sonic dissonance.

The Music of the Spheres incorporates the metaphysical principle that mathematical relationships express qualities or "tones" of energy which manifest in numbers, visual angles, shapes and sounds – all connected within a pattern of proportion. Pythagoras first identified that the pitch of a musical note is in inverse proportion to the length of the string that produces it, and that intervals between harmonious sound frequencies form simple numerical ratios.[1] In a theory known as the Harmony of the Spheres, Pythagoras proposed that the Sun, Moon and planets all emit their own unique hum based on their orbital revolution,[2] and that the quality of life on Earth reflects the tenor of celestial sounds which are physically imperceptible to the human ear.[3] Subsequently, Plato described astronomy and music as "twinned" studies of sensual recognition: astronomy for the eyes, music for the ears, and both requiring knowledge of numerical proportions.[4]

Other quotes from Einstein:

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.

.. . I came—though the child of entirely irreligious (Jewish) parents—to a deep religiousness, which, however, reached an abrupt end at the age of twelve. Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true. The consequence was a positively fanatic orgy of freethinking coupled with the impression that youth is intentionally being deceived by the state through lies; it was a crushing impression. Mistrust of every kind of authority grew out of this experience, a skeptical attitude toward the convictions that were alive in any specific social environment—an attitude that has never again left me, even though, later on, it has been tempered by a better insight into the causal connections.

Your question is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza’s Pantheism. I admire even more his contributions to modern thought. Spinoza is the greatest of modern philosophers, because he is the first philosopher who deals with the soul and the body as one, not as two separate things.

A person who is religiously enlightened appears to me to be one who has, to the best of his ability, liberated himself from the fetters of his selfish desires and is preoccupied with thoughts, feelings and aspirations to which he clings because of their super-personal value. It seems to me that what is important is the force of this superpersonal content … regardless of whether any attempt is made to unite this content with a Divine Being, for otherwise it would not be possible to count Buddha and Spinoza as religious personalities. Accordingly a religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance of those super-personal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation … In this sense religion is the age-old endeavor of mankind to become clearly and completely conscious of these values and goals and constantly to strengthen and extend their effect. If one conceives of religion and science according to these definitions then a conflict between them appears impossible. For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be…

Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the actions of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a supernatural being. However, it must be admitted that our actual knowledge of these laws is only imperfect and fragmentary, so that, actually, the belief in the existence of basic all-embracing laws in nature also rests on a sort of faith. All the same this faith has been largely justified so far by the success of scientific research. But, on the other hand, everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe—a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.”

You believe in a God who plays dice, and I in complete law and order in a world which objectively exists, and which I in a wildly speculative way, am trying to capture. I firmly believe, but I hope that someone will discover a more realistic way, or rather a more tangible basis than it has been my lot to find. Even the great initial success of the quantum theory does not make me believe in the fundamental dice game, although I am well aware that some of our younger colleagues interpret this as a consequence of senility.

My interpretation of that relates to free will. A quick reaction is I think Einstein thought QM and randomness in the universe somehow was in some way irrational. I would submit, that there is both chance and choice relative to the human condition that mirror this physical phenomena of QM. I also believe, much like Wheeler, that it's PAP, and that the questions we pose to the universe (synthetic propositions), dictate the answers we receive. I also liken QM to Maslonian/William James' stream of consciousness phenomena where random thoughts just 'pop-up' while say one is driving their car. One can also, easily analogize that phenomena to novel/random discoveries found in mathematics and music.

Hume saw that concepts which we must regard as essential, such as, for example, causal connection, cannot be gained from material given to us by the senses. This insight led him to a sceptical attitude as concerns knowledge of any kind. Man has an intense desire for assured knowledge. That is why Hume’s clear message seems crushing: the sensory raw material, the only source of our knowledge, through habit may lead us to belief and expectation but not to the knowledge and still less to the understanding of lawful relations. Then Kant took the stage with an idea which, though certainly untenable in the form in which he put it, signified a step towards the solution of Hume’s dilemma: if we have definitely assured knowledge, it must be grounded in reason itself.

I believe Kant felt that there was something beyond things-in-themselves through a concept know as transcendental idealism and noumena. As such, the metaphysical (synthetic a priori) sense of wonderment innate to the human condition which posits all events must have a cause, remains quite a mystery as to why humans need to ask those questions to begin with. Much like the understanding of mathematics and musical genius, wonderment itself confers no Darwinian survival advantages, when emergent instinct is all that's needed. The irony is, in this case, all judgements and propositions in theoretical physics start with synthetic propositions.

