This interesting quote from Einstein has always intrigued me. I have always considered religious faith as something that is separate from scientific inquiry, but he correlates them as part of the quest for Truth. And, my experience over the years debating science, especially with militant atheists, confirms his point here. I generally avoid religious faith, when discussing scientific issues, but militant atheists ALWAYS bring it up. They constantly try to drive a wedge between religious faith & science, which they do not follow, themselves. Anyway, the more i ponder this quote, the more i tend to agree. Having some kind of clear belief system, & recognizing it as such, is a good foundation for scientific inquiry. Without that philosophical foundation, scientific inquiry blindly follows flawed assumptions. And without the empiricism of Facts & scientific methodology, the philosophical beliefs have no feet.. nothing to propel them.. they are lame. So it is a good quote, & worthy of consideration. I am reminded about John Locke, who was a fierce advocate of searching for Truth. “To love truth for truth's sake is the principal part of human perfection in this world, and the seed-plot of all other virtues.” ~John Locke Without this 'religious/philosophical' foundation, too much that is labelled 'science' is just agenda driven propaganda.. FAKE SCIENCE. There must be an underlying love for Truth, & a philosophical foundation of integrity & sincerity. Otherwise, as we see constantly in this world, science becomes an agenda.. a basis for manipulating people. It is what i have called, 'Fake Science'. It is not based on a 'holy curiosity of inquiry,' but indoctrination for some ideological agenda. Now, how i interpret 'religion' in Einstein's quote, is a clear recognition of one's philosophical opinion.. NOT a dogmatic insistence of Absolute Knowledge, that they cannot possibly have. And unfortunately, that is how the militant atheists present their beliefs.. they won't even call their opinions 'beliefs'. They dogmatically assert that they have Absolute Knowledge, & have no circumspection about the vast mysteries of the universe. Everything is neatly logged in a tidy package, bereft of mystery or the unknown. This blinds them to possibility, as Einstein is saying. It is NOT their atheism that is the problem, it is the lack of objectivity, & the lack of awe & wonder for the universe. They are without mystery, & are stuck in dogmatic assertions of false knowledge. They are blinded by their own dogmatism, & have lost the wonder of the 'religious' experience of mystery & the unknown.
"The most beautiful and deepest experience a man can have is the sense of the mysterious. It is the underlying principle of religion as well as all serious endeavour in art and science. He who never had this experience seems to me, if not dead, then at least blind. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is a something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious. To me it suffices to wonder at these secrets and to attempt humbly to grasp with my mind a mere image of the lofty structure of all that there is." ~Albert Einstein
It is incorrect. AE didn't claim "Almost every theory is eventually proven wrong" at all, he merely refereed to Newton's words "they [theories] may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions" which are a part of the true scientific method, and rather say that true scientific theories are never proven less proven wrong, they stay "true or nearly true" forever.
yep, one has to open the mind to the truth and sometimes a little Mary Jane while looking in the mirror wondering if you could see your reflection if going the speed of light is just the thing http://eazysmoke.com/marijuana-quotes.htm "The prestige of government has undoubtedly been lowered considerably by the prohibition law. For nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced. It is an open secret that the dangerous increase of crime in this country is closely connected with this." - Albert Einstein quote on Hemp"
Oh, I've done that. Here is one comment that says the whole concept of a designer is nonsensical. http://www.saintsandsceptics.org/who-designed-the-designer/ The proposed explanation simply presupposes what it was intended to explain. However, here is a link that might explain it since it comes from people who believe in a Creator/Designer. http://creation.com/if-god-created-the-universe-then-who-created-god Did I really need an internet search to tell me: Who created God? God has always existed. Perhaps you have a better explanation.
You have searched atheistic agitation sides. What do Xns say? Why they are wrong? I made the tip hot red for you. Do you want a link?
I quoted from a skeptic site and a religious site. Do you consider creation.com to be an "atheistic agitation side"? (What is an "atheistic agitation side"?) Here, again, is what they said... That is nothing new. That is the same nonsense I've heard over and over. So, I ask, again, do you have a better explanation? No links. Your own thoughts.
