Philosophy and other pseudo-intellectual spoutings

[bobo the clown]

Einstein was what we would call religious in the same way that Hitler was what we would call an atheist - that is to say, he wasn't.

I'll grant you this young 'un ... you do specialise in being spectacularly wrong ;

Walter Isaacson's biography of Einstein presented a far more complex picture of the great scientist’s attitude toward religion than his late career musing would suggest. In 1930, Einstein composed a kind of creed entitled “What I Believe,” at the conclusion of which he wrote: “To sense that behind everything that can be experienced there is something that our minds cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly: this is religiousness. In this sense...I am a devoutly religious man.” In response to a young girl who had asked him whether he believed in God, he wrote: “everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe—a Spirit vastly superior to that of man.” And during a talk at Union Theological Seminary on the relationship between religion and science, Einstein declared: “the situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”

[Montreal Wanderer]

The riddle as I see it, hobohs razor, is there a beginning to find or is this a human thing to seek?

Well, Hoboh, there is the fact that "so far", in the galaxy, science, despite its many achievements, has only been able to show the existence of life on just one planet: Earth. It "might" be relevant that Jesus came here too, rather than say, Mars, Venus or any of the other destinations. A possible case, I'd say, for the Conan-Doyle razor to apply?

If we assume Jesus came to earth (because this event was recorded by earthlings), how do we know he did not also go to Mars, Venus and other locations beyond the power of earthlings to record?

[Worthy4England]

The riddle as I see it, hobohs razor, is there a beginning to find or is this a human thing to seek?

Well, Hoboh, there is the fact that "so far", in the galaxy, science, despite its many achievements, has only been able to show the existence of life on just one planet: Earth. It "might" be relevant that Jesus came here too, rather than say, Mars, Venus or any of the other destinations. A possible case, I'd say, for the Conan-Doyle razor to apply?

If we assume Jesus came to earth (because this event was recorded by earthlings), how do we know he did not also go to Mars, Venus and other locations beyond the power of earthlings to record?

Because space travel hadn't been invented then, silly.

[bobo the clown]

The riddle as I see it, hobohs razor, is there a beginning to find or is this a human thing to seek?

Well, Hoboh, there is the fact that "so far", in the galaxy, science, despite its many achievements, has only been able to show the existence of life on just one planet: Earth. It "might" be relevant that Jesus came here too, rather than say, Mars, Venus or any of the other destinations. A possible case, I'd say, for the Conan-Doyle razor to apply?

If we assume Jesus came to earth (because this event was recorded by earthlings), how do we know he did not also go to Mars, Venus and other locations beyond the power of earthlings to record?

Because space travel hadn't been invented then, silly.

... by Einstein ??

[Worthy4England]

I'm losing the will.

No, by God.

[bobo the clown]

I'm losing the will.

No, by God.

Did God not have a Razor or something ?

[Worthy4England]

He might have done, but I think he didn't use it much. Big bushy beard n'all that.

[bobo the clown]

He might have done, but I think he didn't use it much. Big bushy beard n'all that.

I think I'm getting it at last. So .... first there was nothing, then ... the big beard .... and then dinosaurs.

So much clearer.

[Prufrock]

Einstein was what we would call religious in the same way that Hitler was what we would call an atheist - that is to say, he wasn't.

I'll grant you this young 'un ... you do specialise in being spectacularly wrong ;

Walter Isaacson's biography of Einstein presented a far more complex picture of the great scientist’s attitude toward religion than his late career musing would suggest. In 1930, Einstein composed a kind of creed entitled “What I Believe,” at the conclusion of which he wrote: “To sense that behind everything that can be experienced there is something that our minds cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly: this is religiousness. In this sense...I am a devoutly religious man.” In response to a young girl who had asked him whether he believed in God, he wrote: “everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe—a Spirit vastly superior to that of man.” And during a talk at Union Theological Seminary on the relationship between religion and science, Einstein declared: “the situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”

'Fraid not, again, Horatio. I like, by the way, that the best source you could find to back yourself up was Word on Fire, a website that proclaims to be "Proclaiming Christ in the Culture". I'm expecting a balanced view, then.

Anyway, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens (certainly not "what we would call religious") have spoken at length in their writings and other offerings about their own appreciation of the numinous - that sense of wonder and appreciation of the world that we find ourselves in. Religion does not have a monopoly on that. It's in that sense that Einstein, king of the metaphor, described himself as "religious".

Don't believe me? Well here are some of the things he said dismissed in that quote above as "late career musings". Musings will surely be vague won't they?

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. 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"

"I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it"

"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls. Enough for me the mystery of the eternity of life, and the inkling of the marvellous structure of reality, together with the single-hearted endeavour to comprehend a portion, be it never so tiny, of the reason that manifests itself in nature."

So no, Einstein was not "what we would call religious".

[Prufrock]

The riddle as I see it, hobohs razor, is there a beginning to find or is this a human thing to seek?

Well, Hoboh, there is the fact that "so far", in the galaxy, science, despite its many achievements, has only been able to show the existence of life on just one planet: Earth. It "might" be relevant that Jesus came here too, rather than say, Mars, Venus or any of the other destinations. A possible case, I'd say, for the Conan-Doyle razor to apply?

It's not "trying" to show any different. It's just trying to find out. Given that, so far as he existed, Jesus was a human, of course he "came" to bloody Earth. He was no more likely to rock up on Venus that you, I or anyone else was, was he ?

[bobo the clown]

Sorry Pru. I was just trying to point out that you are one tedious fckr. Maybe I was too subtle.

I'll try to think of another way. Leave it with me.

[Prufrock]

That's how I usually try to point out someone is tedious too: Disagree with them, call them "spectacularly wrong" stick up a quote I've researched that I think shows they're wrong, and then when it turns out they were right, pretend I was actually obliquely calling them tedious.

[bobo the clown]

That's how I usually try to point out someone is tedious too: Disagree with them, call them "spectacularly wrong" stick up a quote I've researched that I think shows they're wrong, and then when it turns out they were right,

pretend I was actually obliquely calling them tedious

.

Nothing oblique intended.

[Worthy4England]

Why must it? Human beings evolved to perceive medium-sized things traveling at medium speeds. Our brains work with time as a constant in a linear fashion and, as life has a beginning a middle and an end, so too must everything. But we know time doesn't work like that. There's relativity for a start, plus, spacetime curves. "Time's is just nature's way of stopping everything happening at once".

I'm not saying stuff has definitely been here forever, but I don't see why it *must* be wrong. As you've pointed out, the "what created that?" line of questioning goes back forever. "It's turtles all the way down". Either: stuff has been here forever; or, at some point the first "stuff" - whether it was all the matter in the universe, the universe itself, a god who created the universe, something that created the god that created the universe, or so on and so forth, but at some point SOMETHING - had to simply begin to exist.

You appear to have discounted both possibilities. One has to be correct.

You mean science hasn't managed to prove this one yet?

Some people made something up to try and fit a particular hypothesis? So there is a chance that some sort of biological/chemical/physical reaction started from nothing couldn't happen? I'm shocked. I thought that notion was as irrefutable as God did it was impossible.

I'm now thoroughly confused.

What happens at forever minus one? Nothing? If so how did forever start?

I'm losing my faith in Science. I'm starting to think they make shit up to suit them and brainwash the masses with it.

Except, and this is genuinely wonderful, at the point science realises it doesn't know, guess what it says? (Clue: it's not "God must have done it"). "We don't know" is not the same as "Anything could explain this, and should be given equal weight as any other "theory"* because you can't say it's definitely not true".

Seriously, the best thing that my parents taught me that I don't think they would have taught me had they been religious (not to say no religious parents would teach their kids this, just that mine wouldn't have) is that it's OK not to know. You don't have to fill the gap with a benevolent old man, and you can still give a preference one way or the other, but it's fine to just say "I don't know".

*#1 contender for most misunderstood word ever. And not to blame Bish, the pedantry of mathematicians is entirely to blame.

Ahh - this is good. We're making progress. Science would probably say "We don't know", I agree. Science is a little all encompassing in this context and often Scientists don't agree about things they don't know - but we'll let that one ride for a minute. That isn't the same as "Anything could explain this", I agree too, so what they tend to do is look at all the possibilities and give them a probability - which covers off your "given equal weight bit". So where I believe we'd get to is that Scientists might well at the moment give Higgs-Bosun a high probability (which when they find it, will lead onto the next question) and God a very low probability. Which is entirely different, than someone arguing the case that it couldn't possibly be the lower probability answer, because science has a higher probability answer. Which is exactly what most people who don't believe in God incorrectly, generally content when referencing Science...

Why have you called it "God" though? This potential original force/spark/whatever, or "God" if you want, is something you'll be hard-pressed to find anybody serious would discount as a possibility, even if they think it's unlikely. The only reason anyone calls that "god" is to try to take a point; it's not the "god" of any Bible or modern believer. That requires a lot more. To get someone to accept that this initial force is a possibility gets you nowhere near proving or showing it in anyway likely that this "force" is a conscious being, that it's still around, that it cares what happens, that it is moralistic or that there is an afterlife in which it judges us for our sins.

Atheism doesn't mean rejecting ideas far removed from any modern "god" that might be back-dated and re-labelled "god" to try prove a point ("ah, so you can't say god definitely doesn't exist" "Well, I can't say what you've conveniently now named "God" doesn't exist"). If there's a religion out there that says god created the stuff and put it in the big bang then left it to its own devices since and buggered off, then they might have something (for now at least) - a sort of Deism Max. That's the road successive popes have started down, but they can't get away from the whole consciously cares what we do now, demands worship, cares who we have sex with and how, and judges us in the afterlife bit. That's the bit that atheists consider so unlikely as to be discounted as a possibility, which isn't the same as what you were saying.

You seem to have moved onto one of your more favoured tub-thumping grounds with this post.

We started discussing that something had to just exist (or didn't). Prior to everything else.

You can't explain that, nor can scientists, nor can I.

You have a likely theory (I think, but happy to be corrected) that suddenly something started to exist. From nothing. Or it was here from a concept called "forever", but we don't know what happened in forever minus 1. I think you assume nothing because forever is infinite - which is a mathematical and philosophical convenience. It's as makey uppy as God, because apparently no one can ever find it, see it, reach it etc. I'm pushing a point, but it's a valid one.

There is an argument that there isn't a God (leaving religion out of it for a moment). Some people believe there is, some people believe there isn't

There is an argument that stuff just occurred allegedly from nothing (at some point in time). Some people believe this occurred, other people say "not good enough, what happened before anything existed"

They're both about as believable as each other, depending on your viewpoint.

[Worthy4England]

In the long list of philosophical debate, I need to understand where tedious fckr sits in comparison to obdurate bastard.

[Hoboh]

Finding the definitive answer to where it all started will never be possible, some believe 'big bangs' and others, 'the power of God' and yet even some favour 'aliens' (Note I steer away from we because we are the speck of dust on the planet of life).
The expensive Atom crasher is a waste, landing on other planets is a waste (unless eyeing them up to populate) and landing on comets is like getting the pimped up Nova to do 0-60 in less than a week! We will never reach the beginning.
Where are we going would be the better subject, at least one or more will probably be right and a traceable historic path created.

[bobo the clown]

In the long list of philosophical debate, I need to understand where tedious fckr sits in comparison to obdurate bastard.

I suspect the latter is contingent upon the former, whereas the former could exist in isolation so therefore whilst the former has more independence the latter tends to be more rounded.

Though we may be splitting hairs .... with, or without, a Razor.

[KeyserSoze]

Come on guys it's nearly christmas.

[Hoboh]

Come on guys it's nearly christmas.

Wasn't father Christmas I his current form created by Coca Cola?

[bobo the clown]

Come on guys it's nearly christmas.

Thanks for not writing 'Xmas', but you could have granted it its capital letter !!