Einstein thought physics was designed by a deistic-type God
david ford
freethought conversion experience as a result of reading pop science
writing pushing the dogmatic philosophy of materialism, including the
German Darwinian materialist physician Ludwig Buchner's _Kraft und
Staff_ (_Force and Matter_), which was a sort of atheists' Bible that
induced numerous conversions to materialism.^1 However, Einstein's
conversion _didn't stick_: Einstein didn't remain a freethinker/
atheist/ materialist. A person's views can sometimes change, and
Einstein's atheism didn't last. Einstein came to believe in a
[Einstein]"spirit"/ not-material God having an intellect far superior to
man, and that created/ made physics laws and physics, but that doesn't:
step in to reward and punish humans,
act on prayers, or
do "miracles"/ interfere with the operation of physics laws.^2
Einstein did not come to accept any "divine revelation," for example,
the divine revelations of Islam, Christianity, or Judaism.
Einstein _did_ come to accept "natural revelation": to reiterate,
Einstein came to believe in the existence of a [Einstein]"force," a
[Einstein]"spirit," that was responsible for physics and that had an
intellect far, far superior to that of man. The world of physics, for
Einstein, pointed toward the existence of this superintellect. The very
little that Einstein could comprehend of the world of physics suggested
to him that a superintellect was responsible for physics. Einstein had
immense respect for, awe of, and humility before this Superintellect.
Einstein to zu Lowenstein, year unknown, cited in
Jammer, Max. 1999. _Einstein and Religion: Physics and
Theology_ (USA: Princeton University Press), 279pp., 96-97:
In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with
my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are
yet people who say there is no God. But what really
makes me angry is that they quote me for support of
such views.
1930 at-the-latest
Einstein, Albert. Cited in Jammer, Max. 1999. _Einstein
and Religion: Physics and Theology_ (USA: Princeton
University Press), 279pp., 48, who obtained the remark from
D. Brian, _Einstein-- A Life_ (Wiley, New York, 1966), p.
186, who obtained the remark from G. S. Viereck, _Glimpses
of the Great_ (Macauley, New York, 1930). Einstein is
responding to an inquiry to define God:
I'm not an atheist, and I don't think I can call myself a
pantheist. 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. Our limited
minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the
constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's pantheism,
but admire even more his contribution to modern
thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with
the soul and body as one, and not two separate things.
Below is an argument that physics was designed by mind/ intelligence.
Below that are Einstein quotations, some preceded by an extract having
the most relevant portions. If you are pressed for time, perhaps you
could read simply the quotations lacking an extract, and the extracts.
===================================================================.
Notes
1. Goldschmidt, Richard B. 1956. _Portraits from Memory:
Recollections of a Zoologist_ (Seattle: University of
Washington Press), 181pp., 35.
Weikart, Richard. 2004. _From Darwin to Hitler:
Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany_
(USA: Palgrave Macmillan), 312pp., 12.
For historical context, see
Timeline of Materialism, Spontaneous Generation, and Blindwatchmaking Views
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-348jecF47mfcjU1%40individual.net
2. Jammer, Max. 1999. _Einstein and Religion: Physics and
Theology_ (USA: Princeton University Press), 279pp.,
24-25, 97, 148-149, and the quotations below.
===================================================================.
From
The Search for a Loophole to the Beginning of the Universe
in the Big Bang and to the Seeming-Design of Physics
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005292327160.25513-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
11. Paring a not-material causal chain(s) down to a designer(s), i.e.
down to a main, intelligent factor(s)
I will now attempt to pare the hot-big-bang-precipitating,
not-material causal chain(s) down to a main cause(s), i.e.
down to the most significant cause(s), specifically to a
not-corporeal intelligent entity (or entities) that thought
up and implemented physics. The physical laws, i.e. the
properties of the physical world, exhibit order and
harmony, and from this order and harmony that began to
exist, intelligent design of the physical world by a
designer(s) can be inferred.
In his _Dreams of a Final Theory_, Weinberg writes that the laws
of physics exhibit beauty:
The kind of beauty that we find in physical theories is of a very
limited sort. It is, as far as I have been able to capture it in
words, the beauty of simplicity and inevitability-- the beauty of
perfect structure, the beauty of everything fitting together, of
nothing being changeable, of logical rigidity.97
Expanding on Weinberg's remark, the laws of physics exhibit the
properties of simplicity, harmony, rigidity, order, beauty, and
elegance. "Rigidity" characterizes sets of equations that require the
presence of all of their components for them to describe. "Harmony"
is synonymous with consistency; consistency characterizes equations
that mesh with each other, equations that fit together, equations that
do not conflict with each other, equations that when fitted together
exhibit perfect structure. (The word "harmony" has been used to
denote spatial and temporal order.)
Physicists have used several different notions of "order,"
including spatial order and temporal order. "Spatial order" is
regularity in spatial appearance, i.e. is spatial symmetry; for
example, crystals exhibit "spatial order" in presenting a high level
of symmetry. "Temporal order" is regularity in occurrence; to
illustrate, the planets consistently take roughly the same amount of
time to make each of their respective trips around the sun, the sun
rises each day, and eclipses occur like clockwork. Both spatial order
and temporal order are manifestations of symmetries present in the
physical laws governing the way certain atoms link up to form
crystals, the way planets move around suns, etc. Symmetry in the
world of physics contributes to the "simplicity" of equations
describing the world of physics; synonymous with "compactness,"
"simplicity" characterizes equations that describe a wide range of
phenomena with a small number of straightforward equations. Just as
Johannes Kepler did not believe God would have His creation contain
numerous epicycles in the planet's orbits around the sun, but instead
something much more simple, and therefore set out to discover his
simple laws of planetary motion, so also have physicists come to
expect simplicity in their field of study.98
A related notion of "order" is "a lack of chaos." Physics
exhibits a lack of chaos in that its phenomena occur in a regular
manner. For example, a ball dropped 15 years ago fell to earth, and a
ball dropped 10 years from now will fall to earth-- it is not the case
that gravitational attraction between particular objects changes from
one day to the next, it is not the case that the strengths of forces
in physics erratically vary, and more generally, it is not the case
that the world of physics is chaotic. Regarding this
absence-of-chaos, Davies notes that
Every advance in fundamental physics seems to uncover yet another
facet of _order_. ....the physical world operates according to
rational principles.... Logically, the universe does not have to
be this way. We could conceive of a cosmos where chaos reigns.
In place of the orderly and regimented behaviour of matter and
energy one would have arbitrary and haphazard activity. Stable
structures like atoms or people or stars could not exist. The
real world is not this way.99
"Beauty" and "elegance" are synonymous; equations that
theoretical physicists consider beautiful exhibit simplicity, harmony,
and rigidity. GTR (the general theory of relativity) is a highly
beautiful theory. Theoretical physicists consider certain
equations to exhibit more "beauty" than certain other equations,
yet there is no standard of beauty of which I am aware.
Upon considering the absence-of-chaos, some have come to think
that an entity designed physics. A stronger inference that physics
was designed has been made from the spatial and temporal order visible
to the eye: some have inferred that the spatial and temporal order
they saw seemed to possess the appearance of having been designed. In
my opinion, a much more solid inference that physics was designed can
be made from the appearance of the _equations_ discovered to
accurately describe the world, equations that provide for spatial and
temporal order. Not being a physicist, I have not worked with the
physics equations, and so cannot speak from personal experience
whether the equations, for example of GTR and QM (quantum
mechanics), in my opinion possess the appearance of having
been designed. I will thus be making an appeal to the expert authority
of individuals who _have_ worked with the equations for their
opinion on the matter, and will conclude that the
equations the world of physics follows strongly possess the
appearance of having been designed.
Einstein viewed the seemingly-accurate equations he worked with
as having the appearance of being designed, and concluded that they
were in fact designed. To illustrate, Einstein wrote that Newton and
Kepler possessed "a deep conviction of the rationality of the
universe" and "a yearning to understand," qualities that Einstein
deemed "a feeble reflection of the mind revealed in this world."100
Einstein considered this mind a superior intelligence:
His [the scientist's] religious feeling takes the form of a
rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals
an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all
the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly
insignificant reflection.101
Einstein admired this intelligence, remarking that "whoever has
undergone the intense experience of successful advances" in
discovering the laws of physics and how they fit together "is moved by
profound reverence for the rationality made manifest in existence" and
"attains that humble attitude of mind toward the grandeur of reason
incarnate in existence."102 Einstein was, of course, only speaking
for himself when he wrote that and the following: "My religiosity
consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that
reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory
understanding, can comprehend of reality."103 In short, in
theoretical physicist Einstein's opinion, the laws of physics appear
to have been designed. (As mentioned earlier, I cannot at this time
present an argument that only one intelligent entity both thought up
and implemented physics.)
