Einstein: Religion is "childish," "primitive"
A newly published letter reveals that Albert Einstein viewed religion and religious works as "childish," and "primitive works."
In the letter, dated January 3 1954, he wrote: "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.Link (Thanks, Modeling Promotions Girl!)"No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this..."
"For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people."
yeah, that's about it
I remember finding a R. Buckminster Fuller book in my mum's basement as a kid that focused on Einstein's philosophy. Really very formative for me.
This is an essay from my lengthy 'to read on the internet' list: http://www.pantaneto.co.uk/issue17/weinert
As I say, I haven't read it yet, but it's again, about Einstein as philosopher.
Funny thing about religion: I am crazy enough to compensate when I get all radical atheist. For instance a few weeks ago, I had an argument with a friend who made her fiancée convert to Judaism. I didn't see the point, since neither of them actually believed in it. But very soon after I stopped eating shell fish. All of a sudden shell fish were repugnant to me.
I don't know. I'm the sort of person who, while not at all religious, will under no set of circumstances step on a crack in the pavement. I literally don't want to think about what would happen if I did.
just goes to show you... people call him one of the smartest folks ever for a reason!
Being one of those obnoxious card-carrying evangelical atheists, I rarely miss an opportunity to bash religions and their practitioners on an ecumenical basis. But I don't see how pointing to a quote by Einstein and going "Nyah, told ya so" accomplishes much of anything.
People seem to think of Einstein as some sort of domesticated demigod, expert in everything from physics to philosophy to plumbing to psoriasis cures. Einstein in turn seems to have been only too happy to oblige, offering weighty, eloquent opinions on all sorts of random stuff, about which he was no more qualified to comment upon than the guy who sold him his bicycle was.
Apparently, if ol' Albert says there's no invisible sky wizard, that seems to be good enough for a lot of people.
It shouldn't be, though.
Man 14,
Hear, hear. I'm not going to use a quote from Einstein and expect people to use that as a basis for belief any more than I would listen if somebody quoted the Bible.
Nevertheless, ethos has a hand in our society. When a respectable person thinks a certain way, people often use that as an excuse to absorb those beliefs (pop culture, anyone?) or vindicate their own through them.
Nevertheless, Einstein was a pretty rad guy.
#4 - I can agree with you there. However, I often see the reverse happening, where religious folks will throw out some Einstein quote ("God does not play dice with the universe") to justify their arguments, not realizing Einstein's intent behind it or that he often used the word god in the deist sense rather than the theist sense. Having a nice quote like this to shut them up is handy.
Sepptb 6,
Or his mention of Buddhism as the religion of the future. I think people who throw out quotes like that should be dismissed in a debate, and not even replied to (but as my comment history will show, I don't always do that unfortunately.)
@ #4 posted by Man On Pink Corner
Poo poo it all you want, but I think that someone who many (if not most) consider to be the word's most quintessential, household-name, smart guy saying religion is bullshit carries some significance in this world.
But... then again, he might have responded....
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." - Einstein
Who knows...
#8 Poo poo it all you want, but I think that someone who many (if not most) consider to be the word's most quintessential, household-name, smart guy saying religion is bullshit carries some significance in this world.
OK, so that's Einstein's take on it. What happens when the next Newton or Da Vinci comes along, and he happens to be a Scientologist? Oops.
Oh my. Einstein is NOT as smart as I thought.
Oh hey, if you want a reason to stop eating shellfish, just start paying attention to the crap we've been dumping in the oceans.
haha. i love how the very language that gets disemvoweled on this site by moderators is also posted as content by admins.
Yes, Einstein was wise in all respects. Not.
http://www.csicop.org/si/2007-03/einstein.html
Stalin. Einstein. It was a mustache solidarity thing.
"It appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against Christianity & theism produce hardly any effect on the public; & freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men’s minds which follow[s] from the advance of science. It has, therefore, been always my object to avoid writing on religion, & I have confined myself to science." -- Charles Darwin
I think the point is that Einstein is said to be a theist based on some quotes which use the word 'God'. What this letter suggests is that the evidence does not support this claim.
Some of you are suggesting that Einstein said that p so p must be true is a bad argument. This is false. The argument from authority is a pretty decent one: If X says that-p and X is on expert on p, then one has good reasons for believing what the experts say. It does not imply that the expert is infallible or that we shouldn't investigate for ourselves or ask the expert questions. And, of course, it only works if the person is an expert!
So is Einstein an expert on God? He clearly thought about it and was obviously a bright person so I think there is a case to be made that he is better than the average bear. This should lend his claims some authority.
