Einstein, Religion and Atheism
I was inspired by suppositions made in another Religion thread which I think were somewhat misguided. The sojourn lead to an uncovery of sorts from the many quotes by Albert Einstein on cosmic religious feeling and thinking.
After doing some research, it seems as though he was widely misunderstood and misinterpreted with respect to his religious views for which he had many. And so I thought I would provide some interesting quotes to see what consensus could be reached there.
Please note that since there are a lot of agitated or angry atheists on this site, I do expect the usual trolling behavior, designed of course to distract from the subject matter. Since religious topics seem to be quite emotional for folks (particularly, in this instance, some atheists) usually those kinds of posts reflect more on the poster's lack of respect and understanding about the subject matter itself. Just so you know, I'm a Christian Existentialist.
With that, I'll make the case that Einstein was an agnostic, but had a deep appreciation about the wonders of the universe, and also had an aversion toward Atheist philosophy and their believe or value systems. Also, I will offer a brief commentary on his thoughts about determinism and Kant's philosophy further down the list... . Feel free to offer your interpretation or argue against mine, and resist the temptation of emotionally charged responses, as it is unlikely I will dignify those with a response :razz:
Here is the first quote with my interpretation below it (the other quotes you can provide your interpretation):
“The fanatical atheists 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 traditional religion as the "opium of the masses"—cannot hear the music of the spheres.”
As you may know, that was a metaphor from Einstein's appreciation of the harmony found in the universe. Much like those who believe abstract mathematics (a metaphysical language) has an independent existence of it's own, Einstein believed that music also had an independent existence that was discovered from time to time buy those who were seeking its truth.
Since music may be considered a universally understood, subjective-truth, it also seems sadly apparent that the fanatical atheist might consider that so-called harmony in the universe as sonic dissonance.
The Music of the Spheres incorporates the metaphysical principle that mathematical relationships express qualities or "tones" of energy which manifest in numbers, visual angles, shapes and sounds – all connected within a pattern of proportion. Pythagoras first identified that the pitch of a musical note is in inverse proportion to the length of the string that produces it, and that intervals between harmonious sound frequencies form simple numerical ratios.[1] In a theory known as the Harmony of the Spheres, Pythagoras proposed that the Sun, Moon and planets all emit their own unique hum based on their orbital revolution,[2] and that the quality of life on Earth reflects the tenor of celestial sounds which are physically imperceptible to the human ear.[3] Subsequently, Plato described astronomy and music as "twinned" studies of sensual recognition: astronomy for the eyes, music for the ears, and both requiring knowledge of numerical proportions.[4]
Other quotes from Einstein:
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
.. . I 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.
Your question is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza’s Pantheism. I admire even more his contributions to modern thought. Spinoza is the greatest of modern philosophers, because he is the first philosopher who deals with the soul and the body as one, not as two separate things.
A person who is religiously enlightened appears to me to be one who has, to the best of his ability, liberated himself from the fetters of his selfish desires and is preoccupied with thoughts, feelings and aspirations to which he clings because of their super-personal value. It seems to me that what is important is the force of this superpersonal content … regardless of whether any attempt is made to unite this content with a Divine Being, for otherwise it would not be possible to count Buddha and Spinoza as religious personalities. Accordingly a religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance of those super-personal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation … In this sense religion is the age-old endeavor of mankind to become clearly and completely conscious of these values and goals and constantly to strengthen and extend their effect. If one conceives of religion and science according to these definitions then a conflict between them appears impossible. For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be…
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, everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe—a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and 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.”
You believe in a God who plays dice, and I in complete law and order in a world which objectively exists, and which I in a wildly speculative way, am trying to capture. I firmly believe, but I hope that someone will discover a more realistic way, or rather a more tangible basis than it has been my lot to find. Even the great initial success of the quantum theory does not make me believe in the fundamental dice game, although I am well aware that some of our younger colleagues interpret this as a consequence of senility.
My interpretation of that relates to free will. A quick reaction is I think Einstein thought QM and randomness in the universe somehow was in some way irrational. I would submit, that there is both chance and choice relative to the human condition that mirror this physical phenomena of QM. I also believe, much like Wheeler, that it's PAP, and that the questions we pose to the universe (synthetic propositions), dictate the answers we receive. I also liken QM to Maslonian/William James' stream of consciousness phenomena where random thoughts just 'pop-up' while say one is driving their car. One can also, easily analogize that phenomena to novel/random discoveries found in mathematics and music.
Hume saw that concepts which we must regard as essential, such as, for example, causal connection, cannot be gained from material given to us by the senses. This insight led him to a sceptical attitude as concerns knowledge of any kind. Man has an intense desire for assured knowledge. That is why Hume’s clear message seems crushing: the sensory raw material, the only source of our knowledge, through habit may lead us to belief and expectation but not to the knowledge and still less to the understanding of lawful relations. Then Kant took the stage with an idea which, though certainly untenable in the form in which he put it, signified a step towards the solution of Hume’s dilemma: if we have definitely assured knowledge, it must be grounded in reason itself.
I believe Kant felt that there was something beyond things-in-themselves through a concept know as transcendental idealism and noumena. As such, the metaphysical (synthetic a priori) sense of wonderment innate to the human condition which posits all events must have a cause, remains quite a mystery as to why humans need to ask those questions to begin with. Much like the understanding of mathematics and musical genius, wonderment itself confers no Darwinian survival advantages, when emergent instinct is all that's needed. The irony is, in this case, all judgements and propositions in theoretical physics start with synthetic propositions.
Einstein's quick view on Existential thought (there are others):
Schopenhauer’s words as “a continual consolation in the face of life’s hardships, my own and others’, and an unfailing wellspring of tolerance.”.... “He often sat with one of the well-worn Schopenhauer volumes, and as he sat there, he seemed so pleased, as if he were engaged with a serene and cheerful work.”
Another SK irony to this thread relates to emotion itself. The atheist, who is agitated or angry and defensive by the cosmic religious feeling, is the same atheist who seemingly denies (or upholds) such intrinsic or universally virtuous human belief and value systems that initially caused their anger to begin with. Is that a kind of repression or denial of their own sentience, I wonder? Are they angry and resentful about something? Is there any hope? Einstein thought that if it wasn't for sentient existence, religion or God itself would not be conceivable (of course neither would many other intellectual concepts and ideologies produced by conscious existence/self-aware human beings...).
After doing some research, it seems as though he was widely misunderstood and misinterpreted with respect to his religious views for which he had many. And so I thought I would provide some interesting quotes to see what consensus could be reached there.
Please note that since there are a lot of agitated or angry atheists on this site, I do expect the usual trolling behavior, designed of course to distract from the subject matter. Since religious topics seem to be quite emotional for folks (particularly, in this instance, some atheists) usually those kinds of posts reflect more on the poster's lack of respect and understanding about the subject matter itself. Just so you know, I'm a Christian Existentialist.
With that, I'll make the case that Einstein was an agnostic, but had a deep appreciation about the wonders of the universe, and also had an aversion toward Atheist philosophy and their believe or value systems. Also, I will offer a brief commentary on his thoughts about determinism and Kant's philosophy further down the list... . Feel free to offer your interpretation or argue against mine, and resist the temptation of emotionally charged responses, as it is unlikely I will dignify those with a response :razz:
Here is the first quote with my interpretation below it (the other quotes you can provide your interpretation):
“The fanatical atheists 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 traditional religion as the "opium of the masses"—cannot hear the music of the spheres.”
As you may know, that was a metaphor from Einstein's appreciation of the harmony found in the universe. Much like those who believe abstract mathematics (a metaphysical language) has an independent existence of it's own, Einstein believed that music also had an independent existence that was discovered from time to time buy those who were seeking its truth.
