Einstein's thoughts concerning God, Jesus, Free-will

a reply to: zosimov

An added irony is that a man can formulate anything at all in a mind that he can't explain enough of to verify its veracity, with a logic that comes from who knows where!

Indeed so. All the more reason to stick with consensual reality for philosophical constructs. Leave the gods to be the gods rather than attempting to round them up like sheep and hold them within a metaphysical construct of the mind or printed word.

To follow an organized religious creed based upon "logical" sorting of writings is to venture out of consensual reality into consentual (notice the spelling) reality. Some consenting to believe the words of another's explanation for that which is beyond explanation.

a reply to: zosimov

I demonstrate that I'm a free will being every time I post on ATS. I chose to hit the reply button and express my opinion.

a reply to: pthena

Alright, please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't any venture into the philisophical based on consenting to certain ideas, while rejecting others? And isn't any revolutionary thinker (including Einstein) rejecting the consensual thought which came before him/her in favor of an entirely new line of thinking?

As for faith, I tried the (in my mind) watered down version of spirituality for the first half of my life. It was not without its benefits to me but I have found a concentrated version of spirituality in Jesus and the Christian God.
Now I know who to pray to, and (do I expect you to believe me? of course not!) have been rewarded richly for my faith.
Prayers are answered clearly and lovingly. My mom was beginning the process (it's an arduous one) of getting on the kidney transplant list at her nephrologist's behest due to dangerously high creatinine levels (2.75, and 2.76, in two consecutive readings) and my friends and I prayed for her health--her next reading was a 15% improvement (2.43- a slightly better reading than it had been a year earlier). No transplant needed (for now).

Had that been the only prayer of mine answered, it would have been easier for me to explain it away as coincidence, but it wasn't. Time and again, what I ask for is given. I have an abundance of gratitude (which actually releases dopamine and seratonin) and feel great love for God. All of these are of infinite value to me.

Not to mention that I read the Bible (New Testament) and it reasonates wth me at every level. Why would I give that up and go back to my luke-warm spirituality?

If it's not for you to zero in on a particular, non consesual, faith, you have that choice! But don't expect a change of heart from me simply because others don't consent to it.

Thanks for the stimulating conversation, though. I really do enjoy the dialectic!

a reply to: zosimov

And isn't any revolutionary thinker (including Einstein) rejecting the consensual thought which came before him/her in favor of an entirely new line of thinking?

Mark 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended in him. 4And Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honor, save in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house. 5And he could there do no mighty work

We can look at this passage another way. Familiarity is a two way street. The Jesus character may also have not been able to do what he was doing until after he had left his hometown in the first place.

As for faith, I tried the (in my mind) watered down version of spirituality for the first half of my life. It was not without its benefits to me but I have found a concentrated version of spirituality in Jesus and the Christian God.

Jesus as a proposed focal point for whom religious duties are performed and through whom prayers are directed to the God is a very powerful spiritual experience, no doubt about that. Focus seems the key there, or even the object of focus is the key, Jesus.

If it's not for you to zero in on a particular, non consesual, faith, you have that choice! But don't expect a change of heart from me simply because others don't consent to it.

I'm glad you wrote that. I was feeling some pangs of guilty conscience over speaking of the Jesus character in a common, less than fully exalted way. That's un Christian of me. But since you can't be swayed, then I haven't harmed your faith in any way.

a reply to: pthena

Thank you for a different perspective, an informed and interesting debate, and a new insight regarding the gospel.
Look forward to anything else you can add to the discussion (or others).
Cheers!

a reply to: zosimov

appears to be an innate set of pre-written rules. If the rules were part of our nature, we wouldn't so often be at odds with them.. the struggle appears to be between our true nature and this set of rules.

Conscience is a fairly big subject. The inner voice seems to have been part of humans as long as there has been writing at least. The beliefs which include reincarnation posit that the conscience is developed over lifetimes so that a person is born with the "innate set of pre-written rules." Religions without the reincarnation concept which have a specific creator God have the conscience coming straight from that God, (piece of divinity perhaps?).

Conscience is an aptitude, faculty, intuition or judgment that assists in distinguishing right from wrong.
...
Common secular or scientific views regard the capacity for conscience as probably genetically determined, with its subject probably learned or imprinted (like language) as part of a culture.
...
Albert Einstein, as a self-professed adherent of humanism and rationalism, likewise viewed an enlightened religious person as one whose conscience reflects that he "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." Einstein often referred to the "inner voice" as a source of both moral and physical knowledge: "Quantum mechanics is very impressive. But an inner voice tells me that it is not the real thing. The theory produces a good deal but hardly brings one closer to the secrets of the Old One. I am at all events convinced that He does not play dice."
...
Charles Darwin considered that conscience evolved in humans to resolve conflicts between competing natural impulses-some about self-preservation but others about safety of a family or community;...conscience can be viewed as an outcome of those biological drives that prompt humans to avoid provoking fear or contempt in others; being experienced as guilt and shame in differing ways from society to society and person to person. A requirement of conscience in this view is the capacity to see ourselves from the point of view of another person. Persons unable to do this (psychopaths, sociopaths, narcissists) therefore often act in ways which are "evil".