Davies concurs with Einstein that physics has the appearance of
having been designed:
The temptation to believe that the Universe [i.e. the world of
physics] is the product of some sort of _design_, a manifestation
of subtle aesthetic and mathematical judgment, is overwhelming.
The belief that there is "something behind it all" is one that I
personally share with, I suspect, a majority of physicists.104
If I had studied physics I could tell you, on the basis of my own work
in physics, whether I thought physics appeared designed. Not having
studied physics, not having immersed myself in the physics equations,
I have to rely on the opinions of those who have, and in the opinion
of physicists Davies and Einstein at least, physics strongly possesses
the appearance of having been designed.
In response to Einstein's and Davies's conclusion that the world
of physics appears to have been designed, someone may propose that
yes, intelligence is behind physics, but not what Einstein termed an
"infinitely superior spirit," but rather, a collection of idiots. If
such was the case, then the 'idiots' must have been extremely smart
entities. To illustrate, Davies notes that "many of the discoveries
described" in his 1986 book "are the result of intense and collective
intellectual activity by some of the finest minds the world has
known." I conclude that the 'idiots' must have been smarter than the
"finest minds" of which Davies speaks. He continues, "Some of the
theories [I have described] have called upon subtle and obscure
mathematical arguments that could easily have been overlooked, even by
highly competent mathematicians."105 I conclude that the 'idiots'
would have been, overall, "highly competent" in the realm of
mathematics. Davies ends his 1986 book with the sentence, "No one who
has studied the forces of nature can doubt that the world about us is
a manifestation of something very, very clever indeed."106 In short,
if 'idiots' made physics, they were "very, very clever" 'idiots.'
One particular aspect of the physics equations that especially
speaks of design is the harmony, i.e. the meshing, of the equations.
About this meshing, Davies observes,
Traditionally, physics has been divided up into a number of
rather distinct branches, such as mechanics, optics,
electromagnetism, gravity, thermodynamics, atomic and nuclear
physics, solid state [physics], and so on. These rather
artificial divisions conceal the elegance with which these topics
dovetail together. We don't find, for example, that the laws of
gravity conflict with those of electromagnetism or solid state
physics.107
Davies notes that just as we find "words interlock[ing] in a
consistent and orderly arrangement" when we proceed with solving a
crossword puzzle, so also are nature's laws seen to "interlock
consistently" as we progressively "discern the remarkable orderliness
of nature."108 For some reason, "we do not to doubt that the order,
consistency, and harmony of a crossword imply that the puzzle is the
product of an ingenious, inventive mind," yet there are "doubts
voiced" when it comes to the laws of physics.109 The evidence for
intelligent design is often adjudged "compelling in one case but not
in the other."110
Davies mentions three replies to inferences of intelligent
design, those being "that we impose order on the world to make sense
of it; that the reasoning is flawed; and that any order which does
exist in nature is the product of blind chance and not of design."111
The first may be rejected out of hand as it pertains to the world of
physics, where spatial and temporal order is clearly revealed through
patient investigation and is clearly not being imposed on a disorderly
world by physicists.112 John Polkinghorne, a Cambridge theoretical
physicist who became an ordained clergyman,113 concurs with Davies,
and offers as evidence the fact that "the phenomena encountered often
prove extremely surprising and contrary to our intuition. They resist
our attempts to bend them to our prior expectation."114 While
acknowledging that a physicist "approach[es] the world from a
particular point of view," Polkinghorne adds that that view "receives
its confirmation or necessary correction from interaction with the way
things are."115 In short, about the claim that "the order we find in
the world is an order that we in fact impose upon it," in
Polkinghorne's opinion as a physicist, "it is hard to exaggerate how
implausible such a view is."116
Regarding the claim that the reasoning is flawed, we make
inferences that things were designed all the time. The basis for
everyday inferences-to-design boils down to
1) arguments by analogy to things we think _were_ designed. Put
another way, we compare
a) something we believe to have been designed, and
b) an entity that poses to us the question of whether it was or
was not designed,
and we conclude that based upon the high degree of similarity
between a) and b), just as a) was designed, so also was b)
designed.
2) rejection of the possibility that the entity in question could
have arisen via non-intelligence-directed processes. And,
3) our usually-hidden assumption that the entity in question began
to exist.
To illustrate the two main components of inferences to design, William
Paley stated in 1802 that the human heart, muscles, mammary glands,
and bones each had several components, the absence of one of which
would result in the non-functionality of the respective biological
structures.117 The structures were deemed similar to a watch that we
would clearly recognize as having been designed upon finding it in a
field. Paley thought that the watch and the biological structures he
mentioned contained several components required for functionality,
thought that this interlocking nature spoke of design of the watch and
of the biological structures mentioned, and concluded that like the
watch, the biological structures _were_ designed. Paley thereby
provides an instance of item a), arguments by analogy to things we
think _were_ designed.
Wide acceptance of Paley's argument vanished with the 1859
publication of biologist Charles Darwin's _The Origin of Species_.
Darwin argued for the existence of a non-intelligence-directed
mechanism, specifically natural selection of random variations, that
could account for the existence of seemingly-designed biological
structures. Darwin's theory of natural selection provides an example
of an attack on an inference-to-design made by attacking item b),
rejection of the possibility that the entity in question could have
arisen via non-intelligence-directed processes. Since he first
proposed it, Darwin's mechanism has been thoroughly refuted by the
absence of confirmatory evidence in the fossil record despite 140
years of searching by paleontologists, and by observation of living
organisms.118 According to neo-Darwinian thought, mutations
in organisms' DNA sequences are the raw material of biological
novelty, yet mutations routinely result in _cancer_ and genetic
diseases, not the arrival of novel body structures and organs
having new functions.
When it comes to the laws of physics, nobody has to my knowledge
produced the analogue of Darwin's theory of natural selection for the
production of the laws of physics. Nobody has observed new laws of
physics arising via processes that as best can be determined are
non-intelligence-directed, nor are there known formulas, i.e.
equations, i.e. theoretical predictions that describe the process of
new-law-formation.
On the basis of
a) theoretical physicists Einstein's and Davies's judgement that the
equations of physics strongly possess the appearance of having
been designed, and based on the interlocking nature of the laws
of physics, which is strongly analogous to the interlocking of
words in a crossword puzzle,
b) rejection of the possibility that non-intelligence-directed
processes can result in the formation of new laws of physics, and
c) the fact that the laws of physics began to exist in the big bang,
I infer that intelligence is responsible for the laws of physics.
This inference-to-design could not possibly be correct should it be
shown that physics never began to exist. The harmony of physics laws
implies design of the laws by a designer(s), perhaps in the form of a
single designer and implementer, in the form of a committee of
designers that collectively agreed upon a design plan before
implementing that plan, in the form of multiple designers that thought
up and multiple implementors that collectively implemented, etc. In
short, the not-material causal chain(s) that precipitated physical
existence's beginning to exist in the big bang has been pared down to
an intelligence(s).
Suppose now that the order currently observed in nature ceases to
exist. Spatial and temporal order and stable structures such as atoms
cease to exist. Such an occurrence would not affect the fact that as
matters currently stand, physics strongly has the appearance of being
designed. The fact that design inferences are not dependent upon the
perpetual existence of features suggestive of design may be
illustrated by an example. Suppose we examine an alien spaceship and
conclude that intelligence was responsible for its fabrication.
Should that spaceship fall to pieces shortly after retrieval and
examination, we would not, I submit, change our earlier verdict that
the spaceship was intelligently designed. A more common example of
design inferences remaining valid in the presence of change is
provided by ancient marble buildings currently decaying because of the
effects of pollution. Though a marble building may disintegrate in a
few short years, the presence of disintegration does not affect our
conclusion that intelligence was responsible for the building's
spatial order's beginning-to-exist.