Since music may be considered a universally understood, subjective-truth, it also seems sadly apparent that the fanatical atheist might consider that so-called harmony in the universe as sonic dissonance.
The Music of the Spheres incorporates the metaphysical principle that mathematical relationships express qualities or "tones" of energy which manifest in numbers, visual angles, shapes and sounds – all connected within a pattern of proportion. Pythagoras first identified that the pitch of a musical note is in inverse proportion to the length of the string that produces it, and that intervals between harmonious sound frequencies form simple numerical ratios.[1] In a theory known as the Harmony of the Spheres, Pythagoras proposed that the Sun, Moon and planets all emit their own unique hum based on their orbital revolution,[2] and that the quality of life on Earth reflects the tenor of celestial sounds which are physically imperceptible to the human ear.[3] Subsequently, Plato described astronomy and music as "twinned" studies of sensual recognition: astronomy for the eyes, music for the ears, and both requiring knowledge of numerical proportions.[4]
Other quotes from Einstein:
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
.. . I 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.
Your question is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza’s Pantheism. I admire even more his contributions to modern thought. Spinoza is the greatest of modern philosophers, because he is the first philosopher who deals with the soul and the body as one, not as two separate things.
A person who is religiously enlightened appears to me to be one who has, to the best of his ability, liberated himself from the fetters of his selfish desires and is preoccupied with thoughts, feelings and aspirations to which he clings because of their super-personal value. It seems to me that what is important is the force of this superpersonal content … regardless of whether any attempt is made to unite this content with a Divine Being, for otherwise it would not be possible to count Buddha and Spinoza as religious personalities. Accordingly a religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance of those super-personal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation … In this sense religion is the age-old endeavor of mankind to become clearly and completely conscious of these values and goals and constantly to strengthen and extend their effect. If one conceives of religion and science according to these definitions then a conflict between them appears impossible. For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be…
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, everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe—a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and 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.”
You believe in a God who plays dice, and I in complete law and order in a world which objectively exists, and which I in a wildly speculative way, am trying to capture. I firmly believe, but I hope that someone will discover a more realistic way, or rather a more tangible basis than it has been my lot to find. Even the great initial success of the quantum theory does not make me believe in the fundamental dice game, although I am well aware that some of our younger colleagues interpret this as a consequence of senility.
My interpretation of that relates to free will. A quick reaction is I think Einstein thought QM and randomness in the universe somehow was in some way irrational. I would submit, that there is both chance and choice relative to the human condition that mirror this physical phenomena of QM. I also believe, much like Wheeler, that it's PAP, and that the questions we pose to the universe (synthetic propositions), dictate the answers we receive. I also liken QM to Maslonian/William James' stream of consciousness phenomena where random thoughts just 'pop-up' while say one is driving their car. One can also, easily analogize that phenomena to novel/random discoveries found in mathematics and music.
Hume saw that concepts which we must regard as essential, such as, for example, causal connection, cannot be gained from material given to us by the senses. This insight led him to a sceptical attitude as concerns knowledge of any kind. Man has an intense desire for assured knowledge. That is why Hume’s clear message seems crushing: the sensory raw material, the only source of our knowledge, through habit may lead us to belief and expectation but not to the knowledge and still less to the understanding of lawful relations. Then Kant took the stage with an idea which, though certainly untenable in the form in which he put it, signified a step towards the solution of Hume’s dilemma: if we have definitely assured knowledge, it must be grounded in reason itself.
I believe Kant felt that there was something beyond things-in-themselves through a concept know as transcendental idealism and noumena. As such, the metaphysical (synthetic a priori) sense of wonderment innate to the human condition which posits all events must have a cause, remains quite a mystery as to why humans need to ask those questions to begin with. Much like the understanding of mathematics and musical genius, wonderment itself confers no Darwinian survival advantages, when emergent instinct is all that's needed. The irony is, in this case, all judgements and propositions in theoretical physics start with synthetic propositions.
Einstein's quick view on Existential thought (there are others):
Schopenhauer’s words as “a continual consolation in the face of life’s hardships, my own and others’, and an unfailing wellspring of tolerance.”.... “He often sat with one of the well-worn Schopenhauer volumes, and as he sat there, he seemed so pleased, as if he were engaged with a serene and cheerful work.”
Another SK irony to this thread relates to emotion itself. The atheist, who is agitated or angry and defensive by the cosmic religious feeling, is the same atheist who seemingly denies (or upholds) such intrinsic or universally virtuous human belief and value systems that initially caused their anger to begin with. Is that a kind of repression or denial of their own sentience, I wonder? Are they angry and resentful about something? Is there any hope? Einstein thought that if it wasn't for sentient existence, religion or God itself would not be conceivable (of course neither would many other intellectual concepts and ideologies produced by conscious existence/self-aware human beings...).
Comments (208)
I have read your post and find it interesting. I think that I may have seen some of the quotes, but certainly not all of them I would imagine that Einstein was rather ambiguous in belief although I have not read enough on him as a person to know completely. Hopefully, some people on this site will have read more, although when the person cannot be asked directly it is hard to know for sure, depending on the reliability of the sources.
But, when you say that you think that he was probably an agnostic, you might be right, but even then that is trying to categorize him. I come from the position of being neither a clear believer or an atheist, but I don't see myself as having a fixed position. I am sure that even when I write on this forum, at times, what I am saying sounds almost like atheism and other times like I am a believer in God. However, I think that it is because there is so much to think and wonder about. I hear the harmonies of the spheres in the music which I listen to, even though it is fairly alternative rock.
I am just so surprised that some people can come to definitive conclusions. I think that was the main reason why I started my current thread about religion. I think that it such a fascinating area, although at times I get stressed over my lack of certainty. However, I hope that others will be able to offer further clarity on Einstein's views, or interpretation of them, but I just think that it is best not to try to put Einstein in a box.
One of the most famous statements made by Einstein on this topic is this: “I believe in Spinoza’s god, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a god who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.”
Spinoza's God, and presumably Einstein's, is vastly different from the God worshipped in traditional religion, especially Western religion. It's the God of traditional religions that I think draws the ire of most atheists. I haven't seen or heard of atheists angrily denouncing Spinoza's God.
I'm not sure what you think are the "intrinsic or universally virtuous human believe and value systems" that initially caused the anger of atheists, but if by that you mean what are called "Judeo-Christian" ethics or values, I think that to the extent they're not dependent on acceptance of a personal god of the kind Einstein rejected, they're largely derivative of ethics and values which appear in the works of ancient philosophers who likewise didn't believe in a personal god or God of the kind worshipped in traditional religions, if they believed in any deity at all.
"And the traditional religions worry me. Their long history proves that they have not understood the meaning of the commandment: Thou shalt not kill. If we want to save this world from unimaginable destruction we should concentrate not on the faraway God, but on the heart of the individual."
As you correctly stated Quoting 3017amen
Einstein made many statements in the course of his life about the word "God" and he did contradict himself.
I don't have the time or energy to engage in an extended conversation, so I will just point out that any discussion of Einstein's religious views has to start with - or at a minimum acknowledge - his complete and total rejection of all organized religions and any notion of a personal god.
https://libquotes.com/albert-einstein/quotes/god
I think this sounds very much like some of the points I was making on the other thread. The atheist can't know that there is no God. He can only think or believe so. This would seem to make atheists more agnostics than strict atheists. Many an atheist may say "I don't believe in God" and count themselves "atheists" but if you press them they are likely to admit that they can't be certain that there is no God.
And, yes, accepting the existence or at least possibility of realities endowed with super-personal value, does seem to act like an antidote to selfishness. Religious teachings do tend to come with a code of moral conduct that serves to put a check on selfishness.
