Belief in God 'childish,' Jews not chosen people: Einstein letter

Einstein is my hero, if I could buy that letter I would just to frame it and hang it on the wall. This has to be the best one hes ever written.

I think most organised religions are childish... with one or two tiny exceptions.

As an atheist i try and do what is right for the sake of people, common sense and morality, not because some book tells me to, not because of some dated old preaching dinosaur.

Thumbs up for Einstein

I'm not sure what I think, but I do know that I'm stupid.

the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.

I think that is the main point of the article.

i would like to see the whole text in which this was written.

As I see it:

The word "God(s)" is human termonolgy.

Heaven=sky

Maybe best to leave it at that don't you think?

i completely agree with Einstein on this....personally, i dont know if there is a God, there may be and there may not be....im open to his existance.... but I do not believe in any religion, bible or koran.....like i have stated before in similar threads, to me religion is just a primitive trait that humans have not evolved out of for whatever reason...and if religion is something that can easily be used by the wrong people to pursuade a country (ie Iraq) to go to war and blow themselves up because their "god" told them to, i think it ALL should be abolished, wether it be good or bad.

many intelligent folks do believe...

St. Anselm’s Ontological Argument

St. Anselm, the Catholic archbishop of Canterbury and a Doctor of the Church, first formulated the Ontological Argument. This philosophical argument is perhaps the strangest and most hotly debated of the proofs. The argument has attracted the attentions of such notable philosophers as Immanuel Kant (who attacked St. Anselm’s proof) and G.W.F Hegel (who defended Anselm’s proof).

The proof is most notable because it alone claims to prove the existence of God by relying independently on human reason without the need for perception or evidence. The proof itself relies on the defined concept of God as a perfect being. St. Anselm’s proof is summarized here:

1. God exists in our understanding. This means that the concept of God resides as an idea in our minds.
2. God is a possible being, and might exist in reality. He is possible because the concept of God does not bear internal contradictions.
3. If something exists exclusively in our understanding and might have existed in reality then it might have been greater. This simply means that something that exists in reality is perfect (or great). Something that is only a concept in our minds could be greater by actually existing.
4. Suppose (theoretically) that God only exists in our understanding and not in reality.
5. If this were true, then it would be possible for God to be greater then he is (follows from premise #3).
6. This would mean that God is a being in which a greater is possible.
7. This is absurd because God, a being in which none greater is possible, is a being in which a greater is possible. Herein lies the contradiction.
8. Thus it follows that it is false for God to only exist in our understanding.
9. Hence God exists in reality as well as our understanding.

Study the above proof carefully. It is an intriguing proof because it states that God, a perfect being, must exist in all possible circumstances in order to satisfy the definition of his perfection. A God that can exist in only some circumstances, but fails to exist in others is a less than perfect being.

St. Thomas Aquinas’ Cosmological Argument

The great Catholic thinker, philosopher and theologian St. Thomas Aquinas summarized his cosmological argument in the Summa Theologia. In this theological masterpiece, St. Thomas writes five "ways" that we can know God exists. His first three ways deal with the cosmological argument:

1. St. Aquinas argues that there are things in the world in motion (this simply means that things are changing) and that whatever is in motion must have been put in motion by another thing in motion. Aquinas holds that, "whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another," and that, "this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover." Hence St. Thomas argues that in order to eliminate the infinite chain of motions, there must be a first mover and source of all motion, God.
2. The second way is very similar to the first. It argues that," In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible." By this he means that any thing, circumstance or event cannot change itself, but can only change something else (concept of efficient cause). Since there is a string of causes in which the string cannot be infinite (see premise #1), then all causes must attribute themselves to a first cause: God.
3. The third way also argues using the notion of a chain of causes. St. Thomas notes that things in our world owe their existence to something else in the world. Aquinas calls this the way of "possibility and necessity," meaning that all things made possible, necessarily attribute their existence to some pre-existing thing. Only God can be the source of all things since he is a being having its own necessity and does not need a pre-existing thing to cause him to exist. All things existing can trace themselves in a chain back to God.

A second shorter version of the cosmological argument can be formulated as:

1. Every being (that exists or ever did exist) is either a dependent being or a self-existent being.
2. Not every being can be a dependent being.
3. So there exists a self-existent being.