Proof of an "...in"-named cabal.
God does not play dice with the Universe. Because there is no God.
@ #9 posted by Man On Pink Corner
Ok... yeah, boy will I be sorry then... LOL
Are you going to hold your breathe on that one? Name one brilliant scientist who's a Scientologist? Sorry, sweathogs don't count. LOL
I've always been curious about Einstein's view on religion. I always thought he was a active Jew, but now I know better.
I've never been able to reconcile how any scientist worth a damn could possibly see religion as anything more than superstitious bunkum. I guess it served a purpose in its day, but no longer. Over and over again, science has proven many of the 'facts' in religion are false, yet so many people cling to their beliefs as if they are proven facts.
Lenin had one thing right: "Religion is opium for the people. Religion is a sort of spiritual booze..."
Jim Dandy,
I doubt you could point to any information on the USSR printed in the US up to the point of Einstein's death that wasn't a blatant work of propaganda. The standard tends to say its ok to be a member of the communist party [I don't think Einstein was] up until 1956 and the Hungarian uprising. To be a member of the Communist party after that was to be hopelessly naive, at best. To be a member after 1968 was simply to be hopeless. Of course, Einstein died in 1955, before very much was clear about Stalin and his activities.
Bear in mind that after WWII in the US, supporting the Soviet Union was about the least popular cause imaginable. There is a reason why the McCarthy business is usually called a witch hunt. It speaks to Einstein's intelligence that he did not bow to public hysteria or provide ammunition to a few opportunistic politicians and the businessmen behind them. The Soviet Union was crap, the US is crap, Western Europe is crap, the whole effin world is pretty crap on a political level, if you look at it. The difference was, Einstein could be excused at that place and time, for calling for reason instead of hysteria.
Einstein was also a Zionist, and one wonders what he would have said if he lived to see how that all worked out. From the start he was critical.
Over and over again, science has proven many of the 'facts' in religion are false
The fact that over and over science has proven many of the 'facts' in science to be false might have something to do with it. Science gets a better reception when it doesn't act like a religion by proclaiming the experimental result of the week to be universal law.
I don't think Einstein can be excused so easily Scott. Sydney Hook saw through Stalin much earlier in '32 and took the Left to task for their unthinking support and paper thin excuses.
And I'm in close agreement with you Antinous.
If you think the Atheist movement is better, stronger or more right because Einstein is in it, then you really don't know what it means to be an atheist.
The difference between religion and Atheism is that one is an excuse to practice "might makes right" while the other is a result of embracing one's individuality.
Because when I think "premiere religious authority," I think Einstein!
Specialists don't generally do well outside their specialty, at least not for the last few hundred years. I doubt this is making any stirs anywhere except the popular media.
But what did he think about steampunk?
The difference between religion and Atheism is that one is an excuse to practice "might makes right" while the other is a result of embracing one's individuality.
That's funny because the correlations are interchangeable depending on your perspective.
To Dacker (#18):
In my opinion, many scientists are active believers because they
can put science and religion into their own compartments. Science addresses how the physical world works. Science tries to explore how far back we can go in understanding the chain of events that led to the world as we now see it. Science tries to apply what we know for our own ends, like building bridges, designing better microprocessors, curing diseases, and, sadly, sometimes killing people more effectively.
Religion, in its most noble form, tries to answer questions that science can't: Why is the world put together the way it is? What is the purpose of life? How can I live to fulfill that purpose?
As a self-proclaimed natural philospher, I can't fathom how other scientists fail to acknowledge and respect that aspect of religion. Even if a scientist subscribes to the most reductionist version of evolutionary psychology, they have to admit that religion has survived because the communities that employed it have been successful. Giving meaning to people must have made them work more effectively. With that in mind, it should not any easier for us to cast aside religion than it is to cast aside
love, kinship, or casual sex.
That said, I do not believe in god, but only partly because of "science". My train of thought runs like this:
The biggest question is, how can an entity that cares about individual humans design a world so full of suffering? What perverse entity would intentionally place beings with such a strong desire to live among all these parasites, cancer, and murderous clan wars? And why would some humans be spared the suffering of the rest of the world, and instead get to ride
around in fancy cars and post comments to boinboing from Mac laptops? Could this possibly have been designed with specific concern for my soul?
Following on that, one can ask, can this universe we live in tell us anything about whether or not there is a creator? I would say, no, not specifically, because one can never rule out miracles (although invoking them is useless for doing science). At the same time, the world looks to be guided by simple principles, which we currently understand as things like the standard model for particle physics, general relativity, the big bang theory, and evolution. To my reading of this, if there is a god, that entity must have just set things into motion with a wave of a mathematical wand, and probably doesn't bother itself with the
moral consequences.