Quoting 3017amen
Good question. Maybe they are. I doubt they would be angry and resentful about nothing rather than about something.
Spinoza is an interesting case. He was seen by many as an atheist and was later embraced as a "prophet" by Marxists and other socialists.
Good luck with that "case". :sweat:
I point out here https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/542042 why Einstein is not an agnostic. Also, in his own words below:
Quoting 180 Proof
:up:
Quoting Jack Cummins
He definitely said he wasn't an Atheist, that we know. He was known to embrace pantheism. He of course talked about, and tried to describe his other observations, as you would say, in order to avoid having them fit into a box:
"A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man"-- Albert Einstein
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
Well there is a lot to unpack there. I'll start by saying there is a inconsistency in how an Atheist might consider the impact of Christian philosophy and wisdom associated with not only human nature, but in their own sense of self or Being. Consider the simple rule of treating others as you would like to be treated. Regardless of the genesis of that trope, it was endorsed as a virtuous ideal for most humans to embrace or live by for ages. Hence, another mistake by the atheist who dichotomizes Christian wisdom; throws the baby out with the bathwater. Seems contradictory. Another sign of something else causing the anger and resentment.
Or, take the Atheist who claims everything is life is logical. Not so. Their own consciousness cannot be explained much less described using logic; it transcends logic. And so does the concept of God. Another contradiction in their thinking.
Human sentience. Einstein discusses that seemingly quite a bit. Well...let's save that one for now... :razz:
"Acosmist" is a word I didn't know. I like it. Thank you for using it.
That's hardly a peculiarly Christian rule.
"Regardless of the genesis of that trope, it was endorsed as a virtuous ideal for most humans to embrace or live by for ages. Hence, another mistake by the atheist who dichotomizes Christian wisdom; throws the baby out with the bathwater. Seems contradictory. Another sign of something else causing the anger and resentment."
:up:
Indeed. Another interpretation of his quote is that a normal healthy (exclusive of extremism, fundamentalism, etc.) 'religiously enlightened' person, gets the benefits of philosophical Revelation. I've always said, in my discussion here most Atheists seem somewhat unsophisticated in their thinking. They seem stuck or as Einstein said 'chained' , by religious dogma and other obvious baby v. bathwater stuff :razz:
Did you find it interesting he used the term "super-personal value"?
Well, I guess I don't understand what your point is here. Christianity borrowed so much from the ancient pagan philosophers that it may be said to include some wisdom, though it is awkwardly wedded to a doctrine which is, shall we say, less than credible. Do you claim that atheists reject the Golden Rule because it came to be adopted by Christians? Or, perhaps, that the Golden Rule cannot be accepted without a belief in God?
To be honest, I've nothing against atheists as such. People are free to believe or disbelieve whatever they wish unless it's something that society regards as criminal or evil. The problem is when atheism becomes a form of religion that seeks to impose its views on others, for example, as in communist countries like China.
The other thing is that the vast majority of people do believe in God or Gods and atheists are a minority in the world. I think this makes it legitimate to investigate the phenomenon of atheism in general and, especially, what motivates atheists to disbelieve and to adopt negative and aggressive attitudes or behaviors in their relations with believers.
Thanks for the question. The phenomenon of Revelation can occur from a variety of sources and experiences. They range from the religious experience (William James, Jung, Maslow, etc..), ineffable experiences such as experiencing the phenomenon of music, to anything considered as a novel discovery relating to creativity (inventions, mathematical genius) and that whole cognitive process.
One thing that caught my eye is your supposition about philosophical subject matter. What is or what things are considered to be "determinate" subject matter?
Maybe revelation explained or justified philosophically? Not all philosophies are atheistic. Originally, philosophy was motivated by religious beliefs.
People things about there was a lot of borrowing Westerly Greek philosophy too... .
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
No I'm not. However that's an interesting thought. I think there may be some connection, or as Einstein suggested, a "grudge" against religion which in turn somehow does not allow them to accept those virtuous things that are associated with Christian philosophy. Again they seem to throw the baby out with the bathwater. What do you think?
Einstein claimed that fanatical atheists are unchained but still feeling the weight of the chains, like phantom limb syndrome or something, I suppose. Indeed nihilism might be thought of as a kind of religious phantom limb syndrome, where discomfort is experienced in the absence of the superpersonal.
I figure the ratio of baby to bathwater is about the same in both religious and secular life. Religion isn't about developing virtue, it's about binding a community with shared values, goals, narrative, etc.
That's an excellent point. Generally speaking, exclusive of extremism and such, here in the states we are free to adopt and embrace Christian philosophy which in turn, arguably, helped make American society fluroush...in God we trust.
Of course there is a whole host of issues to unpack there as well, relative to violence against native Americans so on and so forth.
Again, to throw the baby out with the bathwater is alive and well in the Maslonian world of dichotomization :razz: That's part of the unsophisticated nature of the atheist mindset...
Quoting Apollodorus
Yep. Well said. I would venture to guess Einstein would get that. Of course we can't forget the obvious. The so-called sin of pride, exaggerated self worth; it seems Einstein was not clouded by that mindset. He was humbled by the cosmological feeling...
Good point! What are your thoughts on nihilism, are there any good takeaways?
Everyone grows up eventually.
"According to the Pew Research Center's 2012 global study of 230 countries and territories, 16% of the world's population is not affiliated with a religion, while 84% are affiliated. Furthermore, the global study noted that many of the unaffiliated, which include atheists and agnostics, still have various religious beliefs and practices"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism
That was exactly the point I was making. 16% vs. 84% = minority. Does the truth upset you?
TMF!
Thank you for your contribution as always. Examples that would help to elucidate that subject matter?
I quite like the sound of it, actually. I think it's called "freedom of expression", "using language creatively and artistically", etc. Potentially significant contribution to tired, old atheistic "philosophy" IMO.
If affiliation is not evidence of belief, then affiliation is not evidence of atheism either. Your claim stands unsupported.
Does philosophy include metaphysics, you think?
And you forgot this bit:
"Furthermore, the global study noted that many of the unaffiliated, which include atheists and agnostics, still have various religious beliefs and practices"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism
Your baseless claim stands (or rather, falls) refuted.
You asked me to "take a survey". When I presented the Pew survey's findings you changed tack and inexplicably denied everything.
"Furthermore, the global study noted that many of the unaffiliated, which include atheists and agnostics, still have various religious beliefs and practices"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism
Your baseless claim stands (or rather, falls) refuted.
Religious folk require validation by a higher authority, and who's smarter than frick'n Einstein.
"According to the Pew Research Center's 2012 global study of 230 countries and territories, 16% of the world's population is not affiliated with a religion, while 84% are affiliated. Furthermore, the global study noted that many of the unaffiliated, which include atheists and agnostics, still have various religious beliefs and practices"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism
Pew says that "many of the unaffiliated atheists and agnostics still have various religious beliefs and practices".
The atheists seem determined to deny the facts at all costs. I wonder why this might be. Any suggestions?
"Wirth"??? Are you sure English is your first language?
Great question! I have many thoughts on the subject matter relative to cognitive science. But first let me ask, do you happen to have William James' book, Varieties of Religious Experience?
If so, the chapter after the Sick Soul called The Divided Self, talks about Buddhist philosophy /discipline relative to purging anger and worry. Specifically, a story on page 201... .
Anyway more to come...
Come to think of it, I take back what I said. In the beginning, I thought Einstein was guilty of loose terminology - misusing/abusing the word "god". However, this may not necessarily be the case as the apparent confusion with respect to Einstein's stand on god can be pinned down to misinterpretation of the word "god".