You didn't quote this. I would ask you why it is nonsense, but it has no relation to your question who created such God and to your argument I balded red. Do you want to look for answer or not, you are not interested in anything which may contradict the set of your religious beliefs? And why I cannot quote/ link somebody who answered your question perfectly before I was even born?
I'm always leery when a person critiques some group. In this thread it's "militant atheists" in another it's "Naziphobes" in another it's "liberals" or "trump supporters" etc. We take the worst qualities of some people in a group and sew them altogether to form a giant golem (strawman) that represents the entire group ignoring anything positive about them. Many atheists feel the awe and wonder of the universe of which Einstein also spoke. Einstein himself was a pantheist which means his beliefs were very much akin to an atheist's beliefs in that he saw a natural cause for things within our universe but also akin to a theists beliefs in that he thought of the universe itself as being god.... not a sentient being with the characteristics of a man but that the universe itself is god. Personally I would be more interested in a specific critique of statements made by an individual than a generalized critique of an amorphous group that may or may not exist. One could also argue that a sense of wonder or awe about the universe is just as likely to occur or not occur in religious people as it is among religious people. Some people are going to feel comfortable with the idea of the vastness of the universe and others are not. In both religious people and non-religious some are going to pretend they know all the answers and some are not. This is human nature and it's not unique to one group of people on the spectrum of philosophical debate. In other words, pretentious idiots are everywhere and they are not unique to one philosophy.
You entire post makes no sense. If English is not your first language, I will make allowances and try to figure out what you mean. If English is your first language, I won't waste my time.
English is not my first language, I am sorry to know that it is your first language as it seems to be quite limited and not inventive. I know my style is quite inventive, but what is unclear?
Here is what I actually wrote (post #290)... Here is how you quoted me (post #291)... Do you see he difference? You deceptively added "as it seems to be very limited and not inventive" into my quoted comment. You made it appear to anyone reading this thread that I was denigrating you and your writing ability. This forum frowns on people inserting things into someone else's quoted comment. Explain why you did something so deceptive.
Please, understand I am very awkward not only with my English but with keyboarding at all, and I would be a lot worse if PF was in my native language, I would be missing whole words and mistyping, and I am even more awkward with quoting. I did not intent to misquote. All I wanted to ask - what is unclear and can you make mind correction reading text with missing and /or misspelled words, like many people can. I understand it is somewhat annoying and I am not doing my best, but. Why are you so antagonized?
I was OK until your last sentence. If you have to ask why someone would be antagonized to find he was misquoted, then I'll try to remember to not respond to you. Especially in view of your actions in the Fallacies of Evolution thread.
Those were actions? Did my apology physically hurt you? I am sorry it is your religion which hurts you. Not responding me will not help. It is not me. It is in your mind.
I don't mind dealing with ad hominem, or ridicule, or lies. I will expose it, & carry on with the topic. But if i am censored for exposing these things, i will not participate.
Gee, I hadn't seen anything censored. But then, if something was censored, I wouldn't have seen it. Oh, well, it's been fun. Truly sorry to see you go.
'the lack of awe & wonder for the universe' is not science...it is awe and wonder. Few things are 'absolute knowledge' and just because someone espouses righteous comments does not make those comments correct according to science. We only know what we know at this moment. People can speculate based on scientific knowledge or no knowledge and until either goes through the scientific process both remain speculation. I don't personally care if people approach most things from a religious view or non-scientific view or lack of facts view with the caveat that they don't try to force their biased perspectives on others. Our problems with fake science and other nonsense is not the information itself but more about how it is forced on others in order to control others...when this happens it's evil...
I don't agree with Einstein if he believes that religion is a belief in a supreme being. If he thought religion was more a belief in supreme importance then I can agree. The speck in the Universe in which we occupy, and the extreme limited knowledge we possess, it is obvious there is a supreme importance in the grand scheme of things...