If such a god exists, I see no reason to care. I hope that someday
everyone can move beyond looking to a diety for guidance. We should use what we have available to us in this physical world to make things better for everyone.
Man, I shouldn't read boingboing when I'm supposed to be getting sleep. , ,
Religion is opium for the people.
Doesn't that seem a funny metaphor when science is literally Prozac for the people? Whether via CCTV, biometric IDs or mind-numbing drugs, science has a potential for social control that even a medieval Pope would have envied.
Tomorrow.
I distrust part quotations from things, and have been unable to find the whole letter. When someone makes a partial quote and uses it to drum up publicity for a sale, it makes me want to see what they have cut out and why. The article in the Guardian gives more of the text than the original link, but still has a tantalising ellipsis immediately before the quotation about God.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/13/peopleinscience.religion?gusrc=rss&feed=worldnews
Notwithstanding the incompleteness of the quotations, it seems to me that Einstein had already explained himself fairly clearly in this area: "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. (Albert Einstein, 1954)" and
"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. (Albert Einstein)"
It seems to me that this shows like many people, he did not believe in an old man with lengthy beard and obsessive interest in human actions, but had a revererence for a possible creative force in the universe which *some* people would call God. You cannot extrapolate an absence of belief in something greater than oneself, and indeed, many other quotations indicate that he did think in that way about it.
What seems clear is that he tolerated other people's right to have their own beliefs, while maintaining his right to believe in his own way, which is a position which most people can admire, whether theist, deist, athiest or other.
#23 posted by Roach , May 13, 2008 11:02 PM
So, who is the "premiere religious authority" anyway? The pope? LL Wht dd h stdy? Th Bbl drng hs Nz Yth clsss? Yh, tht sht sn't bsd t ll... LL
I love how people are now coming out and saying Einstein wasn't worthy of using his incredibly advanced mind on anything but the theory of relativity all of the sudden. I bet many of these rocket scientists used to love quoting Einstein when it seemed to promote their own bullshit beliefs... but now? He's a fool when it comes to religion !! Har! Har!!
Lk, fc t... th gy wh t th vrwhlmng mjrty f s hmns thnk s prtty mch n f th smrtst gys t vr hv lvd thnks rlgn s BLLSHT.
Y my nt lk ths fct, bt t dsn't chng t frm bng s n mttr hw mch y btch nd cmpln bt t. LL
You said it ! Bob
Only meditation and Mantras are powerful anyway...
If religious was really opium, I might have a go on it
@ #13 POSTED BY JIM DANDY:
You might want to do some research of the era before passing judgment on anyone who was sympathetic towards socialism and the Soviet Union. Far more repressed and underclass folks in Eastern Europe saw true hope in the Soviet Union. Any why not? It was relatively new and better than what most people were living with. And it gave hope to many who saw the mess in post-World War I europe.
But it was only when stories of what happened behind the Iron Curtain started to come out did people question their behavior, but not necessarily the underlying ideology. People still held hope.
During World War II only Nazi Germany could distract anyone from the mess in the Soviet Union. Sure if you ran way from your Eastern European enclave to the relative safety of the U.S.S.R. you might go into forced labor camps. But it was better than gas ovens or brutal death in war ravaged Europe.
You need to factor another issue with Einstein. He was a genius and he was legend in his time. He might have been playing politics to avoid choosing clear sides on the world stage. And even avoid being a target to anyone who thought he was too polarizing.
Also, as a secular Jew I think most folks who are anti-religion might at least acknowledge there are cultural differences between groups formed around religion even if you yourself are not religious. If you were raised Catholic but are not agnostic or atheist, you were still raised in a profoundly different environment than a Jew, Muslim or a Buddhist. Ditto all the way around.
Einstein was very Jewish, but not religious. It's possible to balance that. Too bad we live in a polarized world where some can't see the difference between culture and religion.
My impression is that most people have fairly complex views on stuff like religion. If you asked me today what my thoughts on God were, they might be completely different from what they were last week or next week, especially depending on context.
So if we're talking about a private letter between Einstein and someone else, all we can really say conclusively is that he believed this at the moment when he said it. Science seeks to find consistencies - given a thousand experiments, a certain number of them will have a predictable result. As far as I know, human emotion isn't exactly the same, in that it is far less consistent. So it's fine if he said this once in a private correspondence to... who? But Fee's absolutely right that we need to look at context before declaring this particular quote to be Einstein's final word on religion.