On many occasions, Einstejn seems to have made it clear that he was only interested in the Spinozist god (pantheism). It appears that theists who believe in the "other" god, the god who's all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing and who takes keen interest in the affairs of humans, intervening on occasion, have misconstrued this fact. Case closed!
Absolutely, agreed!!! :up:
I don't think anyone here is on team Spinoza.
A relevant Einstein quote:
[quote=Letter of condolence sent to Robert J. Marcus of the World Jewish Congress, 12 February 1950;https://www.huffpost.com/entry/beyond-the-delusion-of-se_b_13219428] A human being is a part of the whole, called by us "Universe", a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest — a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. The striving to free oneself from this delusion is the one issue of true religion. Not to nourish the delusion but to try to overcome it is the way to reach the attainable measure of peace of mind.[/quote]
I think Einstein's notion of 'a personal God' is mistaken. I understand that images of 'the sky-father' have roots in an earlier age of mankind - actually the name 'Jupiter' is derived from the Indo-European root 'Sky Father', and I often think this is what a lot of people, believers and atheists both, have in mind when they speak of God. (Maybe remaining silent would be an option!) But such images are couched in terms which were meaningful to peasant farmers and herdsmen in pagan agrarian societies. They simply don't translate to modern post-industrial culture. But that is where interpretive skill is needed. The kind of 'personal God' who 'takes interest' in human affairs might not be what is meant by the name of God in the first place, notwithstanding that it is what a lot of believers understand by it.
But beyond religious imagery and symbolism and the rites of traditional religion, says Einstein:
I still reckon that ought to have been enough for Einstein to have not been the subject of the first chapter of Dawkins' book The God Delusion. If anyone joined the erstwhile Dawkins forum and made a statement like that, they'd be howled down in no uncertain terms, which is typical of the vast confusion swirling around this whole business.
I must concur.
"First, Admit You Are Angry
This may sound silly, but how many times have you met someone who clearly was angry, but who insisted he was not? For some reason, some people resist admitting to themselves that they are angry. This is not skillful. You can’t very well deal with something that you won’t admit is there.
Buddhism teaches mindfulness. Being mindful of ourselves is part of that. When an unpleasant emotion or thought arises, do not suppress it, run away from it, or deny it. Instead, observe it and fully acknowledge it. Being deeply honest with yourself about yourself is essential to Buddhism.
What Makes You Angry?
It’s important to understand that anger is very often (the Buddha might say always) created entirely by yourself. It didn’t come swooping out of the ether to infect you. "
https://www.learnreligions.com/anger-and-buddhism-449713
Maybe atheists would benefit from taking up Buddhism or some other religion, seeing that according to Pew many of them do covertly harbor religious and other beliefs. They certainly should seriously consider it. Nothing to lose in any case, aside maybe their unfounded pride.
I knew it, he was a Jedi.
I stand corrected.
Oh, my.
So, how are we to explain the advance of Islam in sprawling Pakistani or Indonesian cities and even in Western cities like Berlin, Paris, Amsterdam and London?
I think people feel the need of a symbolic father figure as much as others feel the need of martyrs.
You appear to be saying that the cure for atheism (and the inherent anger and groundless pride that comes with it) is cured by religion because atheists have been culturally influenced by religion to begin with, and they have nothing to lose regardless.
What's to lose? Starting with Buddhism, potential losses might be along the lines of this kind of thing, if nothing else. Obviously there are all manner of cults and evangelists of various persuasions who would love to take advantage of "covertly" superstitious people.
I'm not particularly interested in trying to explain it.
I'm exploring the symbolic and allegorical dimensions of religious ideas in the light of philosophy.
Yes, I noticed that and thanks for heads up.
:rofl:
Yep. I agree that on the surface it might sound silly, but it's a reality for many. Cognitive science 101 says you can't fix the problem unless recognize you have one. Once again, it manifests in things like ad hominem, trolling, disparaging one's character, lack of mutual respect, so on and so forth. As the existentialist would say, nothing new under the sun there.
Quoting Apollodorus
Yes. Early Greek philosophy endorsed the 'know thyself' mantra which has stood the test of time. One of the greatest gifts we can give to ourselves is to know thyself. Sure it's an ongoing effort, but so is all of life.
And it is funny you mentioned how effective it can be to control one's thoughts. In James' chapter on the Divided Self, the story of that angry person came to a victorious conclusion with him being able to positively control his thoughts about anger. Metaphorically, " The baby discovered it could walk. It would scorn to creep any longer. From the instance I realized these cancer spots of worry and anger were removable, they left me. With the discovery of their weakness, they were exorcised. From that time life has had an entirely different aspect."
In that story, it was a freeing and liberating experience.
Quoting Apollodorus
Absolutely. Life is good!
Being an atheist is not like supporting one football team over another (like being religious is). It's more like not giving a shit about football. So, generalizing about atheists in this way is laughably silly.
Ahhem...if you didn't give a shit you wouldn't have commented. Stereotypes are given for reasons. Are you too, an angry atheist?
You need to consider the broader picture outside of, for example, the bubble of online forums. For the vast majority of the world's atheists, religion isn't an issue, and there is no connecting psychological thread between atheists. I mean, consider the one billion Chinese. Almost, everyone is an atheist. Do you think there's anything at all significant in that? Are they angrier than, say, Americans?
Dog help anyone who's angry about being an atheist. It's the freer and more fun position to be in, surely.
Great question. Let's talk about the Chinese culture.
Let's parse it one question at a time:
1. Would you like to live there? If not, why not?
Also, you're wrong about 'For the vast majority of the world's atheists, religion isn't an issue, and there is no connecting psychological thread between atheists."
It's all about religion for the Einsteinian fanatical atheist, like yourself. And that's simply because if there were no religion, there would be no a-theism. What's more, the connection to cognitive science is that which Einstein alluded to in that your "grudge" against organized religion is what's bringing you down.
Getting emotion out of the equation would bode well for the atheist. Try using pure reason :razz:
BTW, I'll be happy to debate you one-on-one about atheism.
Well, I do agree that this is the case in some atheists. But according to the OP this is not so in all cases:
Quoting 3017amen
So, the question seems to be:
1. Why are they atheists? Some may have good reason, others may not.
2. Why are they "angry and resentful"? Obviously, this refers to those who are angry and resentful, not to those who aren't.
At the end of the day, it's just a question. People shouldn't take it personally IMO.
I did live there for three years. I think I'd prefer Sweden, also atheist, but less polluted.
Quoting 3017amen
Hm, I think I've made one post on atheism and religion in the past year. So, the bar for fanatical atheist is pretty low there. :lol:
Quoting 3017amen
I don't think you get it. I really don't give a fuck. You can believe what you like.
...now now, there atheist. Like I said, your emotion is getting the best of you :joke:
Oh well, come back when you have the courage, otherwise, as some would say, put up or shut up.
LOL
I've gone through the stage myself of being vocal and angry about religion. But I don't think it applies to most people outside online forums and I don't think it lasts for most people to whom it applies temporarily. It's an exaggerated phenomenon based on a small biased sample size in my view.
Dude! You haven't shaken it; you're still angry!!! I mean, dropping the F-bomb :razz:
The provocation stuff doesn't work on me, Amen. Nor should it on anyone, considering how long you've been doing it and how obvious it is.
I agree it's obvious it bothers you by you dropping the F-bomb. So are you lying to us on the forum then?
You'll need to get back on topic. As I said, this stuff is obvious, boring, predictable and no one cares.
I tend to agree with that. Atheists I talk to in real life do not normally get angry and, as I said, some even admit that they can't be absolutely certain about the non-existence of God. I think it tends to happen more on forums where some people vent their anger and frustration that often has nothing to do with beliefs about religion.