The problem I have with the innate moral code theory is that I remember when I acquired a conscience at about 6 years of age. I have heard stories and possible hypotheses from older siblings about some traumas (plural) from ages 2 thru 4, which made it necessary in order to acquire a conscience as an inner voice, that I had first to go through an imaginary friend stage. In order to see myself "from the point of view of another person". My imaginary friends were quite visible to me. Ages 6 thru 8 were the liminal (transitional) phase wherein the inner voice gained strength as the imaginary friends faded.

The capacity is innate in humans, the content is cultural, in my view, and can be transcended through wider perceptions such as travel, wide social interaction, and more universal as apposed to parochial worldviews.

originally posted by: EdwardDrake
I have always looked of the subject of freewill like this:

Let's say for a moment that you are God. In your hand you have a DVD that features a real person and their life from birth till death. All experiences and decisions this person makes are recorded on this disk and you watch it from beginning to end.

The choices made by this person are their own and as expected, some result in good outcomes, some bad - but it is all there on the DVD. A complete record of what this person HAS experienced. Its Done!

As God, you know what is going to happen to this person. Being God, you are not constrained by a period in time - Alpha & Omega - The Beginning & The End. Rewind time, place this person on the planet, and away he goes about his life and you observe him, but you know exactly what his life will be like, because it is burned on the DVD and no matter how many times you pop it in the player and watch it, it will be the same story.

So, Freewill, but with a predetermined outcome might be possible.

Perhaps true free will involves blowing up the DVD, the cinema, the production team, and the audience.

a reply to: yosako

Well, you wouldn't be the first to think this way!

I have to ask though--would you choose oblivion over life as we have it? Or if you were to create life, how would you have done it differently?

originally posted by: pthena
The problem I have with the innate moral code theory is that I remember when I acquired a conscience at about 6 years of age. I have heard stories and possible hypotheses from older siblings about some traumas (plural) from ages 2 thru 4, which made it necessary in order to acquire a conscience as an inner voice, that I had first to go through an imaginary friend stage. In order to see myself "from the point of view of another person". My imaginary friends were quite visible to me. Ages 6 thru 8 were the liminal (transitional) phase wherein the inner voice gained strength as the imaginary friends faded.

You bring up a very interesting point regarding conscience. It would seem as if a person's first experiences with guilt or shame are actually responses to external stimulous, and that the fear of repurcussions prompts behavioral progress, rather than an "inner voice."

One could also point to sociopaths and psychopaths to find those who do not seem to have conscience as we know it.

I wonder if one has to orient oneself towards that inner voice (again the free will) in order to more clearly distinguish it?

Perhaps children really need to make that choice to follow the "right path" before they can be guided?

pthena, in regards to your earlier post regarding evil as a human construct, and the banality of evil, have you seen the movie The Act of Killing?

Deeply disturbing movie. I won't spoil it for anyone but have wondered ever since; do you believe that the main character actually showed genuine remorse towards the end? Or was he acting the way he thought he was "supposed" to be, the first time in the movie, perhaps, that he was truly putting on an act?

Edit: Yes a bit off topic.. I can do that with my own thread, yes

originally posted by: pthena

Albert Einstein, as a self-professed adherent of humanism and rationalism, likewise viewed an enlightened religious person as one whose conscience reflects that he "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." Einstein often referred to the "inner voice" as a source of both moral and physical knowledge: "Quantum mechanics is very impressive. But an inner voice tells me that it is not the real thing. The theory produces a good deal but hardly brings one closer to the secrets of the Old One. I am at all events convinced that He does not play dice."

Great, relevant find.

a reply to: zosimov

...regarding conscience. It would seem as if a person's first experiences with guilt or shame are actually responses to external stimulous, and that the fear of repurcussions prompts behavioral progress, rather than an "inner voice."

I think that normally, the external stimulus would be facial expressions and voice tone. Guilt and shame would be from feelings of having disappointed someone whose approval is valued. The "inner voice" isn't a voice yet until language is developed. Before that, it would be a feeling or emotion.

One could also point to sociopaths and psychopaths to find those who do not seem to have conscience as we know it.

Conscience as primarily a capacity to have unconsciously acquired certain social skills seems rather intuitively quick and effortless. A sociopath has to work consciously through close observation and imitation in order to exercise the same level of social integration, without even the cue of recognizing facial expressions like anger or disgust. It would seem to be constant work as opposed to the seeming ease with which the normal person is able to act.

Back to punishments and repercussions: A child without conscience does not associate repercussions as repercussions for their acts. They are randomly occurring events (not even viewed as cruelty but just something unpleasant happening). It's a waste of effort, with no positive outcome to physically or verbally punish a child without conscience, in my honest opinion. Adults at least are able to figure out rationally the connection between action and repercussion.

I wonder if one has to orient oneself towards that inner voice (again the free will) in order to more clearly distinguish it?

An inner dialog is to be preferred over an act with guilt associated afterward. (Obstinate refusal to listen?) Even engaging the conscience in dialog does not prevent a person whose will is to go against it from rationalizing behavior for which remorse may follow. People shouldn't do that. My personal ethical motto with respect to conscience is: "If I think that I will feel remorse after doing something than I just don't do it." That's a rule of thumb.