I agree with Einstein on this.
But hey since science is not useful yet to undestrand what all this mean I decided to leave the religious people alone for this one.
Personal believe is a personal thing.
But hey religious people! do not interfer with what science can study and demonstrate such as the shape of the earth or evolution.
Yet don't believe those naive and simple minds of pseudoscientists who believe that human are like ants or in the supposed benefit of the supposed natural selection! Science tell us now that this is not the way evolution is working.
And no evolution do not necesserally negate creation. It is just because if there is a god is he/she is a lot smarter than you think.
Good points all---there's other stuff besides boring old "religion" or close-minded materialism.
Listen to the good ETs or the crystal skulls or the cutting-edge thinkers--- they'll tell you where we're heading---towards the realization that we can start co-creating consciously, rather than doing so unconsciously and pretending to be victims.
The abstract, eternal, unchanging, non-specific love that is the only "real" reality does even know about the transitory illusion that we inhabit--its just a momentary dream that's already over---- in the mind of his one sleeping child. He knows the child is having a nightmare but can't see the specifics of such an unreality---he just whispers so that the child will very gently wake-up to realize that it was all just a dream.
Einstein was fanatically Jewish, but didn't see this identity as necessarily religious. There are millions of secular Jews.
I don't think Einstein was FANATICALLY anything.
Aside from human.
There is no god.
What do you mean by "there is no god"
God can be a math logic, a energy, a conciousness, a vibration, a light, a link...
If you expect a guy ?!!!
And who knows ?
When you will die , you will know
or not ?
#35: The burden of Proof rests upon he who asserts.
What do you mean "There is a God?"
Prove it.
And none of the things you mentioned is "God".
I don't say there is a god...
But the first question would be " what is god ?"
So How can you say that none of the thing I mentionned is god ?
Prove it.
For Pascal, the prove that god exists is that you are free to believe in him or not
I tend to agree that Einstein fulfilled a need for heroes in America during WW2, in opposition to the disturbingly powerful personality of Hitler and perhaps other personalities and social forces. The opinions which Einstein offered on many topics of then-current interest, though sometimes cleverly expressed, often seem to me as well to have been trite in hindsight.
One particular conversation between Einstein and Niels Bohr is quite revealing in any case as to their respective philosophical positions concerning the nature of the scientific search for truth. It seemed to me when I read that conversation (which admittedly was some time ago) that Einstein was something of a transitional figure between two major strains of thought. The first is the Cartesian or German Enlightenment reliance on axiomatic systems as the basis of truth--as also exemplified by David Hilbert insofar as Hilbert wanted to reduce quantum mechanics to formal mathematics and mathematics to formal logic. The other is modern mathematical physics with its abstract formal theories in search of supporting experimental data. Einstein seems not to have read Nietzsche or Kierkegaard and so he missed the development of existential thought in the late 19th century as embodied in those two philopher's works. In this vein he directly and indirectly supports the view that truth can be learned through pure intellectual effort--and he is in this respect close to the religious notion that truth can be learned through divine revelation, which is a rather deep-seated feeling that I believe still underlies much scientific thinking even today and especially the scientific method itself.
Niels Bohr on the other hand sounds completely modern, defending the idea that we should be willing to overturn our assumptions as new information comes along. He puts it even more strongly: we should not begin with any assumptions whatsoever.
While I agree with Einstein here, I do find it amusing that he would indeed get disemvowelled if he dared post such sentiments in the comments section.
I don't fully agree with Einstein's opinion about religion because my opinion is actually a lot more "hardcore".
Short version: I think religion should be forbidden.
"posted in: Science"
What does this have to do with science? The fact that Einstein was a scientist? Come on.
"God is a concept by which we measure our pain." -- John Lennon
Is there any modern, physicist that is a leader in the field that is religious?
@ #40
Be careful to how the pendulum swings, Brunomiguel, do you really want to make large groups of irrational people angry and suppressed?
As unfortunate as it is, humanity will always have tinges of superstition and irrational fears to contend with, and thus, there'll always be some form of religion for those who need it.
Ah religion. I often wonder when the rest of the world is going to grow up and join the adults at the big kid's table. This belief in invisible father/mother figures is...well...strange to me. But that isn't what bothers me. People can believe whatever they choose to.
What bothers me is people using these superstitious beliefs as an excuse for war and bigotry. Such people are, to me, insane, having allowed some nonsensical bit of voodoo to so shade their opinion of the world that it is okay to go out and kill people because .