Finally, a third rendition of the cosmological argument (extracted from the book Philosophy for Dummies by Dr. Tom Morris):

1. The existence of something is intelligible only if it has an explanation.
2. The existence of the universe is thus either:
a. unintelligible or
b. has an explanation
3. No rational person should accept premise (2a) by definition of rationality
4. A rational person should accept (2b), that the universe has some explanation for its being.
5. There are only three kinds of explanations:
a. Scientific: physical conditions plus relevant laws yield the Event explained.
b. Personal: Explanations that cite desires, beliefs, powers and intentions of some personal agent.
c. Essential: The essence of the thing to be explained necessitates its existence or qualities (for example, if you ask why a triangle has 3 sides, I would respond that it is the essence and necessity for a triangle to have 3 sides by its definition.
6. The explanation for the existence of the whole universe can’t be scientific because there can’t be initial physical conditions and laws independent of what is to be explained. Event the Big Bang theory fails to explain the existence of the universe because modern science cannot explain where the original Big Bang singularity came from. The universe as a sum total of all natural conditions and laws cannot be explained unless we have an Archimidean reference point outside the system.


[edit on 14-5-2008 by adamclement]

7. The explanation for the existence of the universe can’t be essential because the universe cannot exist necessarily. This is because, it could have been possible for the universe not to have existed (if the Big Bang had been slightly different it is possible for large-scale structures to not have existed). Thus the universe is not something the must necessarily or essentially exists.
8. Thus a rational person should believe that the universe has a personal explanation.
9. No personal agent but God could create the entire universe.
10. A rational person should believe that there is a God.

The Teleological Argument

The teleological argument, or argument from design, is also summarized by St. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica. Here is the extract from the Summa:

"The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things that lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God."

Perhaps this is the most common form of reasoning behind the existence of God. The average theist will argue for the existence of God with the teleological argument.

[edit on 14-5-2008 by adamclement]

I liked where it said 5 time Nominee for Nobel Prize keyword "Nominee" isn't that kinda like always a bridesmaid never the Bride.

I go with what they told me (yeah! them)

You try to hard though Science to prove things use logic and common sense the answers are the simplest the ones you always overlook.

Lots of people live/(d) well off of Theory.


[edit on 14-5-2008 by observe50]

so would all the religious people explain this?

news.bbc.co.uk...

basically Pope's chief astronomer says god created all life in the universe, but in history to believe in the universe or that the earth was not the center of the world was grounds to be put to death, or in galieo's instance under house arrest til his death, and now the church says that MISTAKES were made in the past.

also in that story it mentions "some aliens could even be free from original sin" what that says to me is that the church declared war on aliens, since it would seem to me the church would be against sin.

Sounds to me like that church is trying to cover there a$$es due to the on set of a grand awakening and they dont want to be left in the rain.

orgainzed religon is no better than a pack of wolfs.

Are you attempting to use those arguments as proof? I distinctly remember them being quite successfully disputed in my AS Philosophy course a year ago..

To be honest, I find the smug and condescending behavior of non-believers to be funny. Just because I'm a creationist, apparently they are above me?

To make a couple cases they say, "Where did God come from?" "He must have a creator." The truth is, God had no creator. In his own words has has just "always been there" and will be "for all eternity". That sounds silly to non-believers. It sounds impossible. In fact, how many times have creationists been told the belief in God is a "fairy tale"?

The "big bang" is simply stated as "all the matter in the entire universe squeezed into a space so small that it was virtually nothing." Then it just expanded and as the expansion happened the heat and gravitational forces ultimately created stars and planets and eventually created, from gases, solid elements. So, from nothing, became everything.

But God is a fairy tale? Forgive me for snickering.

Everything we, as humans, know and understand has a beginning and an end. We are born. We die. A seed becomes a tree and it dies. A car is made and it is destroyed. The human mind has absolutely no concept of what "forever" actually means. We can't grasp the reality of "eternity" because nothing we know (except time) is eternal. This is why people have a hard time understanding that God has just "always been here".

Science and the fact that it is testable is proof is creation. If there were no creation, science would be random and not testable. The patterns of science prove the existence of God and his creation.