Einstein's quick view on Existential thought (there are others):

Schopenhauer’s words as “a continual consolation in the face of life’s hardships, my own and others’, and an unfailing wellspring of tolerance.”.... “He often sat with one of the well-worn Schopenhauer volumes, and as he sat there, he seemed so pleased, as if he were engaged with a serene and cheerful work.”

Another SK irony to this thread relates to emotion itself. The atheist, who is agitated or angry and defensive by the cosmic religious feeling, is the same atheist who seemingly denies (or upholds) such intrinsic or universally virtuous human belief and value systems that initially caused their anger to begin with. Is that a kind of repression or denial of their own sentience, I wonder? Are they angry and resentful about something? Is there any hope? Einstein thought that if it wasn't for sentient existence, religion or God itself would not be conceivable (of course neither would many other intellectual concepts and ideologies produced by conscious existence/self-aware human beings...).

Jack Cummins

↪3017amen

I have read your post and find it interesting. I think that I may have seen some of the quotes, but certainly not all of them I would imagine that Einstein was rather ambiguous in belief although I have not read enough on him as a person to know completely. Hopefully, some people on this site will have read more, although when the person cannot be asked directly it is hard to know for sure, depending on the reliability of the sources.

But, when you say that you think that he was probably an agnostic, you might be right, but even then that is trying to categorize him. I come from the position of being neither a clear believer or an atheist, but I don't see myself as having a fixed position. I am sure that even when I write on this forum, at times, what I am saying sounds almost like atheism and other times like I am a believer in God. However, I think that it is because there is so much to think and wonder about. I hear the harmonies of the spheres in the music which I listen to, even though it is fairly alternative rock.

I am just so surprised that some people can come to definitive conclusions. I think that was the main reason why I started my current thread about religion. I think that it such a fascinating area, although at times I get stressed over my lack of certainty. However, I hope that others will be able to offer further clarity on Einstein's views, or interpretation of them, but I just think that it is best not to try to put Einstein in a box.

Ciceronianus

The atheist, who is agitated or angry and defensive by the cosmic religious feeling, is the same atheist who seemingly denies (or upholds) such intrinsic or universally virtuous human belief and value systems that initially caused their anger to begin with. Is that a kind of repression or denial of their own sentience, I wonder? Are they angry and resentful about something? Is there any hope? — 3017amen

One of the most famous statements made by Einstein on this topic is this: “I believe in Spinoza’s god, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a god who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.”

Spinoza's God, and presumably Einstein's, is vastly different from the God worshipped in traditional religion, especially Western religion. It's the God of traditional religions that I think draws the ire of most atheists. I haven't seen or heard of atheists angrily denouncing Spinoza's God.

I'm not sure what you think are the "intrinsic or universally virtuous human believe and value systems" that initially caused the anger of atheists, but if by that you mean what are called "Judeo-Christian" ethics or values, I think that to the extent they're not dependent on acceptance of a personal god of the kind Einstein rejected, they're largely derivative of ethics and values which appear in the works of ancient philosophers who likewise didn't believe in a personal god or God of the kind worshipped in traditional religions, if they believed in any deity at all.

EricH

"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. … "

"And the traditional religions worry me. Their long history proves that they have not understood the meaning of the commandment: Thou shalt not kill. If we want to save this world from unimaginable destruction we should concentrate not on the faraway God, but on the heart of the individual."

As you correctly stated

. . .his religious views for which he had many . . . — 3017amen

Einstein made many statements in the course of his life about the word "God" and he did contradict himself.

I don't have the time or energy to engage in an extended conversation, so I will just point out that any discussion of Einstein's religious views has to start with - or at a minimum acknowledge - his complete and total rejection of all organized religions and any notion of a personal god.

https://libquotes.com/albert-einstein/quotes/god

Apollodorus

A person who is religiously enlightened appears to me to be one who has, to the best of his ability, liberated himself from the fetters of his selfish desires and is preoccupied with thoughts, feelings and aspirations to which he clings because of their super-personal value [...] For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be… — 3017amen

I think this sounds very much like some of the points I was making on the other thread. The atheist can't know that there is no God. He can only think or believe so. This would seem to make atheists more agnostics than strict atheists. Many an atheist may say "I don't believe in God" and count themselves "atheists" but if you press them they are likely to admit that they can't be certain that there is no God.

And, yes, accepting the existence or at least possibility of realities endowed with super-personal value, does seem to act like an antidote to selfishness. Religious teachings do tend to come with a code of moral conduct that serves to put a check on selfishness.