You don't see a lot of people reading books on physics using those tomes to justify mass slaughter of people who don't agree with them. That remains the claim of religion.
Religion doesn't start ALL wars, but it sure has started a LOT of wars and caused a great deal of suffering.
As for the religious people out there who are good, charitable people? You don't need to "have religion" to be a good person.
So Einstein didn't believe in religion. That isn't likely going to change the mind of any religious person. It just means that the more rational minded of us don't have to keep having an Einstein quote thrown in our face as "proof" taht even science bows to religion.
It's not like Einstein was ever wrong about anything...even in his own field:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_Einstein_debate
I would consider myself to be a reasoning human being who also is religious. Many of my peers share this same idea that religion and science are mutually exclusive. Part of my belief lies in the fact that I don't believe in chance. Luck and coincidence mean nothing to me except as place holders to describe particularly good or bad events. I look in wonder at some of the mathematical flow of the universe and cant help but think that such things did not simply happen.
I don't expect everyone to think as I do or even to agree with me but people like #40 who wish to create crimethink makes me raise my eyebrow a bit.
Man On Pink Corner What happens when the next Newton or Da Vinci comes along, and he happens to be a Scientologist? Oops.
That will not happen. Just like a flower can not grow in the vacuum of space. A genius can not grow in the thought vacuum of a cult.
Now that we've established the inherent silliness of religion, Mr. Einstein, let's talk about your hair!
"My haircut is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness -- a collection of honourable, but still primitive styles which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this...
"For me the oversized mustache, like all others, is an incarnation of the most childish facial hair. And the cookie-duster wearers, people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity, have no different quality for me than all other people."
What bothers me is people using these superstitious beliefs as an excuse for war and bigotry
If they didn't have religion, it would just be something else.
I can't not be a spiritual person. It would be lying to myself at the most fundamental level. So I can rally against a theocratic system as utter insanity, and support science in all of its goals, and believe in evolution - and yes, I can still believe in a God.
It's not an either/or, science or faith, and the concerted polarization of the issue from both sides is frankly disturbing.
There's a strong focus on Einstein's characterization of religion as 'primitive', 'childish' and superstitious. Two points about this.
First, Einstein is very careful to establish himself as being associated with religion, despite his characterizations of it. There's something positive about religion that counteracts these negative characteristics. Not so much that he would proclaim himself a practitioner of religion but enough that he would proclaim himself a member of a community of religious practitioners. Let's not read this quote and conclude that Einstein is rabidly anti-religious.
Second, these three characterizations have negative connotations but their definitions are value neutral. If a religious person had characterized religion as childish, primitive and superstitious it could be considered a positive statement. These characterizations would speak to the fundamental nature of religion. They would reinforce the idea that all of reality, including science and logic, spring from the reality of religion.
Clearly, Einstein wasn't trying to promote religion in any meaningful way. But, using some entry level interperative acrobatics, his comments could be seen as a sly support of religion.
"OK, so that's Einstein's take on it. What happens when the next Newton or Da Vinci comes along, and he happens to be a Scientologist? Oops."
(facepalm)
Only trolls are this obtuse on purpose.
Einstein was a fool.
For all his intellectual achievements, he did not know how to read Hebrew, the language of Torah and the blueprint for the universe. He therefore was unable to analyze the Torah's revealed or mystical traditions and know what the Jews have known for the past 4,000 years.
Those of you who dismiss the divinity of Torah, you probably are and have been influenced by the secular media, government, and corporate state who continue to dominate your lives. Or perhaps you've glanced at English translations--trly chldsh nd th prdct f fls s wll--which are circulated by the Christian hierarchy worldwide. Most likely you've come to the same conclusions s yr gdlss kprs r y'v gvn p tryng t ndrstnd. Instead, you search for meaning and understanding in every silly thing, and you suffer.
Meanwhile, the world continues to founder, and the Jews know.
Interesting that this particular letter was "locked up" in a private collection for so long. I am not suggesting a conspiracy to silence Einstein's opinion on religion, but it is curious, isn't it?
Perhaps Einstein's family and friends wanted to keep this "inflammatory" statement quiet for a while. Who could blame them?
Religious people hate hearing things like this. It makes them feel bad, and that makes them feel persecuted, even when they hold the reigns of power and dominate the debate. Better to just shut up and leave the religious to their delusions.
Think I'm exaggerating? Read Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion to hear some of the wonderful sentiments that prominent American religious leaders had for Einstein's statements on religion while he was alive.