I also agree that @3017amen assumes a slightly "provocative" tone on occasion.
Still, as suggested by the Pew report, atheism seems to be a minority phenomenon and it would have been nice to be able to look into it in a polite and rational manner - as far as this is possible. If not, it doesn't really matter, it's not the end of the world. Life goes on, as they say.
Yes, I think that outside of very specific contexts, most people who identify as religious and as atheists are hardly different in any significant way at all. Thats been my experience at least.
I can’t tell if this is sarcasm or euphemism. In any case...
Quoting 3017amen
:rage: :lol:
Well, I've been called all sorts of names for no apparent reason, including "troll" (on my own thread). People do seem to have a tendency to resort to "things like ad hominem, trolling ...".
It shouldn't really happen but it does. It doesn't normally happen in face-to-face situations because people know who you are or it may result in altercations that you may come to regret. But, as I said, on online forums people sometimes feel it's safe to vent their anger and frustration that often has nothing to do with the topic discussed.
Well, I wonder whether there are, as you claim, atheists who are unable to accept virtuous things that are associated with Christian philosophy.
A preliminary question would be what those virtuous things are, in your opinion. If they are like the Golden Rule, which as you note is one accepted by many groups and traditions, some of which predate Christianity by centuries, then they're only "associated" with Christian philosophy in the same sense as they are with non-Christian philosophy. The concept of virtue itself and its significance, of course, was a fixture of pre-Christian pagan philosophy.
Regardless, if you're referring to such as the Golden Rule and virtue as a guide to living, I'm unaware of anyone, let alone any atheist, who reject them because they are associated with Christian philosophy or the belief in any personal God. They may do so because they claim to be nihilists or radical skeptics or something else, but not because they have a "grudge" against Christianity or religion.
I think it's apparent that one doesn't have to be Christian to accept the Golden Rule or the desirability of living virtuously. I also think it's clear that one doesn't have to believe in a personal God like the God of Christianity and other religions to do so. One doesn't even have to believe in a creator God; the ancient Stoics, for example, did not but managed somehow to be rather fond of virtue as a goal (in fact, the ultimate good, essential to a good life), and didn't believe in a God which created the world and would monitor the lives of humans to see if they were being nice, punishing those who would not and saving and benefiting those who did.
The comment was aimed more at Amen, but you have been supporting the ad hom towards atheists.
Rather than address atheist critiques you attack their character. They’re angry, you claim, therefore their criticisms are invalid because they’re based in irrational emotion.
Quoting Apollodorus
I’m not scared of you. :rofl:
At least NOS’s trolls have a bit of sophistication.
I meant "altercations that you may come to regret" between people in general.
“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 of the people"—cannot bear the music of the spheres. “ — Einstein, Aug.7, 1941. Einstein Archive, reel 54-927, quoted in Jammer, Max, Einstein and Religion (Princeton University Press, 1999) p. 97
Atheism (einsteinandreligion.com)
Obviously, Einstein isn't talking about atheists in general, only about "fanatical atheists" who apparently do exist.
If you're "conceding" the existence of fanatical atheists then you should also concede people's right to discuss the topic. Either that, or simply announce that it's not allowed on this forum and that's that. No big deal. But it seems to me that Christians and others are being accused of "fanaticism" and other things all the time.
Sure, I think so. I think it's a reasonable inference. Cognitive science 101 says that most humans tend to dichotomize things. Sometimes for good reasons, sometimes for bad. Let's use a quick example of the televangelist Fundy. One might easily discount their entire presentation, their entire character, their friends and family, and so on due to their affliiation with a belief system. We've also seen the dangers of extremism and violence (alternatevely, Jesus was known to be a pacifist). Of course, in a free society we have every right to choose our likes and dislikes.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
Disagree, primarily from my foregoing comments. It's very normal for that to happen. Sterotypes and paradigms, etc. are what they are for reasons. Hence, one can eaily default to throwing that particular baby out with the bath water. Rightly or wrongly, that's what people do... . History, and cognitive science, teaches us that. No(?).
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
Absolutely Cic! No exceptions taken.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
Sure, no exceptions taken. Earler in the thread, we all talked about pantheism (as we believe Einstien had a particular interest in...). Personnaly, I like Spinoza and have always said that early church history should have allowed its teachings... . Just to be consistent, that too was a mistake in the dichotomization of an otherwise treasure trove of good information. They too, are guilty of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. (I also think some of the gnostic teachings should have been more or less canonized.)
To this end, not to get too personal, but I live in a beautiful waterfront area wherein I not only thank God every day, I get a spiritual high from nature. One might say a Rocky Mt. High on the east coast :joke:
Pantheism is a good thing... .
And in your arguments you use arguments like that to deflect attention from the issue at hand and suppress debate through ad hominems and threats.
I'm glad we agree about pantheism. I have a fondness for the Stoic version, which is said to have some similarities with that of Spinoza.
But it seems to me you're merely saying it's likely (based on human tendencies) that atheists "throw out the baby with the bathwater" as you put it. I thought you had actual instances in mind.
:up:
Yes I did. Did the Fundy example not register?
What I actually said was this:
Quoting Apollodorus
Instead of addressing my statement, you started a tirade of insults, ad hominems, threats and racist remarks. So ... what does that say about atheists?
Well, I agree that the name 'Jupiter' is probably derived from the Indo-European root 'Sky Father'.
I was just wondering, out of curiosity, why you said that such images are couched in terms which were meaningful to peasant farmers and herdsmen in pagan agrarian societies but they "simply don't translate to modern post-industrial culture".
Is this a conclusion you have arrived at for a reason, or were you quoting from somewhere?
Sure, read your own statements:
Quoting tim wood
Quoting praxis
Quoting tim wood
So, what does that say about atheists and their "arguments" in support of atheism?
Perhaps he believes that all languages besides English are of a different ethnicity to your ethnicity, and he resents the implications that he's not stupid.
That's your own problem, frankly. Ignore him or report him and stay on-topic here, please.
Is anyone discussing atheist arguments? I thought the topic was about atheist irrationality (anger, fanaticism, and unfounded pride).
Well, I meant something like a quote from an atheist that indicated he/she rejected, e.g., the Golden Rule because of a rejection of Christianity or religion.
So exorcize my / our "anger" and demonstrate soundly that our / my atheism is false (or incoherent) – put up, lil trolls, or STFU – if you're intellectually competent enough to do so. I / we know you're not, nevertheless you're offered a chance here and now to prove me / us wrong on that account too. Two-for-one prize, kids. I dare you to exorcize my "anger" with your soundly argued theism. :sweat:
NB: Spinoza is an acosmist (from pov of eternity and pandeist from pov of time), not a "pantheist" or "panentheist". Einstein, a far greater physicist than philosopher, is a Spinozist (who fashionably mistook / misinterpreted Spinoza's acosmism for "pantheism"), not an "agnostic".
I'm sure we could find one... You know it's kind of common sense. In other words , a-theism by definition means rejection of theism.
Whether it's founded or unfounded is the intriguing question ... . And that of course speaks to emotion versus logic... .
Okay great open up a thread , and debate me one-on-one about the existence of God. I wager you won't do it :razz:
If "atheist irrationality" is the topic, then arguments can be analyzed as expressions of that irrationality. But it looks like some people here choose to divert the discussion away from the topic and use ad hominems in the process.
I doubt there is much chance of them using "logic". Some of them look and sound like pressure kettles on the boil ...
Awesome yay. it's a holiday weekend but I may open up a thread tomorrow morning if I get time. Actually have your buddy Baden open up a separate category and just you and me duke it out
I will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that your atheism, your belief system, has no logical basis. It will be based on all of the philosophical disciplines/domains. And I will also prove you will probably end up squirming, trolling, and getting back to your usual ways of attacking people.