Are they angry and resentful about something? — 3017amen

Good question. Maybe they are. I doubt they would be angry and resentful about nothing rather than about something.

Spinoza is an interesting case. He was seen by many as an atheist and was later embraced as a "prophet" by Marxists and other socialists.

180 Proof

I'll make the case that Einstein was an agnostic — 3017amen

Good luck with that "case". :sweat:

I point out here https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/542042 why Einstein is not an agnostic. Also, in his own words below:

Albert Einstein, d. 1955

[ i ] "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."

He's an acosmist (colloquially a "pantheist") because "the harmony of all that exists" - his, like Spinoza's, conception of divinity - corresponds to the fundamental laws of nature, and not "agnostic" about any (e.g. JCI) theistic g/G.

[ ii ] "I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls. Enough for me the mystery of the eternity of life, and the inkling of the marvellous structure of reality, together with the single-hearted endeavour to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the reason that manifests itself in nature."

He rejects (a) JCI theistic deity: (weak) atheist.

[ iii ] "You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist ..."

He implicitly equivocates "agnostic" with weak atheist.

[ iv ] "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."

Weak atheist.

[ v ] "About God, I cannot accept any concept based on the authority of the Church. [...] As long as I can remember, I have resented mass indoctrination. I do not believe in the fear of life, in the fear of death, in blind faith. I cannot prove to you that there is no personal God, but if I were to speak of him, I would be a liar. I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil. My God created laws that take care of that. His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking but by immutable laws."

Weak atheist. Like Spinoza, an acosmist; and therefore not "agnostic" about any (e.g. JCI) g/G.

i. cable to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein (1929)
ii. The World As I See It (1935)
iii. letter to Guy Raner, Jr. (1949)
iii. archives (1954)
v. William Miller, Life Magazine (1954) — 180 Proof

TheMadFool

Alas, adding to our woes, Einstein didn't exercise the same logical rigor he did in physics and math when it came to religion. The world, especially his fellow scientists, would've never forgiven loose terminology in science but insofar as god is concerned, we let a lot of imprecise language slide.

tim wood

What ever else 3017 has to say, it is clear he does not understand Einstein or even really know who he was or was about. And it is clear 3017 has other agendas about how he supposes other people he inaccurately calls atheists think and feel and why they think and feel as they do. Also, his grasp of English is deficient: he appears to think Einstein's reference to "fanatical atheists" includes all atheists - a straight out category error; nor does he grasp what an atheist is, although told repeatedly.

The world's verdict is in, nor need we study it nor second-guess it. Einstein's thought is worth attending to. But first it has to be read accurately.

In any case, TPF history is clear that 3017 will have himself little or nothing worthwhile to say about it, though we all may be grateful for his effort in providing quotations for our consideration.

I understand Einstein, who knew more about the universe than most folks, to be observing, certainly in language that varied but that retained a consistent meaning, that the human ability to ask how exceeded human ability to ultimately answer how except in speculation, although he hoped for better; and that why was a question the answer(s) to which even remoter and less accessible. And because he knew this better than most, he reserved a measure of usually polite scorn and disdain for those who claimed to have such answers.

In this he was at the least minimally wise and certainly correct. That which is not known, is not known, and that which is unknowable, cannot be known. Persons with answers for sale for ready money notwithstanding, nor people with hidden agendas.

3017amen

One of the most famous statements made by Einstein on this topic is this: “I believe in Spinoza’s god, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a god who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.” — Ciceronianus the White

:up:

But, when you say that you think that he was probably an agnostic, you might be right, but even then that is trying to categorize him. — Jack Cummins

He definitely said he wasn't an Atheist, that we know. He was known to embrace pantheism. He of course talked about, and tried to describe his other observations, as you would say, in order to avoid having them fit into a box:

"A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man"-- Albert Einstein

I'm not sure what you think are the "intrinsic or universally virtuous human believe and value systems" — Ciceronianus the White

Well there is a lot to unpack there. I'll start by saying there is a inconsistency in how an Atheist might consider the impact of Christian philosophy and wisdom associated with not only human nature, but in their own sense of self or Being. Consider the simple rule of treating others as you would like to be treated. Regardless of the genesis of that trope, it was endorsed as a virtuous ideal for most humans to embrace or live by for ages. Hence, another mistake by the atheist who dichotomizes Christian wisdom; throws the baby out with the bathwater. Seems contradictory. Another sign of something else causing the anger and resentment.

Or, take the Atheist who claims everything is life is logical. Not so. Their own consciousness cannot be explained much less described using logic; it transcends logic. And so does the concept of God. Another contradiction in their thinking.