Science and religion are about different things. It makes as much sense for them to be in conflict as it does for art historians to argue about dentistry.
Um, Ploni (#50)…
In a round-a-bout way did you just call me (and many others) a fool too?
How divine, or is calling people fools part of some mystical tradition that I've missed out on over the last 4,000 years?
Meanwhile, the world continues to founder as unjustified stereotypes and name-calling ensues...
Religion doesn't start ALL wars, but it sure has started a LOT of wars and caused a great deal of suffering.
Scientific Atheism has done more than it's share. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, were all leaders of officially atheistic countries. Together they murdered many many millions of people. So that argument fails.
As I see it the real problem isn't science vs religion. The real problem is those who rise up in any society and seize power. It doesn't seem to matter what political system you have. These tyrants keep popping up regardless. So what do we do about the sociopaths among us? Representative democracy was supposed to weed them out but that has clearly failed.
Thanks Djinn. You got to that one first and more pithily than I might have, myself.
As I see it, Einstein simply took Judaism to its logical (and intended) extreme. Note that he still maintains his affinity for Judaism; he has simply let the God part naturally fall away, just as it does in Tanakh (which, if Ms. 50 has actually read, might actually begin to comprehend).
#52:
Did I just call you (and many others) a fool too?
Of course not.
But if you or anyone else tries to publicly insinuate that the Jewish people are "childish" or "weak" -- and if you have little or no knowledge how to read and analyze the Torah in its original Hebrew, I most certainly will.
Rushkoff:
I am fluent in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Yiddish. I have studied intensively all works of Torah, including the Tanach, Gemara, Halacha, and works of Chassidus and Kabbalah, in their original languages for the past 47 years.
gn, nly fl stts pblcly bt smthng h r sh knws nthng bt.
Lt's dbt, nd shw y yr wn flshnss.
@ #40
Pretty much my views too, shame it can't be done because of free speech issues though.
what i'd like to happen though (also same free speech issues probably), is to ban teaching religion to children.
I think it's disgusting that children get brainwashed into religions when too young to properly makes their minds up about things.
@#42
Hey, one can dream, right? :)
Let's debate, and I show you your own foolishness.
All your study has not prevented you from being a arrogant jerk. My guess is you missed a lesson somewhere along the line.
Where's the arrogance?
In modern-day America, the prevailing philosophy--inculcated through secular mass-education, corporatism, and the welfare state--is that God doesn't exist, those who can analyze Scripture in its original language are "extremists" and worthy of public ridicule, immorality of every kind is healthy and correct.
gn, rrgnc s pblcly cllng smn fl whn y dn't knw wht y'r tlkng bt.
From statistics I've seen, over 50% of Americans are religious. Fair enough, the Jewish fundamentalists are a separate crowd from the Christian ones, but I always find it interesting when religious people bring up corporatism. Even if the Christian fundamentalists weren't hand and hand with the 'free market' right, corporations do a pretty good job of disseminating religious morals. Whenever I've seen Hassidim or ultra orthodox on tv--there was an episode of house a few months back--they are always portrayed not as extremists, but as possessing some strange wisdom inaccessible to the rest of us. So balls to that argument.
I don't know. I know eff all Hebrew, and even I admit its a travesty I was ever Bar Mitzvahed. But I have a deep respect for the Jewish approach to religion. My attitude is its all rubbish, but Judaism is better rubbish, if that makes sense. You read something in Torah, you have faith that with study, it will make sense; other people examine Torah without the assumption that it is consistent or makes sense, try to understand its cultural context etc. and come to different conclusions. There really is no point of agreement on this.
So what do we do about the sociopaths among us?
Noen have you seen the data that there are two types of sociopathy - one genetic (1% of the population, equally male and female), one non-genetic (2-3% of the population, mostly male)? The current theory is that even if we managed to eliminate sociopathic genotypes, the niche would still be filled by folks without that genotype. There are ev-bio reasons for that, apparently.
I think the "what do we do about the sociopaths" is one of the most interesting questions there is, given the disproportionate amount of harm they cause. I think focusing on limiting the harm they cause, rather than "weeding them out," is the more realistic strategy. How do we do that? One author actually proposes reserving certain exciting, socially rewarding jobs for them so that they're less tempted to resort to criminal activity! I love this idea, though it seems unfair to the non-sociopaths in some ways.
Ploni, do you, perhaps, have a manifesto?
Sister Y,
Fair enough, I have my own interesting questions that I cant help but bait a hook with and see if anyone bites.