But most importantly, I wonder why that article "hides" what the rest of Einstein's letter actually says? To me it looks like an attempt to take his words out of context. Not because I think he didn't say that but rather because there are many more instances where he acknowledged the existence of God in some form or another. Then, out of the blue, he is denouncing God, going against many quotes where he acknowledges God? I smell something fishy. I'd like to be able to see that letter in it's entirety. Because if Albert did change his stance on the existence of God, I would hope that letter would explain why.

reply to post by madrock

To me it looks like an attempt to take his words out of context. Not because I think he didn't say that but rather because there are many more instances where he acknowledged the existence of God in some form or another. Then, out of the blue, he is denouncing God, going against many quotes where he acknowledges God?

Yes there is some truth to that. Here's my take:

I don't think the average "non-believer" or Einstein really have a problem with the concept of "God." They just get turned off by people who believe "God loves them. Or that they belong to the chosen people. Or that they have a personal relationship with God.

It just screams me me me me me me me me.

There most certainly is a God. Whether God is a supreme loving being who taylor made the universe for us or just some random quantum creative force depends on who you talk to.

reply to post by madrock


So... when the Christian ONE god became mainstream and popular, what happened to all the other thousands of gods that used to be worhsipped by the greeks, hindu's, pagans, roman, nords...

On another note:
One piece of bacteria can cause an epidemic when that one bacterium becomes two, which becomes five, which become twelve, twenty, a hundred, a thousand.... a million.

So why do you find it so hard to believe that an atom can split into billions of atoms?

Or are you a believer in the garden of eden and adam and eve and all that jazz?

LOL ... a cult of personalities mass hysteria and as Marilyn Manson points to in song it's all related to "the size of your steeple" ...Yet for those with knowledge ask Vor "Beauty is the Gate" but don't get mad its still a free world ;Right? E=m(cxc) is alchemey in its grandest form ask any Magi with imagination or Wizard with Power. Believe as you will...for as long as you can!!! AsaTru by lil i the AsaSyn.

Originally posted by Apolon
As for the Jews, I would like some proof to the claims they are "divine"in any way.

I suppose the proof is simply the claim.

Any God that would announce to all its creations that he loves a particular group more than any other is the ultimate manipulator and should seriously be questioned. That God would surely realize that arrogance would arise followed by jealous and then ultimately destruction. We would of course behave "childishly" but who would be at fault.

Unless God wants us at each others throats, in which case then his divisive love would be the self-fulfilling prophecy of Revelation. I've had many of my more religious friends tell me that the Jews are Gods chosen people, especially during political arguments where it was almost the "free-pass" excuse to some very "bad" behavior, but I am glad to know that Einstein has more sense than that.

- Lee

Who was it that wrote religion is an opiate for the masses? Has anyone read the book "Melchizedek and the Mystery of fire" childs' play all the worlds a stage and everyones a Star!

I don't see any problem with a feeling, thought, or belief in a 'supreme being'.

If we remove religion, proselytizing, praying or offering homage to this being, or expecting anything from them, what is left?

A sense of order? A feeling of purpose? Entitlement?

I think it's something worth examining, looking internally and really thinking about what it means -to you-, personally.

If everything goes back to a need to feel protected, or saved or relieved of responsibility for ethical behavior, would it not give you pause?

Maybe humans feel lost without this sense of a protective father figure. Hard to say.

Obviously, anti-social people, psychosocial people without a conscience act with no guilt or remorse.

But normal people have a conscience, empathy, and a desire to be ethical. It's not behavior that is derived from a fear of being punished unless one has a character defect.

Maybe it's good for most people to believe or feel constrained in their behavior due to a 'God'll get you, Walter'(*) fear. If it keeps the mean guy in the white van from running me over, then I'm down with that. (joking, mostly)

(*) From "Maude" the TV series.

Just some random thoughts.

Originally posted by mr-lizard
reply to post by madrock

 

So... when the Christian ONE god became mainstream and popular, what happened to all the other thousands of gods that used to be worhsipped by the greeks, hindu's, pagans, roman, nords...

On another note:
One piece of bacteria can cause an epidemic when that one bacterium becomes two, which becomes five, which become twelve, twenty, a hundred, a thousand.... a million.

So why do you find it so hard to believe that an atom can split into billions of atoms?

Or are you a believer in the garden of eden and adam and eve and all that jazz?

It would help if I new what it is you are asking of me. Just because I believe in the Christian God or in the garden of Eden maens I am not allowed to believe that atoms can be split?

I'm just not sure, your point here.