Human sentience. Einstein discusses that seemingly quite a bit. Well...let's save that one for now... :razz:

Ciceronianus

↪180 Proof

"Acosmist" is a word I didn't know. I like it. Thank you for using it.

Ciceronianus

Consider the simple rule of treating others as you would like to be treated. — 3017amen

That's hardly a peculiarly Christian rule.

3017amen

That's hardly a peculiarly Christian rule. — Ciceronianus the White

"Regardless of the genesis of that trope, it was endorsed as a virtuous ideal for most humans to embrace or live by for ages. Hence, another mistake by the atheist who dichotomizes Christian wisdom; throws the baby out with the bathwater. Seems contradictory. Another sign of something else causing the anger and resentment."

3017amen

A person who is religiously enlightened appears to me to be one who has, to the best of his ability, liberated himself from the fetters of his selfish desires and is preoccupied with thoughts, feelings and aspirations to which he clings because of their super-personal value [...] For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be… — 3017amen
I think this sounds very much like some of the points I was making on the other thread. The atheist can't know that there is no God. He can only think or believe so. This would seem to make atheists more agnostics than strict atheists. Many an atheist may say "I don't believe in God" and count themselves "atheists" but if you press them they are likely to admit that they can't be certain that there is no God. — Apollodorus

:up:

Indeed. Another interpretation of his quote is that a normal healthy (exclusive of extremism, fundamentalism, etc.) 'religiously enlightened' person, gets the benefits of philosophical Revelation. I've always said, in my discussion here most Atheists seem somewhat unsophisticated in their thinking. They seem stuck or as Einstein said 'chained' , by religious dogma and other obvious baby v. bathwater stuff :razz:

Did you find it interesting he used the term "super-personal value"?

tim wood

Hence, another mistake by the atheist who dichotomizes Christian wisdom; throws the baby out with the bathwater. Seems contradictory. Another sign of something else causing the anger and resentment." — 3017amen

307 incoherence alert.

tim wood

philosophical Revelation — 3017amen

There is philosophy, usually defined as organized thinking about a determinate subject matter. And revelation, which isn't. What, then, is philosophical revelation?

Ciceronianus

↪3017amen

Well, I guess I don't understand what your point is here. Christianity borrowed so much from the ancient pagan philosophers that it may be said to include some wisdom, though it is awkwardly wedded to a doctrine which is, shall we say, less than credible. Do you claim that atheists reject the Golden Rule because it came to be adopted by Christians? Or, perhaps, that the Golden Rule cannot be accepted without a belief in God?

Apollodorus

I've always said, in my discussion here most Atheists seem somewhat unsophisticated in their thinking. They seem stuck or as Einstein said 'chained' , — 3017amen

To be honest, I've nothing against atheists as such. People are free to believe or disbelieve whatever they wish unless it's something that society regards as criminal or evil. The problem is when atheism becomes a form of religion that seeks to impose its views on others, for example, as in communist countries like China.

The other thing is that the vast majority of people do believe in God or Gods and atheists are a minority in the world. I think this makes it legitimate to investigate the phenomenon of atheism in general and, especially, what motivates atheists to disbelieve and to adopt negative and aggressive attitudes or behaviors in their relations with believers.

3017amen

philosophical Revelation
— 3017amen

There is philosophy, usually defined as organized thinking about a determinate subject matter. And revelation, which isn't. What, then, is philosophical revelation? — tim wood

Thanks for the question. The phenomenon of Revelation can occur from a variety of sources and experiences. They range from the religious experience (William James, Jung, Maslow, etc..), ineffable experiences such as experiencing the phenomenon of music, to anything considered as a novel discovery relating to creativity (inventions, mathematical genius) and that whole cognitive process.

One thing that caught my eye is your supposition about philosophical subject matter. What is or what things are considered to be "determinate" subject matter?

Apollodorus

There is philosophy, usually defined as organized thinking about a determinate subject matter. And revelation, which isn't. What, then, is philosophical revelation? — tim wood

Maybe revelation explained or justified philosophically? Not all philosophies are atheistic. Originally, philosophy was motivated by religious beliefs.

3017amen

Christianity borrowed so much from the ancient pagan philosophers — Ciceronianus the White

People things about there was a lot of borrowing Westerly Greek philosophy too... .