As I've mentioned elsewhere I'll be studying to qualify as a psychoanalyst in coming years, and one point I've observed is even the craziest person is capable of productive labour, if they're allowed to decide how to do it. I know several people who are slightly crazy--intermittent epilepsy, slight autism--who are perfectly intelligent, perfectly willing to work, but cant hold jobs because no entry level job will sufficiently accommodate them. In the UK they would probably qualify for disability, but in the US they're--I mean happily I suppose--wasting away. And on a similar note, the mind boggles at the creativity wasting away behind a McDonald's counter. I think the situation of the mentally unwell belies a systematic fault: society is not structured to allow for progress or creativity, it isn't capable of seeing beyond the horizon. Its a real shame, but the problem isn't limited to sociopaths.
It's been done. It didn't work. The governments that forbid religion also control your access to all information. Maybe you'd like to move to China. Since you won't be able to access BoingBoing there, we won't have to read your comments. Win/win.
Austin Mayor,
Please don't put your blog URL or a signature line in your posts. That goes on your profile page.
Newton, at least, was highly religious. Da Vinci, not so much. You might want to do a little research before you call someone a troll.
Ploni,
If you want to debate religion, let her rip. It's a very popular topic here, but keep it polite, please.
Well, that proves it then, Einstein was stupid.
--Snarky the Clown
(I was re-reading Bukowski's "Ham on Rye" recently, and he reminisced about hanging out in Pershing Square watching the "religionists and atheists" debate. Ahhhh, if only he were here now to read this [soon to top 500 post] thread).
ploni
If Jews had magic why didn't they make Hitler go away?
Einstein's views on religion are about as meaningful as the pope's views on science.
I'll pass.
I think the most meaningful comments on religion have been made by George Carlin. I think he sums it up pretty well.
Einstein is my god, I worship the man. If he said this I will accept it without question.
@Antinous
"Science gets a better reception when it doesn't act like a religion by proclaiming the experimental result of the week to be universal law"
I agree. Wow!
@endstar
"The biggest question is, how can an entity that cares about individual humans design a world so full of suffering?"
The suffering is because of mans sin not Gods design.
"What perverse entity would intentionally place beings with such a strong desire to live among all these parasites, cancer, and murderous clan wars? And why would some humans be spared the suffering of the rest of the world, and instead get to ride around in fancy cars and post comments to boinboing from Mac laptops? Could this possibly have been designed with specific concern for my soul?"
His design was for us not to sin. Since we have sinned He has placed you with access to more information that most people in history let alone in the world, use it.
It says in ACTS 17: 26-27 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, {When you would live} and the bounds of their habitation; {Where you would live} that they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
All of us are in the place where we would most likely believe.
As to the part where you say "To my reading of this, if there is a god, that entity must have just set things into motion with a wave of a mathematical wand, and probably doesn't bother itself with the moral consequences."
You are wrong. He is very concerned with the moral consequences. He gave us the 10 commandments to measure our morality against His standard, we all fall short. But He did not leave us without hope.
He is so concerned that the second part of the Trinity became a man, Jesus, and took the penalty we deserved for breaking His moral laws upon Himself. We need to realize we are sinners, people who have broken His laws, and trust Jesus to save us from our sins.
You don't die for something you are not concerned about.
_________________
Einstein, like everyone else at some point and time, rejected God because he loved his sin more than obeying God. He was a known adulterer.
"For Pascal, the prove that god exists is that you are free to believe in him or not"
You're free to believe (or not believe) in Santa Claus, too. Is that proof that Santa exists?
"The notion that religion is a proper field, in which one might claim expertise, is one that should not go unquestioned. That clergyman presumably would not have deferred to the expertise of a claimed 'fairyologist' on the exact shape and colour of fairy wings. Both he and the bishop thought that Einstein, being theologically untrained, had misunderstood the nature of God. On the contrary, Einstein understood very well exactly what he was denying."
-- Richard Dawkins
The Pascal thing strikes me as a bit Big Brother-y. You are free whether to believe in him or not, so BELIEVE IN HIM!!!!! BELIEVE!!!!!
He was a known adulterer.
Funnily enough, so were many of the most admired men of the Bible. Loads of popes. Televangelists by the basketload.
Having said that, please don't put extra line breaks in your posts.
I'm going to get flamed for this, but wasn't Abraham a "known adulterer"?
#12 Cpt. Tim
"haha. i love how the very language that gets disemvoweled on this site by moderators is also posted as content by admins.
#39 RoseThornn
"While I agree with Einstein here, I do find it amusing that he would indeed get disemvowelled if he dared post such sentiments in the comments section."
Where is this coming from? Why do you think people are disemvoweled here?
Watch me say the same things..
I believe religion is childish. I believe religion is superstitious. I believe religion is primitive.
Bask in my vowels.
__
#13Jim Dandy
"I am not blind to the serious weaknesses of the American system of government and I would not like to live under such government. But it has, on the other side, great merits and it is difficult to decide whether it would have been possible for the Americans to survive by following softer methods”
*Perspectivized* that for ya
__
#25 EndStar
To Dacker (#18):
"Religion, in its most noble form, tries to answer questions that science can't: Why is the world put together the way it is? What is the purpose of life? How can I live to fulfill that purpose?"
And what's the latest news off the wire? Have we settled on an answer yet? Or, in fact does religion not seek to answer these questions at all, except to keep raising them as questions that science can't answer.
I think those questions are accepted as the 'domain' of religion, but rarely get looked at, other than as lofty treatise to god.
Philosophy on the other hand.. (question with no answers, you say?)
__
#48 Lukkas
"If a religious person had characterized religion as childish, primitive and superstitious it could be considered a positive statement. These characterizations would speak to the fundamental nature of religion. They would reinforce the idea that all of reality, including science and logic, spring from the reality of religion.
Clearly, Einstein wasn't trying to promote religion in any meaningful way. But, using some entry level interperative acrobatics, his comments could be seen as a sly support of religion."
WTF? How much bending a statement to fit your personal view, do you think you can get away with, without actually breaking it.
How is religion being "childish, primitive and superstitious" a positive view for the religious? You would have to have such perfect pre-conditions for that statements to be positive thats it's just silly to suggest.
Chair: "Welcome to the first annual meeting of the American Primitive Society, co-chaired by the local Chapter of Baptists and Luck-a-lot RabbitsFoot makers. Attended by the ThinkYoung corporation.
Let me open the meeting by saying that religion is childish, primitive and superstitious!"
Crowd: "YAY!"
__
#53 Noen
"Scientific Atheism has done more than it's share. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, were all leaders of officially atheistic countries. Together they murdered many many millions of people. So that argument fails."
..I'm not sure that the killing was done in the name of scientific atheism, or to 'appease' science. The reverse is not true.
__
#60 Ploni
"Where's the arrogance?
Again, arrogance is publicly calling someone a fool when you don't know what you're talking about."
Ahem.. *cough* *cough*
"#50 POSTED BY PLONI , MAY 14, 2008 8:01 AM
Einstein was a fool.."
Right here Ploni?
The difference is who saw that they needed to repent.
We are all sinners. Some agree with God and repent. Some use God for gain. Some just deny he is there and do what they want.
What do you mean by extra line breaks?
Abraham slept with his servant at his wife's request. That is adultery. David did, Solomon did, many did.
Jesus took it farther and said God says if you eve look with lust that I count that as adultery. So we are all doomed by the law. That is why we need a Savior. None of us are good.
Sin doesn't exist, Evidence. No proof, or evidence, for it. Just like transcendent beings.
If I'm wrong, your religious Pride seems to qualify as sinnish, eh what?
Evi,
But if it's him who keeps chnaging the rules, surely we have evidence of violation of our original service agreement, and we can break the contract without penalty.
Einstein, like we all do, held stances or expressed different views on this and other issues at different ages.
So I'm not saying this is wrong or right, but that Man changes, we should be aware of it, or always feel we have betrayed ourselves.
@ugly
"Sin doesn't exist, No proof, or evidence, for it"
Do you like to be lied too? Stolen from or cheated on? We show the law is written on our hearts when we use it as our standard to judge how others treat us.
Rom 2:14 -15 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and [their] thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
I am not being prideful I am just saying what the Bible says to warn you. I am not good. I am a sinner. Never claimed otherwise.
@ARKIE
What rules keep changing? Holding the current law higher is that what you mean? He is being kind to us so that we don't deceive ourselves into thinking we can be good enough.
He examines the our thoughts and motives.
We are all without excuse. We have all violated the law. If we have only broken one we still have a broken covenant on our end not His.
Lots of people reached that conclusion without being a superbrain. And very smart people have also reached a different conclusion.
@evidence
I don't mind at all when someone has homosexual relations with me. I take it as a compliment, really, as long as I've consented beforehand. This kinda messes up your intuitivist argument for the Bible there.
Also, plenty of people know "in their hearts" that other races are inferior, other religions are evil, other sexualities a sin. "Knowing something in your heart" just means you really, really believe it. It doesn't make it true.