Just like Einstein said you would :razz:
Accept?
Oh yes. True that!!!
Lol
At the briefest glance looks very Eastern.
Someone said insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result. A thread that’s just a replication of this discussion will obviously lead to the same outcome: none, spinning wheels and throwing shade.
Might I suggest a change that might lead to a different outcome, a real discussion perhaps?
Start the thread, but get someone to moderate the debate. Someone whose objectivity you can both be satisfied with. Then try this discussion again.
If you both intend on using rational argumentation there should be nothing for either to fear from having a moderator hold each of you accountable to the other. That should address the problems each of you have expressed about the others discourse.
How about it fellas?
Cool. So you agree that you're angry. We already knew that, but it's good to see some honesty and integrity, surprising though it might be.
Quoting 180 Proof
Personally, I'm not an exorcist, so I can't help you there. Quite possibly, it's too late anyway.
I don't need to "demonstrate" anything because atheism is your problem, not mine.
The point I was making was that some atheists, like yourself (not all atheists) are angry and hold some irrational grudge against religion and against people who believe, as suggested by Einstein:
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 of the people"—cannot bear the music of the spheres. “ — Einstein, Aug.7, 1941. Einstein Archive, reel 54-927, quoted in Jammer, Max, Einstein and Religion (Princeton University Press, 1999) p. 97
Atheism (einsteinandreligion.com)
BTW, how many are "you"? One, or many, or you don't know?
Right, that appears to be the point, sad as it is.
Quoting praxis
What can say? Acosmism. 17th century excommunicated secular Dutch-Portugese Sephardim reconceptualizes an approximately 3rd millennium BCE metaphysical-mystical dharmic idea from the Vedas which was completely unknown to Europeans until, I think, the 19th century. Genius. Not "inspired", logically derived in Euclidean fashion. :fire:
Sounds like a reasonable proposition to me. And someone should delete ad hominems and other uncalled-for insults from both sides.
Yes, of course, a moderated debate (which I vaguely hinted at in my last reply to @3017amen.) :up:
The problem with deleting uncalled for insults is that each party would have the power to derail the discussion by claiming offence. There is bound to be instances where a perceived insult from one party is not at all perceived as an insult by the other. There will also almost certainly be instances of offence taken where none was intended, which is also not good for discourse.
I think a gentleman’s agreement for each party to try there best to keep it polite is the best you can hope for.
The moderator should for sure spend some time establishing some of the more obviously aggressive or passive aggressive moves each party has made in the past.
Not sure it needs to be a debate, the moderator is merely there to keep everybody honest since each of you accuses the other of trolling/dishonesty.
There's a debate category already. Put your proposal in proposals. I'd be happy to see this go ahead.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/categories/29/debate-proposals
The site may well be dedicated to philosophical discussion. Unfortunately, your comments aren't.
Quoting 180 Proof
Why don't you lead by example and show us how it's done?
Oh, I've learned quite a lot from you, don't you worry. Unfortunately, nothing good.
Your "logical arguments" go something like this: ... "woo" ... "shit" ..."Wittgenstein" ... "bs" ... "woo" ... "Spinoza" ..."woo" ... "STFD" ... "woo" ... "shit" ... etc., etc.
Exceedingly "sound reasoning", I must say. Almost too sound to be true ... But hey, this is a "forum dedicated to philosophical discussion", so, yeah, koool.
Sounds awesome! Looking forward to it!
Like I say I may at least start the proposal tomorrow morning, and navigate through the rules... And if we both agree to the subject matter and the rules, then let's tentatively go for Tuesday after the holiday.(?).
But the gist of it will be I will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Atheism, and its belief systems, are not logical. Now there's a conundrum :razz:
Perhaps my reading skills have declined in my elder years, but I believe the original topic had something to do with this Einstein fellow?
Ok, so a thread just for you two. How to find a moderator now? Do you both agree to a moderator?
Ooo, oh, me, let me moderate...!
That was once upon a time, in the distant past. The world progresses very fast these days. And philosophy forums even more so ....
Lol, something tells me Amen would object.
Einstein’s words have weight. They have the same kind of weight as he described the ‘chains of religious belief’ having. The chains he claimed that fanatical atheists had freed themselves of but still felt the weight of. The truth is that we all feel the weight of religious chains, if it’s part of our culture. It has influence. We can embrace it or push it away, love it or hate it, flow with it or flow against it. We can do this relatively freely or as a slave.
The claim is apparently that fanatically resisting weight, as I now generically refer to it, interferes with any kind of spiritual experience. I’d be the first to agree that high anxiety isn’t fertile ground for spirituality, and a newly freed slave might be disoriented and anxious.
What of the slave who is still chained? Are they immune to anxiety? No, chains can offer comfort and it may only be about that comforting embrace and not about listening to spheres.
Don’t be fooled by weight.
I think there’s an obvious disparity between the imagery and tropes of the Bible and post-industrial culture. All of the imagery around sheep and fields and tares and so on was plainly addressed to an agrarian, pre-industrial culture. I’m by no means anti-religious but there’s a big disconnect there. Unlike others, I don’t think it’s simply all a myth in the pejorative sense - there are mythical elements but myths can embody larger truths, and do. But unless you can discern the real meaning, then belief is basically going to tend towards literalism or fundamentalism, which basically disregards the realities of current existence.
Now a Christian might say that the ‘real meaning’ is ‘unconditional compassion’ and the living out of the Christian virtues - with which I would agree. But the background of the belief system has to be interpreted in light of the human situation. There are those who can do that - there are certainly very discerning and technologically-literate Christian philosophers that I have come to appreciate (Jacques Maritain, Keith Ward, Gabriel Marcel come to mind.) But there’s also a tendency within the Semitic faiths broadly towards literalism and fundamentalism which manifests in various bad ways. I think that has to be acknowledged, at risk of bad faith. Biblical literalism will take issue with science when it disagrees with their dogma. ‘Arguing with rocks’, I call it.
My personal quest began with wanting to understand the enlightenment that Eastern teachers were on about. I grew up in the sixties, when the Beatles went to Rishikesh with Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. I was bought a Krishnamurti book by my mother for Christmas. I discovered those kinds of people. Are they religious? Well, yes and no. At the time I had nothing but scorn for ‘Churchianity’. The whole point was to attain insight through experience. Or so I thought. 50 years later a lot of things don’t seem to cut-and-dried. But there was definitely a kernel of truth in it. Anyway having discovered the ‘turn on, tune in and drop out’ meant, in effect, working as a labourer to pay the rent, I went back to Uni and studied Comparative Religion (along with philosophy, anthropology, history, and psychology). I was trying to understand what spiritual enlightenment or illumination was, and where to find traces of it in the different cultures. Comparative religion is the only subject which deals with that, or rather, where you will find those kinds of studies, even though the academics in that field weren’t particularly interested in it. (Although anthropology of religion is also a great subject, as is ‘history of ideas’.)
This is becoming a very long post, so all I will say is, I have come to something like ‘religious naturalism’ - that the insights and epiphanies of the higher religions arise from real encounters. There are sages and prophets, and they see real things. They’re not fictions, although they are often subsequently fictionalised. So I will never agree that man created God even though I no longer self-identify as Christian. The spiritual quest starts with seeing beyond the self, that is something that both East and West agree on. There are vast domains of understanding well outside the scope of our hedonistic technological culture. But we also can’t cling to the past. That’s the challenge of our day.
That’s why many of Einstein’s aphorisms appeal to me, especially those ones I quoted.
You're currently in the lead in the crowd of volunteers. :up:
When do we start?