Perhaps children really need to make that choice to follow the "right path" before they can be guided?

Normal children would like to please their parents and associates. There are phases of conflict however. Positive example and just rules as opposed to whimsical shifting rules would be most helpful in my opinion.

have you seen the movie The Act of Killing?

I haven't seen it. I did look it up on Wikipedia. Major visceral reaction after playing victim. Perhaps suddenly realizing that he is not immortal. Mortality staring him in the face.

After stirring up certain childhood memories, I thought to counterbalance by posting a poem I wrote.
Under a Christmas Tree

originally posted by: pthena

After stirring up certain childhood memories, I thought to counterbalance by posting a poem I wrote.
Under a Christmas Tree

So much in your previous post.. will respond later, but I really wanted to say thank you for sharing something so deeply personal here, and I hope with all my might that I didn't trigger anything awful that you weren't ready to face.

Your story of how you dealt with the trauma is inspiring. I'm sure that your forthcomingness has the potential help other members here who have had the same experiences. Blessings to you (from whichever source resonates with you!)

-zos

a reply to: zosimov

I hope with all my might that I didn't trigger anything awful that you weren't ready to face.

It's just been a very long time since the subject of conscience has been brought up. Just sort of a shock really. For now, I'm drinking beer, which I don't do that much of really, and thinking of another topic for the religion sub forum:

What elements of Christianity have you appropriated into your own religion?
That would be the title. I hope no one steals it and starts the thread without me.

originally posted by: pthena

What elements of Christianity have you appropriated into your own religion?
That would be the title. I hope no one steals it and starts the thread without me.

Hey, I think it would make an excellent discussion. I'm looking forward to reading/contributing to any of your threads, frankly. Love your perspective on things.

Hope today is a new, gorgeous day!

a reply to: zosimov

Wow... Einstein was JUST LIKE ME, lol.

I love him. Thank you for this post.

I've said the same stuff before. I sense that there are "unseen forces" that are controlling things... in a way, that's God to me. But not traditional God.

& I like to talk about how people try to trample on our wonder all the time... it's not nice.

And I don't believe in free-will, either. You said "each choice builds off of the old one, multiplying into infinity," and that kind lines up with what I believe. Cause the fact that you can't isolate any one decision(from the past, from other previous preconceived notions and beliefs and decisions, etc), there's no true free-will to me... maybe just the illusion.

To me, there's only the seen and unseen forces, like within our own bodies (genes/dna), and outside environmental cues and etc that are basically... constantly writing our future. And at the end of the day I feel like everything is merely a force that has been set into motion, and now all we can do is let things run it's course. There's a kind of full on surrendering that takes place inside this belief, and it doesn't mean we will make bad choices all of the sudden... or be miserable. On the contrary, the surrendering kind of fills you up with a true peace- like when you trust in God fully. It's similar, or maybe even the same thing.

a reply to: geezlouise

On the contrary, the surrendering kind of fills you up with a true peace- like when you trust in God fully. It's similar, or maybe even the same thing.

So does that mean that you would edit the Serenity Prayer by Reinhold Niebuhr as:

"God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,Courage to change the things I can,And wisdom to know the difference."?

a reply to: pthena

When we're offered data to better our lives (by bettering I mean when we are given information that promises to lengthen our life spans and make us healthier bodies, etc), most would say that we have a choice to take the data and change our lives for the better. And I agree, we do have that choice- to a degree.

Because in the grand scheme of things? Let's say we ignore all information and knowledge that promises to better our lives... then what happens? Then we will get sick, &we will die. And yes we can choose to die... but at the same time we're born hard-wired to survive, aren't we? So we're going to have a hard time ignoring data and evidence that promises to better our lives. And people that choose to die, yes they exist- but they have that desire for a reason, too. It's not like they spontaneously decided life sucked- there is most certainly a long process involved in trampling out an individuals will to survive (we're conditioned and taught).

So I'm not saying we don't have free-will, we do. But like someone told me once, not everyone can choose to be the President of the United States, or Justin Beiber for that matter. Our free will doesn't reach that far. That's all I'm saying.

a reply to: geezlouise

Hi! So glad you enjoyed my thread. So many interesting replies here.. I've had a lot of fun with it too!

I enjoyed your post as well, very interesting point about our inability to isolate past decisions from the context in which we made them, from space-time itself, from the surrounding circumstances, hence the possibility that free will is an illusion.
Something to think about.
I also really enjoyed this:
"To me, there's only the seen and unseen forces, like within our own bodies (genes/dna), and outside environmental cues and etc that are basically... constantly writing our future"
This quote of yours reminded me of a book a friend quoted to me several years ago, about the fact that our bodies are constantly regenerating. In fact, our own skeletons completely renew every 10 years.. our hearts regenerate several times during an average lifespan.. in fact, with each new thought we are renewed!

Here's an interesting link about cell renewal.
book.bionumbers.org...
Thanks for posting!

a reply to: zosimov

Do you believe in God? "I' m not an atheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws."

That ^ Truth