Do you claim that atheists reject the Golden Rule because it came to be adopted by Christians? — Ciceronianus the White

No I'm not. However that's an interesting thought. I think there may be some connection, or as Einstein suggested, a "grudge" against religion which in turn somehow does not allow them to accept those virtuous things that are associated with Christian philosophy. Again they seem to throw the baby out with the bathwater. What do you think?

tim wood

Not all philosophies are atheistic. — Apollodorus

Really? Name one? Philosophy of won't do. After all, I could have a philosophy of the entutued hippopotami in my closet - but that is not on scrutiny a determinate subject matter. Now back to topic; can you do that?

praxis

I've always said, in my discussion here most Atheists seem somewhat unsophisticated in their thinking. They seem stuck or as Einstein said 'chained' , by religious dogma and other obvious baby v. bathwater stuff — 3017amen

Einstein claimed that fanatical atheists are unchained but still feeling the weight of the chains, like phantom limb syndrome or something, I suppose. Indeed nihilism might be thought of as a kind of religious phantom limb syndrome, where discomfort is experienced in the absence of the superpersonal.

I figure the ratio of baby to bathwater is about the same in both religious and secular life. Religion isn't about developing virtue, it's about binding a community with shared values, goals, narrative, etc.

tim wood

The other thing is that the vast majority of people do believe in God or Gods and atheists are a minority in the world. — Apollodorus

Maybe you should take a survey on just what, exactly, that "vast majority" who believe in g/God(s) actually believes about them. Who knows, you might not then be so sanguine about speaking for them, and atheists may be in a substantial plurality.

And keep in mind I am neither atheist nor agnostic. Whatever you care to say about some, usually I'll have no problem. But you have and are exhibiting an inability to distinguish between individuals/particulars, and the class that contains them, which is fatal to any sense in your writing.

3017amen

The problem is when atheism becomes a form of religion that seeks to impose its views on others, for example, as in communist countries like China. — Apollodorus

That's an excellent point. Generally speaking, exclusive of extremism and such, here in the states we are free to adopt and embrace Christian philosophy which in turn, arguably, helped make American society fluroush...in God we trust.

Of course there is a whole host of issues to unpack there as well, relative to violence against native Americans so on and so forth.

Again, to throw the baby out with the bathwater is alive and well in the Maslonian world of dichotomization :razz: That's part of the unsophisticated nature of the atheist mindset...

The other thing is that the vast majority of people do believe in God or Gods and atheists are a minority in the world. I think this makes it legitimate to investigate the phenomenon of atheism in general and, especially, what motivates atheists to disbelieve and to adopt negative and aggressive attitudes or behaviors in their relations with believers. — Apollodorus

Yep. Well said. I would venture to guess Einstein would get that. Of course we can't forget the obvious. The so-called sin of pride, exaggerated self worth; it seems Einstein was not clouded by that mindset. He was humbled by the cosmological feeling...

tim wood

People things about there was a lot of borrowing Westerly Greek philosophy too... . — 3017amen

Westerly? What is your first language? Do you mean from Sparta?

3017amen

Einstein claimed that fanatical atheists are unchained but still feeling the weight of the chains, like phantom limb syndrome or something, I suppose. Indeed nihilism might be thought of as a kind of religious phantom limb syndrome, where discomfort is experienced in the absence of the superpersonal. — praxis

Good point! What are your thoughts on nihilism, are there any good takeaways?

tim wood

The problem is when atheism becomes a form of religion that seeks to impose its views on others, for example, as in communist countries like China. — Apollodorus

I think you mean state religion, "state religion" being a noun substantive and not actually a religion. After all, atheism is not a religion. Are you a native English speaker?

praxis

↪3017amen

Everyone grows up eventually.

tim wood

we are free to adopt and embrace Christian philosophy which in turn, arguably, helped make American society fluroush...in God we trust. — 3017amen

An incoherent sentence. And "fluroush"?

Apollodorus

Maybe you should take a survey on just what, exactly, that "vast majority" who believe in g/God(s) actually believes about them. — tim wood

"According to the Pew Research Center's 2012 global study of 230 countries and territories, 16% of the world's population is not affiliated with a religion, while 84% are affiliated. Furthermore, the global study noted that many of the unaffiliated, which include atheists and agnostics, still have various religious beliefs and practices"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism

That was exactly the point I was making. 16% vs. 84% = minority. Does the truth upset you?

3017amen

Alas, adding to our woes, Einstein didn't exercise the same logical rigor he did in physics and math when it came to religion. The world, especially his fellow scientists, would've never forgiven loose terminology in science but insofar as god is concerned, we let a lot of imprecise language slide. — TheMadFool

TMF!

Thank you for your contribution as always. Examples that would help to elucidate that subject matter?

Einstein, Religion and Atheism

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions