if i met someone with an exceptional mind i would tend to listen a bit
more carefully on his views in matters other than his profession...einsteins
name came up mainly on a rather insignifcant statement he made (not
creationist teachings) or rather a leaning towards the possibility of a
god (not necessarily christian)....there is no doubt that einstein is
deceased, but his writings live on...please read his short autobiographical
book on some of his mental notes.
> I think a more important question to pose to creationist "scientists", is
> type of creationism they want taught in public schools: christian,
> muslim, judaism, bahai, animism, numerous native american indian, and so on.
> I believe their zeal for a well-balanced, scientifically non-mainstream view
> creation and evolution would vanish if it meant their children were to be
> to other modern religious beliefs.
> - michael larosa
keep the minds of american youth flexable and receptive to all thinking.
>|keep the minds of american youth flexable and receptive to all thinking.
Not is the Kristian Koalation Kreeps have thier way.
Erikc Ag #2 | "An Fhirinne in aghaidh an tSaoil."
| "The Truth against the World."
| -- Bardic Motto
> "mike larosa" <mik...@microsoft.com> writes: >
> > I think a more important question to pose to creationist "scientists",
> > what
> > type of creationism they want taught in public schools: christian,
> > muhammadism,
> > muslim, judaism, bahai, animism, numerous native american indian, and
> > I believe their zeal for a well-balanced, scientifically non-mainstream
> > of
> > creation and evolution would vanish if it meant their children were to
> > exposed
> > to other modern religious beliefs.
> > - michael larosa
> keep the minds of american youth flexable and receptive to all thinking.
All thinking? Do you *really* mean this? Should we, for example, keep our
youth's minds equally open to the idea that the earth is flat and ignore
that it is *known* to be spherical (though not perfectly) and rotate about
(as opposed to the Sun and stars revolving around the Earth.
[I'll spare the reader with other equally obvious examples from different
study. ... You're welcome ;-) ]
No, we should not miseducate our youth. Unlike "men" (though I suspect
if Thomas Jefferson were alive today, he would write "people"), ideas are
created equal. And hence they do not deserve equal treatment in our school
system. The fact is that some ideas are just plain baloney. So-called
"Scientific Creationism" is one of these ideas.
Creationism fails to make the grade as a theory. (i.e. it is not a clearly
set of ideas that are assembled into a coherent framework.) Creationism
make the grade as Science. (i.e. it contains no problem-solving
strategies, it has
no empirical evidence in its favor, it contradicts much known Science in
its ideas have not advanced at all in the past few centuries as far as I
can tell, its
advocates are often (though not always) scientifically illiterate and
demonstrate the poorest of analytical and reasoning skills, and finally, it
falisfyable predictions, nor has it provided methods or tools that have
helped any other
areas of Science to advace. About the only thing it has going for it is
religious groups of fundamentalist presuations fancy it, and have been
successful in dumbing down the nation's (USA) Science curiculium in the
"academic freedom" or "balanced treatment" or some other such poppycock,
generally confusing the public debate.
Science matters. Its health is more tied to the health of our society than
Hence, science education matters. We really cannot afford this sort of
> if i met someone with an exceptional mind i would tend to listen a bit
> more carefully on his views in matters other than his profession...einsteins
> name came up mainly on a rather insignifcant statement he made (not
> creationist teachings) or rather a leaning towards the possibility of a
> god (not necessarily christian)....there is no doubt that einstein is
> deceased, but his writings live on...please read his short autobiographical
> book on some of his mental notes.
Then perhaps the more relevant point is that Einstein did not believe in
God in any relevant sense. He was a pantheist, which absent any strong
theories about how the universe acts consciously (and Einstein seems not
to have had any such theories) is difficult to distinguish from being an
"Any competent philosopher who does not understand something will take care
not to understand anything else whereby it might be explained." -David Lewis
As per his religious beliefs, if there _were_ any, he spoke not of them.
He spoke more of the "mysteries of science". His personal beliefs when
he was alive would best be classified as reconstructionist Jewish
agnosticism. You not know anything, except by what your eyes and your mind
can tell you.
What his beliefs were after he died, well, thanks, but no thanks, to the
xian revisionists who've spent the thankless effort trying to contact the
dead Mr. Einstein, but I seriously doubt they underwent any great changes.
Mere figures of speech, nothing literal.
*"he was a pantheist"*? a rather positive statement..have you read any of
his writings?....i may not be as brilliant as einstein but i share his
views on life...the closest i would "label" (and i detest labels) is
agnostic...it allows one to think freely...the word agnostic is used
loosely since people always seem to demand that one must be labeled
pantheist: the belief that god and nature are one.
note: this is a *belief*....if i were to go in any belief direction it
proberly would be this...it can not be proven at this time as einstein
and myself (if i may) well know............
atheist:disbelief in the existence of god
note: nothing here
> Aaron Boyden
> "Any competent philosopher who does not understand something will take care
> not to understand anything else whereby it might be explained." -David Lewis
there are two easy paths to take in life 1) believe everything
2) doubt everything...both paths have one thing in common they require
Here's a message I just posted recently to the ex-tian mailing list:
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 19:01:48 -0700 (MST)
From: "James J. Lippard" <lip...@primenet.com>
Subject: Einstein's views (was Re: World Religions)
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
The current issue of _Skeptic_ magazine, available at Barnes & Noble,
publishes for the first time two complete letters from Einstein regarding
his religious views (pp. 62-64, in the article "Einstein's God" by Michael
Here's the text of both letters. The article also includes many other
quotes and commentary, plus a letter from the person Einstein was
corresponding with, Ensign Guy H. Raner of the U.S.S. Bougainville.
The first letter is dated July 2nd, 1945 and reads:
Dear Mr. Raner:
I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked
to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity
to tell such lies about me.
From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have
always been an atheist. Your counter-arguments seem to me very
correct and could hardly be better formulated. It is always
misleading to use anthropomorphical concepts in dealing with
things outside the human sphere--childish analogies. We have to
admire in humility the beautiful harmony of the structure of the
world--as far was we can grasp it, and that is all.
With best wishes,
The second letter is dated September 28, 1949 and reads:
Dear Mr. Raner:
I see with pleasure from your letter of the 25th that your
convictions are near to my own. Trusting your sound judgment
I authorize you to use my letter of July 1945 as you see fit.
I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a
personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic,
but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional
atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation
from the fetters of religious indoctrination in youth. I prefer
an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our
intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.
In 1992, a summary of this correspondence was published in _Nature_
(Raner, G.H. and Lerner, L.S., "Einstein's Beliefs," _Nature_ 358:102),
but the publication in _Skeptic_ is the first time the letters themselves
have been published.
|> Are you sure he was a pantheist? It doesn't seem to coincide
|> with what he said.
|> For example:
|> "God doesn't play dice with the universe."
|> This basically stated Einstein's belief that God created the universe
|> in such a way that it should be completely predictable (Einstein had
|> trouble accepting the uncertainty associated with sub-atomic
|> particles, i.e. the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle).
|> Also, Einstein has stated that he tried to "think like God."
|> This doesn't sound like something a pantheist would say.
Einstein simply did not believe in god(s). To say "think like
god" means just the same as to "think like nature". Einstein's
approach to physics was very intuitive.
Thus I came -- despite the fact that I was the son of entirely
irreligious (Jewish) parents -- to a deep religiosity, which,
however, found an abrupt ending at the age of 12. Through the
reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the conviction
that much in the stories of the bible could not be true. The
consequence was a positively fanatic [orgy of] freethinking
coupled with the impression that youth is intentionally being
deceived by the state through lies; it was a crushing impression.
Suspicion against every kind of authority grew out of this
experience, a skeptical attitude towards the convictions which
were alive in any specific social environment ...
-- Albert Einstein
translated from German)
Jeff Candy (179) http://mildred.ph.utexas.edu/~candy
Are you sure he was a pantheist? It doesn't seem to coincide
> Are you sure he was a pantheist? It doesn't seem to coincide
> with what he said.
> For example:
> "God doesn't play dice with the universe."
> This basically stated Einstein's belief that God created the universe
> in such a way that it should be completely predictable (Einstein had
> trouble accepting the uncertainty associated with sub-atomic
> particles, i.e. the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle).
> Also, Einstein has stated that he tried to "think like God."
> This doesn't sound like something a pantheist would say.
He wasn't being literal when he said, as numerous quotes (try the one below)
"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. "
24 March 1954. In Albert Einstein: The Human Side, Helen Dukas and Banesh
Hoffmann, eds., Princeton University Press, 1979, p. 38.
Another interesting quote from Einstein, which I can't give
verbatim, was that the interesting question was not whether God
created the Universe, but whether he had any choice in the
Mark E. Smith <msm...@tfs.net>
I have already read this book. Nowhere does Einstein say that
he doesn't believe in God.
The quote you have provided doesn't suggest one bit that
Einstein didn't believe in God, only that much (he doesn't say all) of
what we are taught in religion can't be true.