I also find that, by training and sometimes by intellectual inclination, academics have a tendency to take an "impartial" approach to their subject that forces them to be so detached as to be virtually incapable of studying a tradition from within, which rather defeats the object.
I agree that we can't cling to the past, though we can and should draw lessons from it. We must cling to what is eternal and eternity is found in the present moment. The present is the gate to eternity. Those who look for it in the future will never find it. The agreement between seemingly disparate traditions seems to suggest that there is more than a kernel of truth in their teachings. Moreover, they all ultimately point in the same direction. It's just that the inner message often gets lost in external trappings and other secondary issues. Mainstream culture conditions us to look at externals and ignore the inner core of things and the true meaning of existence.
Actually there's been a bit of a sea change in that respect. My first Prof. of Religious Studies was old school - religion was a phenomenon to be studied like pinning butterflies to a board. There was an element of cultural chauvinism in it, that a 'scientific' understanding was being sought, the implication being once again of the priviledged nature of the scientific perspective. (Not that he was a bad guy or anything, I very much liked him.) But that changed mid-last century with the ascendancy of the scholar-practitioner and the recognition that some of these traditions were actually peers of the Western intellectual tradition, not subordinated 'others'. (Edward Said's 'Orientalism' had a big impact on this.)
Anyway, overall in agreement.
When did this happen? I've never heard of "the priviledged ... scientific perspective"? "Priviledged" elite theocrats and aristocrats, plutocrats and kleptocrats have never been a "scientific crowd" anywhere or anywhen in world history. In fact, they're almost always persecuting or politicizing "the scientific perspective" every chance they get.
As you yourself have noted in other contexts, fish have never heard of water. In the context in which I quoted it, I was referring to the 'Enlightenment' perspective on religious studies, which implicitly or covertly adopted a scientific stance towards other religious cultures. And indeed, Enlightenment philosophy, following Comte, priviledged the scientific stance in arguing that 'the scientific' supersedes and makes obsolete 'the metaphysical', which is the basic stance of positivism of all stripes.
Or an arboreal metaphor: religion are old seeds scattered by blowing seasons; philosophy sprouts an ever outward-downward digging roots system of understanding; and its trunk grows science which spreads sunward manifold splayed formal/empirical branches, garlanded and heavy with historical leaves & artistic fruits; the ground in all directions around the tree remains covered with fallen seeds and waiting dirt as fractal constellations wheel over head like spiral rivers of atoms blinking in the void.
Yes, Wayf, related and distinct, but, as with all thing, the future always rewrites the past, descendents always reinterpret ancestors, and Ye shall know them roots by their fruits. Science barely ever knows; but only philosophy understands. A bird flies higher with a bellyful of seeds. :fire:
Good morning everyone! I'm excited for the challenge. Let me just say I'll make a Muhammad Ali prediction, and knock 180 out in the third round! And remember, I'll "Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee, your hands can't hit, what your eyes can't see.”
I have a lot to say about who I would pick for a moderator (since this site is woefully full of angry atheists) but I'll get to that later with specifics.
As I said I will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Atheism and its belief systems are not logical. With that, what is your definition you propose that describes your Atheism?
Really old school apparently.
I used to think that consciously using religion like a tool was a relatively new phenomena, but maybe it was like that from the start?
Please don't let my challenge to 180 derail the other thoughts that were going on in this thread because obviously Einstein had other thoughts and theories similar to those in the OP. For example, his God who doesn't play dice!
The idea that religion is useful to rulers is often taken to mean that it is a tool for manipulation. It can be, but it is also useful for benevolent rulers who are aware that the wise are few and people need guidance, both for their own good and the good of the regime. An idea that is as old as religion itself.
Personally, I've got the feeling that 180 has lost already. But I think it might prove difficult to find impartial moderation on this forum.
Quoting Banno
Quoting Banno
I could be wrong, but you might find yourself banned before you even know it ....
Yep definitely on both accounts I agree. There are a lot of juvenile actors on this site. But that's okay.
Not to sound presumptuous but Jesus was persecuted for a reason :joke: And just as prophetic, this too is nothing new under the sun.
Sheep did just fine before there were sheep herders. Anyway, you must be pleased with the results of this wise guidance and the current condition of humanity?
I suspect that you might consider anyone who rejects your views would not be a suitable moderator. My suggestion is that you just make your argument and let each of us decide for ourselves who makes the stronger argument.
Once again I will prove that your Atheism and its associated belief systems are not logical. To that end, here's one definition of Atheism, does this describe your belief accurately?
Atheism: a disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
Point well taken!
It looks like he's trying to wriggle his way out already:
Quoting 180 Proof
No, but that will suffice for (A) weak/negative atheism on my list of coherent positions for me to defend.
Given that according to at least one moderator The Philosophy Forum considers Christians and other believers to be a "blight", I think we can imagine what that decision will be.
Perfect! Like I said earlier I'm on RNR right now so if it's okay with you let's begin our debate on Tuesday! In the meantime we can think about whether we want a moderator, or just open a thread on our own that's (voluntarily) restricted.
By the way, just an ancillary note. If you feel the emotional need in the debate to continue with your usual ad hominem, which is certainly your freedom of choice, do you think that will strengthen or weaken your case,?
I will leave open the question of whether the sheep are better off with or without a sheep herder.
I did not say wise guidance. Note the three separate terms in Seneca's quote. the people, the wise, and the rulers. Philosophers from Plato to Machiavelli to Nietzsche have recognized the importance of religion for the people.
I am not pleased with the current condition of humanity but we do not know how things might have been otherwise.
My point is not to defend religion but rather that its useful for controlling the people, and that control is not just for the benefit of those in control.
Wolves, etc sure would agree with that statement. :yum:
I thought Banno was moderating? I assumed there was some PMing going on...
You guys assuredly need a moderator, complete waste of time otherwise, you guys might as well just keep snipping at each other in this thread if you opt for no moderator.
Don’t really have the gist of this term. Opposed to all theistic concepts?
Not all theistic concepts per say, but an opposition to belief in gods/gods as defined by the monotheist religions.
It’s what people like Amen3017 are talking about when they think they are talking about atheism.
As long as you can agree on a moderator. The way things often go my concern is that a moderator would be needed to moderate the disagreement over who is to moderate.
I think it sensible that you do not think a moderator's personal beliefs should disqualify them.
I’ll answer it. Apparently they were something like the following before wise men domesticated them.
How the mighty have fallen. :sad:
Quoting Fooloso4
You may have noticed that those in control have a tendency to do whatever it takes to remain in control. Is that wise? Sure, if you’re self interested.
Quoting praxis
I don't think that this is the whole of the story. If people could be self-governing the need for government would be minimal, but they are not.
One of the associated belief systems that are unquestionably not logical is Marxism. It has long been demonstrated to be inconsistent, ambiguous, and nonsensical. And it has failed every single time it was put into practice.
Large projects -- whether it's the power or transportation infrastructure or going to war -- cannot be worked on if people are merely self-governing. It's in the nature of such large projects that they require a certain type of hierarchical organization in order to be carried out. Modern life is based around such large projects. There's a limit to how much technological and logistic complexity self-governing people can carry out. A generous estimate seems to be a Stone Age lifestyle.
I agree. This is an issue that came up in the thread on individualism.
The conceptual separation of church/state apparently dates back to at least Seneca. Also, Seneca was a stoic who understood that virtue could be developed in the pursuit of well-being or eudaemonia, and not out of obedience to an authority or for some kind of postmortem reward. Religious life doesn't require moral development at all, in fact it purposefully suppresses it, because moral development leads to independence, and independences leads to loss of control. The religious person is granted higher moral status for merely being part of the tribe.
Someone mentioned a Pew Research survey earlier in the topic that showed how some people who did not identify as religious nevertheless held some religious views. Of course the inverse of that must also be true and those who identify as religious hold secular views. I recently thought it remarkable when some religious conservatives condemned the current Pope for supporting climate change efforts. A case of the secular tribal identity Trumping the religious tribal identity.
An interesting claim. What evidence is this based on?
Quoting praxis
Right, but the common man is not a stoic philosopher.
Quoting praxis
In so far as you associate moral development with independence I agree. Religion can, however, promote behavior that is consistent with the political and social order of the ruler. Independence may be desirable in a democracy but not so much in other regimes.
All of this is off topic though. Perhaps a topic for a new threat.
The point is that moral life isn’t dependent on religion, as some seem to claim.
Yes. I agree. I have known many who hide behind a religious facade.
Quoting 180 Proof
To further clarify the object of our dispute, consider:
For clarity's sake, designating which deities are at issue in 'for / against arguments' or (mere) avowals, I've compiled an inventory of the most common deity-TYPES (i.e. conceptions of divinity):
By 'creator' I understand an entity that transcends its creation in logical anteriority and is ontological separate from its creation (whether it intervenes (immanently or transcendently) or does not intervene in its creation).
And by 'intervener' I understand an entity that causes changes in or to the (scientifically) observable, physical, world (i.e. nature) – independent of the entity's alleged provenance (i.e. whether natural or super-natural) – which are therefore also (scientifically) observable. E.g. "parting the Red Sea", "raising the dead", "curing incurable diseases via intercessionary prayer", "flooding the world", "creating the world c6000 years ago", "being on both sides in a co-religionists' sectarian / civil / holy war", etc...
:point: To paraphrase your previous definition, for the sake of this argument, "Atheism: a disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of" (C) both Creator and Intervener deity (re: ... THEISM).
Is that acceptable to you, 3017amen?
So not just disbelief but belief that theism is dangerous, destructive, or encouraging of harmful behavior.
Exactly, it’s not the theistic concepts per say because some of those are A) not original to that theism and B) are not in opposition to non-theists. (The golden rule for example)
Have you been living under a rock in China for the last 50 or so years?
"The inconsistency allegations have been a prominent feature of Marxian economics and the debate surrounding it since the 1970s.[1] Andrew Kliman argues that since internally inconsistent theories cannot possibly be right, this undermines Marx's critique of political economy and current-day research based upon it as well as the correction of Marx's alleged inconsistencies.[62]
Critics who have alleged that Marx has been proved internally inconsistent include former and current Marxian and/or Sraffian economists, such as Paul Sweezy,[63] Nobuo Okishio,[64] Ian Steedman,[65] John Roemer,[66] Gary Mongiovi[67] and David Laibman,[68] who propose that the field be grounded in their correct versions of Marxian economics instead of in Marx's critique of political economy in the original form in which he presented and developed it in Capital.[69]
According to Leszek Ko?akowski, the laws of dialectics at the very base of Marxism are fundamentally flawed: some are "truisms with no specific Marxist content", others "philosophical dogmas that cannot be proved by scientific means", yet others just "nonsense". Some Marxist "laws" are vague and can be interpreted differently, but these interpretations generally fall into one of the aforementioned categories of flaws as well.[82]"
Criticism of Marxism – Wikipedia
Frederic L. Bender, “The Ambiguities of Marx’s concepts of ‘proletarian dictatorship’ and ‘transition to communism’”
Of course you're not questioning it but you're questioning it all the same. I would suggest you read the well-known scholarly criticism and then we can discuss. How about a thread on it?
"Criticism of Marxism (also known as Anti-Marxism) has come from various political ideologies and academic disciplines. This includes general criticism about a lack of internal consistency, criticism related to historical materialism, that it is a type of historical determinism, the necessity of suppression of individual rights, issues with the implementation of communism and economic issues such as the distortion or absence of price signals and reduced incentives. In addition, empirical and epistemological problems are frequently identified" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Marxism
Plenty of interesting stuff to choose from.
I looked through the links, and I think that will work. For example, the links also talked about the Omni-3 stuff, which of course is illogical (in theory, transcends logic). Or even a cosmological God who is partially dependent on temporal Time yet somehow creates Time itself, etc... .
So, if you include the concept of the Omni-3 God as being part of your A-theist belief system, then sure, no exceptions taken.
I'm not going to show all my cards of course (and neither should you) but keep in mind, I'm a Christian Existentialist, so I will attack the most basic of belief systems, including yours. Whether its Time itself, or Omni-3 or whatever. The theme, as I said earlier, has to do with logic. And I will prove that your A-theism is not logical. But instead, is based on something else...like emotion or some other irrelevant cognitive, philosophical, psychological, or existential phenomena, etc, etc....
In other words, and in that sense, the A-theist and the Fundy are no different.
Let me know
Very good. Have you got an Admin to set up our debate space and found a member to moderate the debate who's to your liking? Banno works for me. Who moderates (within reason!) is not by a deal breaker for me though. (Maybe we can briefly discuss in PMs members we each object to in this role?)
Since you will taking down "a-theism", I will present an argument for this moving target to begin the debate, right? And you will defeat my argument in turn? And so on for a limited(?) number of counters and then summations in a final post by each of us (apparently with you getting the last word :sweat: )?
Is that what you have in mind or something else?
Quoting tim wood
This seems much clearer to me. What do you say, 3017amen?
I could go either way, but since I challenged you, I'll go ahead and make my supposition clearer by making my case. Then you can poke holes in it.
I don't really care who gets the last word. I will tell you this though, if there is a lot of ad hominem like I've seen from you in the past regarding my posts, I'll interpret that as you throwing in the towel (and by default I'll win). Because seemingly you have no other arguments. And in that case, it would speak on its own.
As far as moderators, I'll monder that and look through some of the other debates and see how it was handled. To be brutally honest, this site has a bad reputation in that regard, so to find an objective party may be difficult...
We don't need "objective", even neutral, just scrupulously FAIR. Any member with a reputation for fairness and/or the demonstrated maturity we can reasonably expect to be fair will suffice.
If we have someone moderate, it will his or her role to delete (or red flag) ad hominems, strawmen, and such as well as decide (by agreed on rules) who forfeits and thereby who prevails by forfeit. And, my friend, check Google & wiki: insults are fair game in debates but ad hominem fallacies are not. I suggest you learn the difference and stop whining that my insults have been ad hominems when they have not. Anyway, at any rate, insults are almost always bad form with audiences so I won't go for the cheap laughs just to score points. I take debates even more serious than I do free-for-all forum discussions. By all means though, you go first and give me the last word, sir. I'll gladly accomodate you. :up: :smirk:
... if not impossible.
Let me first post here some important definitions. Then if we agree on any violation of them, what that violation means, so on and so forth. Again, I'll be brutally honest, Baden had deleted posts that were purely arbitrary based on his ego. He's dropped disparaging F-bombs, etc. etc.. . And if you need proof, I'll find them (unless of course he deleted them).
Let me just get the basic definitions of Straw man, either/or arguments, non sequitur's, etc out of the way first...I'll post in a bit...
All this is still germane to Einstein's observation of fanatical believers like you :razz:
Anyway, "sucker" you'll be going down in 3: “Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee, your hands can’t hit what your eyes can’t see.”
I just the love the emotional free for all idea 180, don't you pea-brain? LOL
I have no interest in moderating the debate. You can choose your mod. Now, just go post the proposal in the debate forum and stop babbling about it.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/categories/29/debate-proposals
Unless, of course, you have no intention of debating and this is just showboating.
Hey, how about staying out of this grown-up talk :razz:
You of all people, I wouldn't want to moderate because of your lack of biased restraint.
LOL
Sorry, dude, more than likely
Quoting Baden