That was exactly the point I was making. — Apollodorus

The other thing is that the vast majority of people do believe in God or Gods — Apollodorus

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. — Apollodorus

When you wish to make a point supported by a citation, it's both wise and polite to use at least some of the language of the citation. As it is, affiliation is not evidence of belief. I will concede that in many cases it is, but I still disqualify your claim as unsupported.

And "fluroush"? — tim wood

I quite like the sound of it, actually. I think it's called "freedom of expression", "using language creatively and artistically", etc. Potentially significant contribution to tired, old atheistic "philosophy" IMO.

Two assumptions to look out for:

• That Einstein had one view on god that remained unchanging throughout his life.
• That Einstein, doubtless an authority on matters physical, should be considered an authority on matters relating to god.

As it is, affiliation is not evidence of belief. I will concede that in many cases it is, but I still disqualify your claim as unsupported. — tim wood

If affiliation is not evidence of belief, then affiliation is not evidence of atheism either. Your claim stands unsupported.

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? — 3017amen

Sorry, I missed this. Let's try this: philosophy is about things that are, notwithstanding the effort of determining for the purpose of thinking just what the things that are, are. Philosophy of, on the other hand, is about things that are not. The philosophy aspect - that makes it a philosophy at all - lies in the quality of the thinking about the things that are not.

So, certainly a philosophy of theology; certainly a philosophy of religions. But the "of" makes a whole world of difference, the philosophy of taking its value, if it has any, from the quality of its thinking, not from the thought about.

Does philosophy include metaphysics, you think?

:up:

Amen. Lemma: he was likely at all times knowledgeable about what he meant.

And you forgot this bit:

"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

Your baseless claim stands (or rather, falls) refuted.

If affiliation is not evidence of belief, then affiliation is not evidence of atheism either. Your claim stands unsupported. — Apollodorus

Perhaps you did not notice: I made no claim.

If you cannot or will not grasp a distinction between belief in God and religious affiliation or belief, then the rest of your argument(s) are suspect. No doubt many do, but that is not the claim you're making.

Does philosophy include metaphysics, you think? — 3017amen

In what sense? Metaphysics is metaphysics. And what metaphysics is depends on whom you ask and when you ask it. Informally, sure. But informal won't do here, because equally, anyone can say - informally - it isn't.

Now, @3017amen, @Appollodurus, back on topic. If you can.

If you cannot or will not grasp a distinction between belief in God and religious affiliation or belief, then the rest of your argument(s) are suspect. No doubt many do, but that is not the claim you're making. — tim wood

You asked me to "take a survey". When I presented the Pew survey's findings you changed tack and inexplicably denied everything.

"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

Your baseless claim stands (or rather, falls) refuted.

That Einstein, doubtless an authority on matters physical should be considered an authority on matters relating to god. — Banno

Religious folk require validation by a higher authority, and who's smarter than frick'n Einstein.

"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

Pew says that "many of the unaffiliated atheists and agnostics still have various religious beliefs and practices".

The atheists seem determined to deny the facts at all costs. I wonder why this might be. Any suggestions?

You're not worth the time and effort. Those thinking you are can expend that time and effort and review the posts.

The atheists seem determined to deny the facts at all costs. I wonder why this might be. Any suggestions? — Apollodorus

Can't speak for atheists. Whom are you referring to? But a wannabe philosopher is right here in your face telling you you're nonsense.

Youre' not wirth the time and effort. Those thinking you are can expend that time and effort and review the posts. — tim wood

"Wirth"??? Are you sure English is your first language?

Caught and corrected. Point to you. Did you miss the apostrophe?

Einstein in a religious context reminds me of the time when some friends and I wanted to play volleyball; we had to divide ourselves into two teams. There was this guy who was an exceptionally good player [read Einstein] and both teams [read atheists & theists]wanted him on their side. Nothing more need be said.

The atheists seem determined to deny the facts at all costs. I wonder why this might be. Any suggestions? — Apollodorus

Great question! I have many thoughts on the subject matter relative to cognitive science. But first let me ask, do you happen to have William James' book, Varieties of Religious Experience?

If so, the chapter after the Sick Soul called The Divided Self, talks about Buddhist philosophy /discipline relative to purging anger and worry. Specifically, a story on page 201... .

Anyway more to come...

TMF!

Thank you for your contribution as always. Examples that would help to elucidate that subject matter? — 3017amen

Come to think of it, I take back what I said. In the beginning, I thought Einstein was guilty of loose terminology - misusing/abusing the word "god". However, this may not necessarily be the case as the apparent confusion with respect to Einstein's stand on god can be pinned down to misinterpretation of the word "god".

On many occasions, Einstejn seems to have made it clear that he was only interested in the Spinozist god (pantheism). It appears that theists who believe in the "other" god, the god who's all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing and who takes keen interest in the affairs of humans, intervening on occasion, have misconstrued this fact. Case closed!

Absolutely, agreed!!! :up:

Einstein in a religious context reminds me of the time when some friends and I wanted to play volleyball; we had to divide ourselves into two teams. There was this guy who was an exceptionally good player [read Einstein] and both teams [read atheists & theists]wanted him on their side. Nothing more need be said. — TheMadFool

I don't think anyone here is on team Spinoza.

A reliable source on the subject is Walter Isaacson's recent bio, Einstein: His Life and Universe, Chapter 17 'Einstein's God'.

A relevant Einstein quote:

A human being is a part of the whole, called by us "Universe", a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest — a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. The striving to free oneself from this delusion is the one issue of true religion. Not to nourish the delusion but to try to overcome it is the way to reach the attainable measure of peace of mind. — Letter of condolence sent to Robert J. Marcus of the World Jewish Congress, 12 February 1950

I think Einstein's notion of 'a personal God' is mistaken. I understand that images of 'the sky-father' have roots in an earlier age of mankind - actually the name 'Jupiter' is derived from the Indo-European root 'Sky Father', and I often think this is what a lot of people, believers and atheists both, have in mind when they speak of God. (Maybe remaining silent would be an option!) But such images are couched in terms which were meaningful to peasant farmers and herdsmen in pagan agrarian societies. They simply don't translate to modern post-industrial culture. But that is where interpretive skill is needed. The kind of 'personal God' who 'takes interest' in human affairs might not be what is meant by the name of God in the first place, notwithstanding that it is what a lot of believers understand by it.

But beyond religious imagery and symbolism and the rites of traditional religion, says Einstein:

Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible concatenations, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion. To that extent I am, in point of fact, religious.

I still reckon that ought to have been enough for Einstein to have not been the subject of the first chapter of Dawkins' book The God Delusion. If anyone joined the erstwhile Dawkins forum and made a statement like that, they'd be howled down in no uncertain terms, which is typical of the vast confusion swirling around this whole business.

the chapter after the Sick Soul called The Divided Self, talks about Buddhist philosophy /discipline relative to purging anger and worry. — 3017amen

I must concur.

"First, Admit You Are Angry

This may sound silly, but how many times have you met someone who clearly was angry, but who insisted he was not? For some reason, some people resist admitting to themselves that they are angry. This is not skillful. You can’t very well deal with something that you won’t admit is there.

Buddhism teaches mindfulness. Being mindful of ourselves is part of that. When an unpleasant emotion or thought arises, do not suppress it, run away from it, or deny it. Instead, observe it and fully acknowledge it. Being deeply honest with yourself about yourself is essential to Buddhism.

What Makes You Angry?

It’s important to understand that anger is very often (the Buddha might say always) created entirely by yourself. It didn’t come swooping out of the ether to infect you. "

https://www.learnreligions.com/anger-and-buddhism-449713

Maybe atheists would benefit from taking up Buddhism or some other religion, seeing that according to Pew many of them do covertly harbor religious and other beliefs. They certainly should seriously consider it. Nothing to lose in any case, aside maybe their unfounded pride.

Veneration for this force — Wayfarer

I knew it, he was a Jedi.

Team Spinoza here.

I stand corrected.