A countermove to the physics-was-designed conclusion might
consist of taking the reasoning that led to inferring design of the
laws, and applying that reasoning to the designer(s) of the laws: If
the laws exhibit order and harmony, then surely the maker(s) of the
laws must also exhibit order and harmony, and if the maker(s) do
exhibit order and harmony, then according to the above line of
reasoning, the maker(s) must also have been designed. Taking this one
step further, the designer(s) must have been designed-- it would seem
that an infinite regress is the logical conclusion of inferring that
the laws of physics were designed. The atheist biologist Richard
Dawkins presents one possible avenue of answering the objection of
what made the deistic entity when he writes,
To explain the origin of the [very first] DNA/protein machine by
invoking a supernatural Designer is to explain precisely nothing,
for it leaves unexplained the origin of the Designer. You have
to say something like 'God was always there', and if you allow
yourself that kind of lazy way out, you might as well just say
'DNA was always there', or 'Life was always there', and be done
with it.119
(The big bang origin of the universe precludes the possibility that life
has existed for eternity past: a materialist would, of course, like to
have the option of saying that life is an infinite number of years old,
but since it is now known that our universe began to exist in the Big
Bang, that means life inside the universe consequently must have begun
to exist. This is the case even if you believe in an infinite-number of
universes.)
Taking our cue from Dawkins's remarks, if the
deistic-type entity had existed for an eternity to its past, then it
_could not_ have been designed. At this point, Dawkins might reply,
'In that case, you might as well just say, "Physics and physical
existence was always there," and be done with it.' However, if the
hot big bang model is correct, physics was _not_ always there,
physical existence has _not_ existed for an eternity to its past.
===================================================================.
Timeline of Einstein's Loss of Faith in Materialism
[Einstein]"....I came... to a deep religiousness, which, however,
reached an abrupt end at the age of twelve. 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.... out of this experience...
[grew] a skeptical attitude toward the convictions that were alive in
any specific social environment-- an attitude that has never again left
me, even though, later on, it has been tempered by a better insight into
the causal connections."
Einstein, Albert. In Paul Schilpp, editor and translator, _Albert
Einstein: Autobiographical Notes_ (La Salle, Illinois: Open
Court, 1979), 5. Cited at
http://condor.stcloudstate.edu/~lesikar/einstein/freethink.html
As the first way out there was religion, which is
implanted into every child by way of the traditional
education-machine. Thus I came-- though the child of
entirely irreligious (Jewish) parents-- to a deep
religiousness, which, however, reached an abrupt end at
the age of twelve. 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. Mistrust of every kind of
authority grew out of this experience, a skeptical attitude
toward the convictions that were alive in any specific
social environment-- an attitude that has never again left
me, even though, later on, it has been tempered by a
better insight into the causal connections. It is quite
clear to me that the religious paradise of youth, which
was thus lost, was a first attempt to free myself from the
chains of the "merely personal," from an existence
dominated by wishes, hopes, and primitive feelings.
Out yonder there was this huge world, which exists
independently of us human beings and which stands
before us like a great, eternal riddle, at least partially
accessible to our inspection and thinking. The
contemplation of this world beckoned as a liberation,
and I soon noticed that many a man whom I had learned
to esteem and to admire had found inner freedom and
security in its pursuit. The mental grasp of this
extra-personal world within the frame of our capabilities
presented itself to my mind, half consciously, half
unconsciously, as a supreme goal. Similarly motivated
men of the present and of the past, as well as the insights
they had achieved, were the friends who could not be
lost. The road to this paradise was not as comfortable
and alluring as the road to the religious paradise; but it
has shown itself reliable, and I have never regretted
having chosen it.
What is [Einstein]"it has been tempered by a better insight into the
causal connections" about?
The 1915-1930 discovery that the universe had a beginning to its
expansion, perhaps following creation of the universe in the Big Bang?
Which would suggest that maybe [Einstein]"In the beginning (if there was
such a thing), God created Newton's laws of motion together with the
necessary masses and forces." and
[1954 Einstein to Hermanns]"My God created laws that take care of that.
His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking, but by immutable laws."
This raises a line of inquiry for exploration:
[Einstein to Salaman]"I want to know how God created this world. I'm
not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or
that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details."
?year
Einstein, Albert. Quoted in Paul Schilpp, editor and
translator, _Albert Einstein: Autobiographical Notes_ (La
Salle, Illinois: Open Court, 1979), 17, as cited by
Calaprice, 184:
In the beginning (if there was such a thing), God created
Newton's laws of motion together with the necessary
masses and forces. This is all; everything beyond this
follows from the development of appropriate
mathematical methods by means of deduction.
?year
Jammer, Max. 1999. _Einstein and Religion: Physics and
Theology_ (USA: Princeton University Press), 279pp. On 123:
Einstein used a similar expression many years earlier
in a talk with Esther Salaman, a student of physics,
when he said,
I want to know how God created this world. I'm not
interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of
this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the
rest are details.^72
72: E. Salaman, "A Talk with Einstein," _The Listener_ 54
(1955): 370-371.
1954 Einstein to Hermanns
Jammer, Max. 1999. _Einstein and Religion: Physics and
Theology_ (USA: Princeton University Press), 279pp. On
122-3:
It was therefore only natural that the discussion turned
to the notion of cosmic religion in the 1954 interview.
Hermanns asked Einstein for "precise statements on
God." Einstein replied,
About God, I cannot accept any concept based on the
authority of the Church. As long as I can remember, I
have resented mass indoctrination. I do not believe in
the fear of life, in the fear of death, in blind faith. I
cannot prove to you that there is no personal God, but if
I were to speak of him, I would be a liar. I do not
believe in the God of theology who rewards good and
punishes evil. My God created laws that take care of
that. His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking, but
by immutable laws.^71
71: W. Hermanns, _Einstein and the Poet-- In Search of the
Cosmic Man_ (Branden Press, Brookline Village, Mass.,
1983), p. 132.
The Discovery That the Universe Is Expanding: Developments in
Theoretical and Observational Cosmology, 1915-1930
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0308140928380.13996-100000%40linux2.gl.umbc.edu
The Search for a Loophole to the Beginning of the Universe
in the Big Bang and to the Seeming-Design of Physics
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005292327160.25513-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
[1931 Eddington for comparison]
Compare this Eddington formulation of an argument involving the 2nd law
of thermodynamics for "a beginning of the present order of Nature":
Eddington, Sir Arthur S. 21 March 1931. "The End of the World: from
the Standpoint of Mathematical Physics" _Nature_, 447-453. This was a
presidential address to the Mathematical Association, delivered on 5
January 1931. On 449-450, starting with the opening lines of the
section "The Beginning of Time":
It is more interesting to look in the opposite
direction-- towards the past. Following time
backwards, we find more and more organisation
in the world. If we are not stopped earlier, we must come
to a time when the matter and energy of the world had the
maximum possible organisation. To go back further is
impossible. We have come to an abrupt end of space-time--
only we generally call it the 'beginning'. I have no
'philosophical axe to grind' in this discussion.
Philosophically, the notion of a beginning of the present
order of Nature is repugnant to me. .... I should like to
find a genuine loophole.
Because of the February 1927 Einstein below, which was before Einstein's
1930-1931 acceptance that the universe is expanding, I conclude that
[Einstein]"it has been tempered by a better insight into the causal
connections" is not about the big bang, and is about physics' appearance
of having been designed.
[Einstein]"Mistrust of every kind of authority grew out of this
experience" Did this mistrust include mistrust of "authorities" full of
devotion to their _a priori_ commitment to the philosophy of materialism?
To compare Lewontin, do a control - f/ "find" for: foot
Timeline of Materialism, Spontaneous Generation, and Blindwatchmaking Views
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-348jecF47mfcjU1%40individual.net
Einstein, Albert. 4 December 1926. Quoted in _The
Quotable Einstein_, collected and edited by Alice Calaprice,
foreword by Freeman Dyson (Princeton, New Jersey:
Princeton University Press, 1996), 269pp., 172. Calaprice
got this from a letter to Max Born, 4 December 1926;
Einstein Archive 8-180; also quoted in A.P. French, editor,
_Einstein: A Centenary Volume_ (Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1979):
Quantum mechanics is very worthy of regard. But an
inner voice tells me that this is not the true Jacob. The
theory yields much, but it hardly brings us close to the
secrets of the Ancient One. In any case, I am convinced
that He does not play dice.
February 1927 Einstein, i.e. before Einstein's 1930-1931 acceptance that
the universe is expanding: "Try and penetrate with our limited means
the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible
concatenations, there remains something subtle, intangible and
inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can
comprehend is my religion."
Jammer, Max. 1999. _Einstein and Religion: Physics and
Theology_ (USA: Princeton University Press), 279pp.
On 36:
A valuable but little known source of information on
Einstein's way of thinking is the diary of Count Harry
Kessler, a prominent diplomat, art connoisseur,
litterateur, and socialite of Berlin's intellectual circles in
the twenties. Because he wrote everything down
immediately after it had happened, the records in his
diary are highly reliable. Kessler met frequently with
Einstein at receptions, dinners, and other occasions.
On 39-40:
In his diary, Count Kessler tells of a dinner that took
place at publisher Samuel Fischer's home in Berlin
February 14, 1927. Apart from Einstein and Kessler,
the famous novelist Gerhart Hauptmann and the
well-known Berlin critic Alfred Kerr were guests.
Pretending to be a firm believer in astrology,
Hauptmann asked Einstein whether he shared this belief.
Einstein, who had just read Lucien Levy-Bruhl's book
_Die geistige Welt der Primitiven_ about the
demonology of early cultural levels and its effects on
ancient religious beliefs, told Hauptmann that faith in
astrology evolved from an ancient belief in demons.
Einstein, who did not believe in such supernatural
beings, strongly condemned astrology as a superstition.
The conversation then turned from astrology to religion.
"Kerr," Kessler reported,
constantly interrupted with facetious remarks . . . the
subject of God was a special butt for his derision. I
tried to silence him and said that, since Einstein is very
religious, he should not needlessly hurt his feelings.
"What?" exclaimed Kerr, "It isn't possible! I must ask
him right away. Professor! I hear that you are supposed
to be deeply religious?" Calmly and with great dignity,
Einstein replied, "Yes, you can call it that. Try and
penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature
and you will find that, behind all the discernible
concatenations, there remains something subtle,
intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force
beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion.
To that extent I am, in point of fact, religious."^46
Re: 46, see Harry Graf Kessler, _Tagebucher 1918-1937_
(Insel Verlag, Frankfurt, 1961); _The Diary of a
Cosmopolitan_ (Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London, 1971), p. 322.
[Einstein writing on an August 1927 letter]"My religiosity
consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior
spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our
weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality."
Dukas, Helen and Banesh Hoffmann. 1979. _Albert
Einstein: The Human Side: New Glimpses from His
Archives_ (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University
Press), 167pp. A section on 66:
There is in the Einstein Archives a letter dated 5
August 1927 from a banker in Colorado to Einstein
in Berlin. Since it begins "Several months ago I
wrote you as follows," one may assume that Einstein
had not yet answered. The banker remarked that
most scientists and the like had given up the idea of
God as a bearded, benevolent father figure
surrounded by angels, although many sincere people
worship and revere such a God. The question of God
had arisen in the course of a discussion in a literary
group, and some of the members decided to ask
eminent men to send their views in a form that would
be suitable for publication. He added that some
twenty-four Nobel Prize winners had already
responded, and he hoped that Einstein would too. On
the letter, Einstein wrote the following in German. It
may or may not have been sent:
I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly
influence the actions of individuals, or would
directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own
creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that
mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been
placed in doubt by modern science.
My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the
infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the
little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding,
can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest
importance-- but for us, not for God.
1930 at-the-latest
Einstein, Albert. Cited in Jammer, Max. 1999. _Einstein
and Religion: Physics and Theology_ (USA: Princeton
University Press), 279pp., 48, who obtained the remark from
D. Brian, _Einstein-- A Life_ (Wiley, New York, 1966), p.
186, who obtained the remark from G. S. Viereck, _Glimpses
of the Great_ (Macauley, New York, 1930). Einstein is
responding to an inquiry to define God:
I'm not an atheist, and I don't think I can call myself a
pantheist. 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. Our limited
minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the
constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's pantheism,
but admire even more his contribution to modern
thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with
the soul and body as one, and not two separate things.
[1930 Einstein]"What a deep conviction of the rationality of the
universe and what a yearning to understand, were it but a feeble
reflection of the mind revealed in this world, Kepler and Newton must
have had...."
Einstein, Albert. 1954. _Ideas and Opinions by Albert
Einstein_ (New York: Bonanza Books), 377pp. On 39-40,
the last two paragraphs of a 9 November 1930 _New York
Times Magazine_ article:
We thus arrive at a conception of the relation of science
to religion very different from the usual one. When one
views the matter historically, one is inclined to look
upon science and religion as irreconcilable antagonists,
and for a very obvious reason. The man who is
thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of the
law of causation cannot for a moment entertain the idea
of a being who interferes in the course of events--
provided, of course, that he takes the hypothesis of
causality really seriously. He has no use for the religion
of fear and equally little for social or moral religion. A
God who rewards and punishes is inconceivable to him
for the simple reason that a man's actions are determined
by necessity, external and internal, so that in God's eyes
he cannot be responsible, any more than an inanimate
object is responsible for the motions it undergoes.
Science has therefore been charged with undermining
morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical
behavior should be based effectually on sympathy,
education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is
necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he
had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of
reward after death.
It is therefore easy to see why the churches have always
fought science and persecuted its devotees. On the other
hand, I maintain that the cosmic religious feeling is the
strongest and noblest motive for scientific research.
Only those who realize the immense efforts and, above
all, the devotion without which pioneer work in
theoretical science cannot be achieved are able to grasp
the strength of the emotion out of which alone such
work, remote as it is from the immediate realities of life,
can issue. What a deep conviction of the rationality of
the universe and what a yearning to understand, were it
but a feeble reflection of the mind revealed in this
world, Kepler and Newton must have had to enable
them to spend years of solitary labor in disentangling the
principles of celestial mechanics! Those whose
acquaintance with scientific research is derived chiefly
from its practical results easily develop a completely
false notion of the mentality of the men who,
surrounded by a skeptical world, have shown the way to
kindred spirits scattered wide through the world and the
centuries. Only one who has devoted his life to similar
ends can have a vivid realization of what has inspired
these men and given them the strength to remain true to
their purpose in spite of countless failures. It is cosmic
religious feeling that gives a man such strength. A
contemporary has said, not unjustly, that in this
materialistic age of ours the serious scientific workers
are the only profoundly religious people.
[1934 Einstein]"the scientist.... his religious feeling takes the form
of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an
intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the
systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly
insignificant reflection."
Einstein, Albert. 1954. _Ideas and Opinions by Albert
Einstein_ (New York: Bonanza Books), 377pp. On 40, the
section "The Religious Spirit of Science," which originally
appeared in Einstein's _Mein Weltbild_ (Amsterdam:
Querido Verlag, 1934):
You will hardly find one among the profounder sort of
scientific minds without a religious feeling of his own.
But it is different from the religiosity of the naive man.
For the latter, God is a being from whose care one hopes
to benefit and whose punishment one fears; a
sublimation of a feeling similar to that of a child for its
father, a being to whom one stands, so to speak, in a
personal relation, however deeply it may be tinged with
awe.
But the scientist is possessed by the sense of universal
causation. The future, to him, is every whit as necessary
and determined as the past. There is nothing divine
about morality; it is a purely human affair. His religious
feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the
harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of
such superiority that, compared with it, all the
systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an
utterly insignificant reflection. This feeling is the guiding
principle of his life and work, in so far as he succeeds
in keeping himself from the shackles of selfish desire. It
is beyond question closely akin to that which has
possessed the religious geniuses of all ages.
[1936 Einstein]"every one 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 one in the face
of which we with our modest powers must feel humble."
Dukas, Helen and Banesh Hoffmann. 1979. _Albert
Einstein: The Human Side: New Glimpses from His
Archives_ (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University
Press), 167pp. A section on 32-33:
A child in the sixth grade in a Sunday School in New
York City, with the encouragement of her teacher, wrote
to Einstein in Princeton on 19 January 1936 asking him
whether scientists pray, and if so what they pray for.
Einstein replied as follows on 24 January 1936:
I have tried to respond to your question as simply as I
could. Here is my answer.
Scientific research is based on the idea that everything
that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and
therefore this holds for the actions of people. For this
reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to
believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e.
by a wish addressed to a supernatural Being.
However, it must be admitted that our actual knowledge
of these laws is only imperfect and fragmentary, so that,
actually, the belief in the existence of basic
all-embracing laws in Nature also rests on a sort of faith.
All the same this faith has been largely justified so far
by the success of scientific research.
But, on the other hand, every one 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 one in the face
of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.
In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious
feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different
from the religiosity of someone more naive.
It is worth mentioning that this letter was written a
decade after the advent of Heisenberg's principle of
indeterminacy and the probabilistic interpretation of
quantum mechanics with its denial of strict determinism.
Compare this 1927 Einstein letter extract:
I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly
influence the actions of individuals, or would
directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own
creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that
mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been
placed in doubt by modern science.
?year to zu Lowenstein; August 1941 Einstein
Jammer, Max. 1999. _Einstein and Religion: Physics and
Theology_ (USA: Princeton University Press), 279pp. On
96-97:
At a charity dinner in New York, Einstein explicitly
dissociated himself from atheism when he spoke with
the German anti-Nazi diplomat and author Hubertus zu
Lowenstein:
In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with
my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are
yet people who say there is no God. But what really
makes me angry is that they quote me for support of
such views.^41
As shown by the numerous criticisms of his 1940 article
and the many letters he received from people who read
about it in the press, Einstein was approvingly quoted
"for support of such views" by freethinkers, agnostics,
and atheists, just as he was strongly reproached by
orthodox extremists and fundamentalists. Einstein
described the reaction to his article quite caustically.
I was barked at by numerous dogs who are earning their
food guarding ignorance and superstition for the benefit
of those who profit from it. Then there are the fanatical
atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the
intolerance of the religious fanatics and comes from the
same source. They are like slaves who are still feeling
the weight of their chains which they have thrown off
after hard struggle. They are creatures who-- in their
grudge against the traditional "opium for the people"--
cannot bear the music of the spheres. The Wonder of
nature does not become smaller because one cannot
measure it by the standards of human moral [sic] and
human aims.^42
41: Prinz Hubertus zu Lowenstein, _Towards the
Further Shore_ (Victor Gollancz, London, 1968), p. 156.
42: Einstein to an unidentified addressee, 7 August
1941. Einstein Archive, reel 54-927.
[1941 Einstein]"whoever has undergone the intense experience of
successful advances made in this domain is moved by profound reverence
for the rationality made manifest in existence. ....he... attains that
humble attitude of mind toward the grandeur of reason incarnate in
existence, and which, in its profoundest depths, is inaccessible to man."
Einstein, Albert. 1954. _Ideas and Opinions by Albert
Einstein_ (New York: Bonanza Books), 377pp. This was
originally published in 1941 by the Conference on Science,
Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic
Way of Life, Inc., in _Science: Philosophy and Religion_.
On 49, the article's closing material:
It [science] also seeks to reduce the connections
discovered to the smallest possible number of mutually
independent conceptual elements. It is in this striving
after the rational unification of the manifold that it
encounters its greatest successes, even though it is
precisely this attempt which causes it to run the greatest
risk of falling a prey to illusions. But whoever has
undergone the intense experience of successful advances
made in this domain is moved by profound reverence for
the rationality made manifest in existence. By way of
the understanding he achieves a far-reaching
emancipation from the shackles of personal hopes and
desires, and thereby attains that humble attitude of mind
toward the grandeur of reason incarnate in existence,
and which, in its profoundest depths, is inaccessible to
man. This attitude, however, appears to me to be
religious, in the highest sense of the word. And so it
seems to me that science not only purifies the religious
impulse of the dross of its anthropomorphism but also
contributes to a religious spiritualization of our
understanding of life.
The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances,
the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine
religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the
fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after
rational knowledge. In this sense I believe that the
priest must become a teacher if he wishes to do justice
to his lofty educational mission.
Einstein's 1948 foreword; 1948 Lincoln Barnett
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-34g499F49a835U1%40individual.net
1954 Antonina Vallentin re: Einstein on God
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-34igbqF4ae7lsU1%40individual.net
duplicate
[1954 Einstein to Hermanns]"I do not believe in the God of theology who
rewards good and punishes evil. My God created laws that take care of
that. His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking, but by immutable
laws."
Jammer, Max. 1999. _Einstein and Religion: Physics and
Theology_ (USA: Princeton University Press), 279pp. On
122-3:
It was therefore only natural that the discussion turned
to the notion of cosmic religion in the 1954 interview.
Hermanns asked Einstein for "precise statements on
God." Einstein replied,
About God, I cannot accept any concept based on the
authority of the Church. As long as I can remember, I
have resented mass indoctrination. I do not believe in
the fear of life, in the fear of death, in blind faith. I
cannot prove to you that there is no personal God, but if
I were to speak of him, I would be a liar. I do not
believe in the God of theology who rewards good and
punishes evil. My God created laws that take care of
that. His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking, but
by immutable laws.^71
71: W. Hermanns, _Einstein and the Poet-- In Search of the
Cosmic Man_ (Branden Press, Brookline Village, Mass.,
1983), p. 132.
Fencingsax
And? Why should Einstein's deism move me in any way?
maff
david ford wrote:
[...]
Nah. Einstein rejected scientifically illiterate Christian fascism.
"But since the devil's bride, Reason, that pretty whore, comes in and
thinks she's wise, and what she says, what she thinks, is from the Holy
Spirit, who can help us, then? Not judges, not doctors, no king or
emperor, because [reason] is the Devil's greatest whore." -- "Martin
Luther's Last Sermon in Wittenberg ... Second Sunday in Epiphany, 17
January 1546." Dr. Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtsusgabe.
(Weimar: Herman Boehlaus Nachfolger, 1914),Band 51:126,Line 7ff.
Martin Luther
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/4f871506b1f2c38b
Bob
wrote:
>When 12, i.e. in about 1891, Albert Einstein
creationists aren't even good at handwaving. ford is a creationist and
is now trying to hide behind the idea that creationism is equivalent
to 'theistic evolution'.
all xtians believe god created the universe. many, many xtians, and
95% of scientists (xtians or not) accept evolution, as did einstein.
this does not make them creationists in the sense that american xtian
fundies are.
ford is dishonest.
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
Kermit
--
Steve
"Once my friend told me that he had found Jesus. I thought to myself,
"WooHoo, we're rich!" It turns out he meant something different "
Jack Handy
<snip>
Einstein came to believe in a
> [Einstein]"spirit"/ not-material God having an intellect far superior to
> man, and that created/ made physics laws and physics, but that doesn't:
> step in to reward and punish humans,
> act on prayers, or
> do "miracles"/ interfere with the operation of physics laws.^2
> Einstein did not come to accept any "divine revelation," for example,
> the divine revelations of Islam, Christianity, or Judaism.
<nother snip>
If this appeal to authority was was supposed to convert me - how come the
above does not convert you "away" ?
you imply i should follow Einstien because he was smarter than me - but i am
confident you dont accept the above - so are you implying you are smarter
than him ?
Steve
<expecting the usual lack of response>
bldc
Thanks for pulling all of this together Mr. Ford. It is
odd that many physicist have little problem with the
notion of design in the Universe. This from the most
provable of all the sciences. Yet for many in the
biology community the notion of design is basically toxic. Makes
me think it has little to do with actual science.
Fencingsax
You are either VERY new here, or a sock puppet.
Cary Kittrell
>
> Thanks for pulling all of this together Mr. Ford. It is
> odd that many physicist have little problem with the
> notion of design in the Universe. This from the most
> provable of all the sciences.
Actually, many do. In Larson's 1998 poll of members of the
National Academy of Sciences, only about 1 in 14 of physicists
and astronomers answered that they believe in God.
> Yet for many in the
> biology community the notion of design is basically toxic. Makes
> me think it has little to do with actual science.
>
-- cary
Bob
>
>Thanks for pulling all of this together Mr. Ford. It is
>odd that many physicist have little problem with the
>notion of design in the Universe.
bldc is, of course, confused. 'design' is not the 'design' of ID'ers.
einstein never sat back and said 'god did it' as the creationists do.
he spent his entire life looking for the natural laws that run the
universe.
This from the most
>provable of all the sciences. Yet for many in the
>biology community the notion of design is basically toxic. Makes
>me think it has little to do with actual science.
wrong again. if god designed evolution, then evolution, and the origin
of species is designed. bldc has his own agenda for creationism, and
conflates HIS view of design with that of einstein.
dkomo
> When 12, i.e. in about 1891, Albert Einstein (1879-1955) had a childhood
> freethought conversion experience as a result of reading pop science
> writing pushing the dogmatic philosophy of materialism, including the
> German Darwinian materialist physician Ludwig Buchner's _Kraft und
> Staff_ (_Force and Matter_), which was a sort of atheists' Bible that
> induced numerous conversions to materialism.^1 However, Einstein's
> conversion _didn't stick_: Einstein didn't remain a freethinker/
> atheist/ materialist. A person's views can sometimes change, and
> Einstein's atheism didn't last. Einstein came to believe in a
> [Einstein]"spirit"/ not-material God having an intellect far superior to
> man, and that created/ made physics laws and physics, but that doesn't:
> step in to reward and punish humans,
This is a total distortion of Einstein's views. Einstein believed in
*Spinoza's* God. In fact, he made a direct statement to that effect.
Do a search for it.
Spinoza's God is *not* a deistic God. It is *not* a separate intellect.
For Spinoza, God and nature are *one and the same*. It could be
called pantheism, but calling it that does not do justice to the
subtlety of Spinoza's concept of God. This concept goes considerably
beyond your simplistic creator God. Dualism in the form of a God
separate from his creation, the universe, is a logical fallacy deriving
from way our minds tend to dichotomize reality.
News Subsystem
"maff" <maf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1108502067.2...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> david ford wrote:
> [...]
>
> Nah. Einstein rejected scientifically illiterate Christian fascism.
Einstein, like Washington, Jefferson, etc., believed in Intelligent
Design...
""If it has pleased the Supreme Architect of the Universe to
make me an humble instrument to promote the welfare
and happiness of my fellow men, my exertions have
been abundantly recompensed...."
http://right2leftists.blogspot.com/2005/01/george-washington.html
http://right2leftists.blogspot.com/2005/01/thomas-jefferson-on-intelligent-design.html
In contrast, the Nazis were pagans defined by their anti-Christian hatred,
as this little fellow maff is:
"It is hard to explain what the neopagans....believe. They do not know
themselves. Their movement is a part of the new nationalism and of a
peculiar National Socialist mysticism. It has no articles of faith and it
parades its lack of dogma. All of the various types of neopagans are agreed
only in one thing-their rejection of Christianity and the established
churches and their conviction that there must be some way of make their
religion more 'heroic' and 'Germanic' than Christianity.
........
Everyone realized that Alfred Rosenberg's violently anti-Christian teachings
had been recognized by the Hitler regime through his appointment as Cultural
Director of the National Socialist party and all of its subordinate
organizations.
Then came the National Socialist party's and the State's attack on both the
Catholic and Protestant clergy for refusing to recognize Hitler's absolute
and unlimited power. Priests and pastors were referred to in speeches to
youthful audiences as "quarreling ape clergy." Finally, the German Faith
Movement was permitted to hold a mass assembly in the Sport Palace in Berlin
at a time when the established churches were forbidden to hold any public
gatherings outside their church buildings. To cap it all the highest
officials in the hierarchy of the Third Reich, with the exception of Hitler,
attended Summer solstice festivals staged in a thoroughly neopagan
atmosphere."
(The Nordic Pagan Chant Grows Louder
By Albion Rossberlin
The New York Times, Aug 4, 1935; pg. 3-4)
http://mynym.blogspot.com/2005/01/blog-post_26.html
This is the sort of thing that happens when those ruled by such hatred get
into power and bring people before their judgement.
"Young Peter Yorck....was perhaps the bravest, answering the most insulting
questions quietly and never attempting to hide his contempt for for National
Socialism. 'Why didn't you join the party?' Freisler asked. 'Because I am
not and never could be a Nazi,' the count replied. When Freisler recovered
from this answer and pressed the point, Yorck tried to explain, 'Mr.
President, I have already stated in my interrogation that the Nazi ideology
is such that I.....' The judge interrupted him. '....could not agree .....
You didn't agree with the National Socialist conception
of justice, say, in regard to rooting out the Jews?'
'What is important, what brings together all these questions,' Yorck
replied, 'is the totalitarian claim of the State on the individual which
forces him to renounce his moral and religious obligations to God.'
'Nonsense!' cried Freisler, and he cut off the young man."
(The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany
William L. Shirer. (Simon and Schuster) 1990 :240)
That mention of God seems to set off something in people like maff.
".....punishment was meted out as soon as the trial had ended on August 8.
....... The developed film, as ordered, was rushed to Hitler so that he
could view it ...... Goebbels is said to have kept himself from fainting by
holding his hands over his eyes."
(Ib.)
The type of separation of church and state that maff will support, he will
only be anti-Christian with respect to true Christians:
"The attitude of Catholic leaders in Germany ranges from that of Archbishop
Conrad Groebar or Freiburg, who put him self "unreservedly" behind the new
government to that of Cardinal Michael van Faulhaber of Munich, who
proclaimed that the spread of "paganism" means civil war. Cardinal nan
Faulhaber, long Nazism's greatest opponent, is credited with having turned
the scale against the Hitler putsch of 1923.
.......
Divorce From Politics Welcomed.
Many good Catholics-and this includes many priests, this correspondent has
ascertained-welcome the church's divorce from politics; these always
deplored the connection, even in self-defense. Others honestly hold it is
the duty of every good German to 'go into the State in order to help
stabilize and save it from extremists.' Many others still believe the Nazi
promises..."
(Nazis and Church Groping for Issue
The New York Times, Feb. 14, 1934, pg. 4
By Otto D. Tolischus)
http://mynym.blogspot.com/2005/01/separation-of-church-and-state.html
Those who believe in the sort of promises of "tolerance" that maff will
inevitably speak of are fools, the reason he projects about fascism so often
is evident.
--W
News Subsystem
"Kermit" <dontb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cutsph$ll4$1...@domitilla.aioe.org...
Where did you read that implication? That is the context of the
talk.origins newsgroup, not what was written. In talk.origins it is typical
to say, "Well, a lot of scientists say this. So then, I will believe it."
Or, "Me scientist, so I know!" Etc. Einstien came to the conclusions he
did because there are sound reasons for them. Conversion? Let the dead
bury their dead. The truth is there and should be written of time and again
by all those who seek the truth and do not rely on: "Well, it's a
naturalistic explanation. I'm told that is science. And I'm stupid, so I
have to go with whatever scientists say."
--W
Bob
<ne...@news.astraweb.com> wrote:
>
>"maff" <maf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1108502067.2...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> david ford wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>> Nah. Einstein rejected scientifically illiterate Christian fascism.
>
>Einstein, like Washington, Jefferson, etc., believed in Intelligent
>Design...
??? which intelligent design? he certainly did not believe that
non-natural forces were responsible for the structure of the universe.
there's no evidence he did not accept evolution.
l
>
>In contrast, the Nazis were pagans defined by their anti-Christian hatred,
depends. i doubt hitler was an xtian. many nazis were, however,
xtians, and many xtian churches supported nazism. that does not mean
they supported the shoah. many of them did support second class status
for jews.
>
>
>
>Many good Catholics-and this includes many priests, this correspondent has
>ascertained-welcome the church's divorce from politics; these always
>deplored the connection, even in self-defense. Others honestly hold it is
>the duty of every good German to 'go into the State in order to help
>stabilize and save it from extremists.' Many others still believe the Nazi
>promises..."
>(Nazis and Church Groping for Issue
>The New York Times, Feb. 14, 1934, pg. 4
>By Otto D. Tolischus)
>http://mynym.blogspot.com/2005/01/separation-of-church-and-state.html
there is, of course, john cornwell's book 'hitler's pope' which
details pius xii's efforts to have a concordat signed with the nazi
regime. he sacrificed, in cornwell's views, catholic opposition to
hitler in exchange for protection for church operations.
Advanced Claytons And Dragons
"Bob" <wf...@ptd.net> wrote in message
news:421268ed...@usenet.ptd.net...
> On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 16:00:34 -0500, david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >When 12, i.e. in about 1891, Albert Einstein
>
> creationists aren't even good at handwaving. ford is a creationist and
> is now trying to hide behind the idea that creationism is equivalent
> to 'theistic evolution'.
>
> all xtians believe god created the universe. many, many xtians, and
> 95% of scientists (xtians or not) accept evolution, as did einstein.
> this does not make them creationists in the sense that american xtian
> fundies are.
>
> ford is dishonest.
..and wilfully ignorant! You have to deliberately set out saying "I'm going
to do every thing possible to be the biggest dumbfuck in the world" to keep
to the line he does!!
Mark K. Bilbo
<1108506969....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, bldc lumbered into
the room and mumbled:
You believe a Usenet *crank* over the science community?
Wow, that would be... sad...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true,
by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."
-- Seneca the Younger
Mark K. Bilbo
Subsystem lumbered into the room and mumbled:
> Where did you read that implication?
Probably years of watching Fnord post his bullshit...
Mark K. Bilbo
lumbered into the room and mumbled:
<snip>
So you'll be abandoning any concept of a personal god then will you?
John McKendry
> <snip>
> In talk.origins it is typical
> to say, "Well, a lot of scientists say this. So then, I will believe it."
> Or, "Me scientist, so I know!" Etc.
OK, I call sock puppet of C.J.W. The baby-talking scientists and the
stuff about "mommy nature" are not coincidental.
John
Daniel Kolle
>When 12, i.e. in about 1891, Albert Einstein
<snip>
And?
--
-Daniel "Mr. Brevity" Kolle; 16 A.A. #2035
Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, Gustav Mahler, Krzysztof Penderecki, and Geirr Tveitt are my Gods.
Head of EAC Denial Department and Madly Insane Scientist.
dkomo
The religion-spouting twit even used the same signature "--W" at the
bottom of his posts.
tim gueguen
"News Subsystem" <ne...@news.astraweb.com> wrote in message
news:4212922e$0$12921$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>
> "maff" <maf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1108502067.2...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> david ford wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>> Nah. Einstein rejected scientifically illiterate Christian fascism.
>
> Einstein, like Washington, Jefferson, etc., believed in Intelligent
> Design...
>
reasonable to assume that many of the US Founding Fathers would have
accepted Darwin's findings had they been exposed to them given the impact
Deism had on them.
> ""If it has pleased the Supreme Architect of the Universe to
> make me an humble instrument to promote the welfare
> and happiness of my fellow men, my exertions have
> been abundantly recompensed...."
> http://right2leftists.blogspot.com/2005/01/george-washington.html
>
> http://right2leftists.blogspot.com/2005/01/thomas-jefferson-on-intelligent-design.html
>
> In contrast, the Nazis were pagans defined by their anti-Christian hatred,
> as this little fellow maff is:
The majority of those involved in the crimes of Nazi Germany would have
considered themselves Christians. And linking maff with Nazism is stupid.
tim gueguen 101867
John McKendry
Same person for sure, but it seems it may be ineptitude rather than
deception. Over in the C.J.W. "Story of the nipples" thread he has
several "News Subsystem" posts with the link to his blog in the sig.
Of course, he could just be a really incompetent sock puppet.
John
Ian
> david ford wrote:
<snip>
>
>
> And? Why should Einstein's deism move me in any way?
>
AAAAAAAAAA! Did you really have to quote that entire post just for this?
OH! OHHHHHHHHHH!
Seriously, quoting for *context* is the appropriate way to go.
-Ian
Fencingsax
I was going for the ironic one liner vs entire post
Douglas Berry
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
>And? Why should Einstein's deism move me in any way?
Did you have to quote all 1000 lines to write this?
Edit, people, edit!
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
maff
News Subsystem wrote:
> "maff" <maf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1108502067.2...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > david ford wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> > Nah. Einstein rejected scientifically illiterate Christian fascism.
>
> Einstein, like Washington, Jefferson, etc., believed in Intelligent
> Design...
Nope. Einstein accepted evolution and rejected Christian fascism. Are
you a sock puppet for scientifically illiterate Christian fascist
idiot, David Ford?
maff
News Subsystem wrote:
[...]
Dear Dr. Einstein, Can You Help?
Dear Dr. Einstein,
I am a pupil in the sixth grade at Westview School. We have been
talking about animals and plants in Science. There are a few children
in our room that do not understand why people are classed as animals. I
would appreciate it very much if you would please answer this and
explain to me why people are classed as animals.
Thanking you,
Sincerely,
Carol
November 12, 1952
Dear Children:
We should not ask "What is an animal" but "what sort of thing do we
call an animal?" Well, we call something an animal which has certain
characteristics: it takes nourishment, it descends from parents similar
to itself, it grows, it moves by itself, it dies if its time has run
out. That's why we call the worms, the chicken, the dog, the monkey an
animal. What about us humans? Think about it in the above mentioned way
and then decide for yourselves whether it is a natural thing to regard
ourselves as animals.
With kind regards,
Albert Einstein
January 17, 1953
maff
News Subsystem wrote:
> "maff" <maf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1108502067.2...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > david ford wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> > Nah. Einstein rejected scientifically illiterate Christian fascism.
>
>
> In contrast, the Nazis were pagans defined by their anti-Christian
hatred,
> as this little fellow maff is:
Hitler
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/963646fbb56179cb
"The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in
his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially
of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word
be desecrated.
For God's will gave men their form, their essence, and their abilities.
Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation,
the divine will. Therefore, let every man be active, each in his own
denomination if you please, and let every man take it as his first and
most sacred duty to oppose anyone who in his activity by word or deed
steps outside the confines of his religious community and tries to butt
into the other."
... Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will
of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am
fighting for the work of the Lord."
- Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf"
"Three years later he informed General Gerhart Engel: "I am now as
before a Catholic and will always remain so." He never left the church,
and the church never left him. Great literature was banned by his
church, but his miserable Mien Kampf never appeared on the Index of
Forbidden Books. "
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_haught/holy.html
"My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a
fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded
only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and
summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest
not as a sufferer but as a fighter.
In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the
passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and
seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and
adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison."
Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more
profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had
to shed his blood upon the Cross."
As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have
the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice..."
And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting
rightly, it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have
also a duty to my own people. And when I look on my people I see them
work and work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week they have
only for their wages wretchedness and misery."
When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues
and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no
Christian, but a very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not,
as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom
today this poor people are plundered and exploited."
- Adolf Hitler, "My New Order"
PIUS XII
Eugenio Pacelli, Pope 1939 - 1958
"His Holiness, Pius XII, the best anti-democrat in the world," as he
was in 1950 (!) proudly titled by Ecclesia, official organ of the
Spanish Catholic Action in an attempt to pay him the greatest tribute a
Catholic paper could pay, earlier in his career, as we have seen, had
helped Hitler to come to power in Germany. His policy as a pope was
faithful to his predecessor. When the Spanish republic was finally
defeated by Catholic troops under Franco, would-be dictator of Spain,
the pope sent a special message to the victors:
"With great joy we address you, dearest sons of Catholic Spain, to
express our paternal congratulations for the gift of peace and victory
with which God has chosen to crown the Christian heroism of your faith
... We give you, our dear sons of Catholic Spain, our apostolic
benediction." [4/17/1939]
Church property and all medieval (!) privileges of the Church were
restored. No other religion was allowed. Protestants and ex-Catholics
were sent to concentration camps for refusing to attend divine service.
Freethinkers, democrats, Socialists and Communists were deprived of
civil rights,imprisoned, or shot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Pius XI, in his own words a "man with no love for democracy," helped
to bring Mussolini's Fascist Party to power in Italy and in 1926
solemnly declared: "Mussolini is a man sent by Divine Providence."
[MC247] In 1935 Fascist Italy attacked and invaded Abyssinia. Since the
population of Italy lacked enthusiasm for this aggression, the pope
hastened to declare a new crusade. For example the Archbishop of
Tarent, holding a Holy Mass on a submarine, declared: "The war against
Abyssinia should be viewed as a Holy War, as a crusade," which also
opened "Ethiopia, the land of infidels and schismatics, to the catholic
Faith."
The pope's emissary in Germany, Papal Nuncio Eugenio Pacelli, the
future Pope Pius XII, helped to demolish the young Weimar republic.
After the liberal democratic Catholic leader Erzberger had been
assassinated, the Pope's exertions became directed to the support of
all Right-Wing movements in Germany, via the influence of the Catholic
Centre Party. On march 23, 1933, the German Reichstag met, and the
Catholic Party, led by its Catholic leaders, former chancellor Brüning
and prelate Mgr. Kaas, personal friend of Pacelli, voted for Catholic
Hitler. After this, having received, directly from the Vatican, orders
to disband, the Catholic Party dissolved. Preached Pacelli to the
German Catholics:
"... it is all the more necessary that the Catholics, deprived of
diplomatic representation, should find in the diplomatic pacts between
the Holy See and the National Socialist Government guarantees which can
assure them ... the maintenance of their position in the life of the
nation."
Mgr. Kaas, leader of the dissolved Catholic Party, put it even more
bluntly: Catholics must support Hitler, he said. They should not have
any fears about it. For Hitler's ideals were "noble ideals."
Furthermore, "Hitler knows well how to guide the ship." In this way the
first successful democracy on german soil had been destroyed.
[MC250-252]
Eugenio Pacelli
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/f51d8a142b83c34e
Hitler and 1,700 years of Christian anti-semitism
http://cnn.co.uk/WORLD/9803/16/vatican.holocaust/index.html
A Calendar of Jewish Persecution
http://www.hearnow.org/caljp.html
Martin Luther: The Jews and Their Lies
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/anti-semitism/Luther_on_Jews.html
Anti-semitism and holocaust
http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/antiholo.html
shooty
Happy Dog
Idiot or liar. Pick one.
moo
< snip 743 lines of crap >
Secular Fundamentalist
> "david ford" <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message news:
>
> Idiot or liar. Pick one.
>
--
David Silverman F.L.A.H.N.
aa #2208
If God had meant us to believe in him, he wouldn't have given us brains.
Bob
<tgue...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>"News Subsystem" <ne...@news.astraweb.com> wrote in message
>news:4212922e$0$12921$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>>
>> "maff" <maf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1108502067.2...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> david ford wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> Nah. Einstein rejected scientifically illiterate Christian fascism.
>>
>> Einstein, like Washington, Jefferson, etc., believed in Intelligent
>> Design...
>>
>No they didn't, since the concept didn't exist during their lifetimes. Its
>reasonable to assume that many of the US Founding Fathers would have
>accepted Darwin's findings had they been exposed to them given the impact
>Deism had on them.
i always love the creationist concept that people reject theories 200
years before they're stated.
Ike
> When 12, i.e. in about 1891, Albert Einstein (1879-1955) had a childhood
> writing pushing the dogmatic philosophy of materialism, including the
> German Darwinian materialist physician Ludwig Buchner's _Kraft und
> Staff_ (_Force and Matter_), which was a sort of atheists' Bible that
> induced numerous conversions to materialism.^1 However, Einstein's
> conversion _didn't stick_: Einstein didn't remain a freethinker/
> atheist/ materialist. A person's views can sometimes change, and
> [Einstein]"spirit"/ not-material God having an intellect far superior to
> man, and that created/ made physics laws and physics, but that doesn't:
> step in to reward and punish humans,
> act on prayers, or
> do "miracles"/ interfere with the operation of physics laws.^2
> Einstein did not come to accept any "divine revelation," for example,
> the divine revelations of Islam, Christianity, or Judaism.
>
unrestra...@hotmail.com
C.J.W. Jan 30, 9:54 am
"No one uses Formanifera for that! Me scientist, so I know! If you
were a
scientist, you would know too."
C.J.W. Jan 16, 5:26 pm
'"Me scientist! So...haha!"
Yeah, am I supposed to care? I really don't care. '
I think maybe "me" is CJW. Good call, John.
So CJW, you are dismissing scientists' opinions in science despite the
years of university training, and the years of research in a field. How
stupid is that?
Idiot. In talk.origins, they say "So-and-so has been doing research n
this field for 30 years, and he points out that the data could be
explained by such-and-such. His paper is at this link..." Etc. Nobody
says well, Dr. X is Catholic, so I'm going to convert. Nobody give a
damn what religious beliefs scientists have, except those who follow
one of those few sects that actively reject all scientific methods.
Only cultists think that the truth is determined by some celebrity's
religious path.
Kermit
maff
Einstein publshed in peer reviewed science jourals. He didn't assert in
Christian fundamentalist jourals, 'I'm Einstein. Take it or leave it'.
Science in Simple Steps
http://snipurl.com/bmxd
What Is This Thing Called Science: An Assessment of the Nature and
Status of Science and Its Methods
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0335201091/
by Alan Chalmers
>
> --W
Giant Sloth
certainly disagree with intelligent design as proposed by the ID
movement. The IDM is opposed that part of evolutionary theory that
proposes that there is no goal or purpose in the development of
species. The type of Designer they insist upon is goal-oriented.
Einstein said,
"I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that
could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a
magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and
that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility."
Dukas and Hoffman Albert Einstein the Human Side, p. 3
A purposeless Designer, who merely sets the laws of nature in place, is
perfectly compatible with the TOE as it stands.
GS
tim gueguen
"Giant Sloth" <nospa...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
news:1108598654.1...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> A purposeless Designer, who merely sets the laws of nature in place, is
> perfectly compatible with the TOE as it stands.
>
They have no interest in a Supreme Being, Creator of the Universe, or
whatever you'd want to call it, that started the thing going and then sat
back and did nothing but watch. They want an activist being who will punish
their enemies and give them something after this life rather than
nonexistence.
tim gueguen 101867
Steve Mading
>
>Thanks for pulling all of this together Mr. Ford. It is
>odd that many physicist have little problem with the
>notion of design in the Universe. This from the most
>provable of all the sciences. Yet for many in the
>biology community the notion of design is basically toxic. Makes
>me think it has little to do with actual science.
I don't have the figures, but I think Biologists are actually
more likely to believe in design than physicists, though
neither is as likely as the general population at large.
Does anyone have a link to surveys about this? (From
reputable sources, preferrably).
Pax Cosmos
> david ford wrote:
>
> > When 12, i.e. in about 1891, Albert Einstein (1879-1955) had a
childhood
> > freethought conversion experience as a result of reading pop
science
> > writing pushing the dogmatic philosophy of materialism, including
the
> > German Darwinian materialist physician Ludwig Buchner's _Kraft und
> > Staff_ (_Force and Matter_), which was a sort of atheists' Bible
that
> > induced numerous conversions to materialism.^1 However, Einstein's
> > conversion _didn't stick_: Einstein didn't remain a freethinker/
> > atheist/ materialist. A person's views can sometimes change, and
> > Einstein's atheism didn't last. Einstein came to believe in a
> > [Einstein]"spirit"/ not-material God having an intellect far
superior to
> > man, and that created/ made physics laws and physics, but that
doesn't:
> > step in to reward and punish humans,
>
> This is a total distortion of Einstein's views. Einstein believed in
> *Spinoza's* God. In fact, he made a direct statement to that effect.
> Do a search for it.
>
> Spinoza's God is *not* a deistic God. It is *not* a separate
intellect.
> For Spinoza, God and nature are *one and the same*. It could be
> called pantheism, but calling it that does not do justice to the
> subtlety of Spinoza's concept of God. This concept goes considerably
> beyond your simplistic creator God. Dualism in the form of a God
> separate from his creation, the universe, is a logical fallacy
deriving
> from way our minds tend to dichotomize reality.
>
>
> --dk...@cris.com
And the concept of Spinoza's God would always be evolving, as our
knowledge of nature evolves.
Dualism reflects an earlier stage in our understanding of the universe.
Perhaps not so early a stage as conceiving of a deity with hands and
feet, but not too far removed from it, either.
The more we know, the less sense these simple dichotomies seem to make.
Perhaps we should understand this, and feel compassion rather than
contempt for those who still hold to them. I think that's what Spinoza
would have done, were he to be alive today. They are in a darkness of
their own making, and are afraid to open their eyes to the light.
Pax
Al Klein
said in alt.atheism:
>And the concept of Spinoza's God would always be evolving, as our
>knowledge of nature evolves.
Spinoza is dead, so no.
--
rukbat at verizon dot net
"To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains
premature today."
- Isaac Asimov
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
Paul Jones
> david ford wrote:
> [...]
>
> Nah. Einstein rejected scientifically illiterate Christian fascism.
... perhaps because he was Jewish?
Take care,
Paul
maff
Nah. It's because he detested scientifically illiterate idiots.
>From Companion's Lost Diary, a Portrait of Einstein in Old Age
http://snipurl.com/dans
>
> Take care,
> Paul