The Bible influenced my disbelief

[Occult1]

My problem with pantheism has always been the physical problem of how the different parts of the universe manage to communicate, and the answer has to be that they don't, so this entity, this "Tao" is just simply here and there and everywhere providing sentience and order (causation) but is not doing or revealing or "thinking." Personally this is too much speculation and if it is so unknowable then we best leave it alone and not beat our heads up against it.

There is a phenomenon in Quantum Physics, tested and proved, refered to as Quantum Entanglement which stipulate that objects, such as particles can exist in states that are linked together suggesting a ''comunication'' so to speak. Albert Einstein came to describe it as: ''spooky action at a distance''. When I first read about this it was truly mind-boggling... and still is.

Quantum entanglement is a physical phenomenon that occurs when pairs or groups of particles are generated or interact in ways such that the quantum state of each particle cannot be described independently – instead, a quantum state may be given for the system as a whole.

Source: http://en.wikipedia....um_entanglement

I am not saying that it even remotely proves the validity of concepts like Panentheism or Pantheism in any way but it's a fascinating and puzzling discovery of which implications remain to be fully understood.

Edited June 29, 2014 by sam_comm

[eight bits]

Frank

What exactly Einstein "believed" is not relevant nor what label we attach to it.

If you believe that it's off-topic, then don't post on it. Problem solved.

davros

Keep in mind the dates.

Yes, it is remarkable how constant Einstein's adult religious views were. I have remarked on that very thing in earlier posts. You could edit the two passages together, and think you were reading something said all at once on the same single occasion.

(Synthesiszed) believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings. 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.

What would be misleading is that Einstein referred to two different lies about him. The earlier lie was that he was an atheist, and the later one, some other personal-God religious opinion. Of course, those do not ehaust the opinions avaialble, and Einstein's was neither one of those.

sam_comm

If we are going to discuss what somebody said, then we must also discuss the context and what they themselves said about that very quote.

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.

This was a telegram that Einstein sent to a New York rabbi who had sent him a telegram asking "Do you believe in God?," prepaying Einstein's answer of fitfy words or less. Einstein had been publicly accused of atheism by the Roman Catholic archbishop of Boston.

Einstein was asked about that answer in an interview. From the Uncertaintist soruce material that has already been presented in this thread:

-----------

George Viereck (interviewer): Do you believe in God, the God of Spinoza?

Einstein: I presume your question is inspired by my message in reply to an American friend,

informing me that I had been attacked as an atheist by a distinguished ecclesiastic. My

reply was not intended for publication. No one," he smiled amusedly to himself - "except

an American - could think of sending a man a telegram asking him: 'Do you believe in

God?'

-----------

So, we learn a few things. Einstein did not intend his answer to be published. This issue, too, came up earlier in the thread. This incident is where Einstein learned that, as a public figure, there is no such thing as a "private" remark to a stranger. You will also notice that Einstein hasn't answered the interviewer's question yet.

They spar for a while. The full passage is in the source material pdf from the Uncertaintist. As close to a direct answer as occurs in the exchange is this:

-----------

"Your question," Einstein replied, "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

-----------

So, Einstein backs off of any apparearance of a flat embrace of pantheism, and seems to say the magic words for agnosticism ("It is not a question I can answer ... with yes or no") but he hedges that - it is not that he cannot answer with yes or no, but cannot answer simply with yes or no. Clearly, Einstein is near that "corner point" which has been discussed in the thread.

OK. So, regardless of Einstein's reservations about the word, is he a pantheist anyway? The answer is no, he distinguished the source of natural order from nature itself; while Spinoza did not, in the opinion of many readers. As we have discussed in the thread, it is possible that Einstein, who was an expert on Spinoza, may have believed that "pantheism" was wrongly defined by others, and that Spinoza did, in some way satisfactory to Einstein, distinguish God from Nature. It is possible; I just don't know.

Finally, that distinction would, as you suggest, allow an admirer of Spinoza but who distinguished God from Nature to adopt panentheism instead of deism. Or in addition to, they are not mutually exclusive.. However, "God ... interpenetrates every part of nature..." is no part of Einstein's teaching. Einstein clearly practiced what is called natural theology (= observed reality is used a source of information about God), but never reported inferring God's whereabouts (and so not interpenetrating any actual thing, or every actual thing).

[Leonardo]

"Your question," Einstein replied, "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."

If I may interject into this discussion of the labelling of Einstein's beliefs, it is - to me - this last sentence which allows a more clear definition to be applied. Theological noncognitivism, or "ignosticism", would seem to best describe, if not entirely accurately describe, the belief Einstein is attempting to elucidate.

[Frank Merton]

Sheesh what some people do to avoid admitting they were wrong. All you really have to do is drop it and I won't demand an apology or anything silly like that. Einstein's religion he pretty much kept to himself and you can cherry pick quotes all you like that won't change. I already described as best as most scholars think he thought, but you know he did evolve over time too.

By the way now you say he was a "igtheist," previously pantheist; at least you got off the deism kick.

[eight bits]

Leo

If I may interject into this discussion of the labelling of Einstein's beliefs, it is - to me - this last sentence which allows a more clear definition to be applied. Theological noncognitivism, or "ignosticism", would seem to best describe, if not entirely accurately describe, the belief Einstein is attempting to elucidate.

There is nothing in Einstein's statements that differ from the usual things based on natural theology without revealed theology.

Einstein amplified "The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds" with a parable, the famous "child in the library" story. (The Uncertaintist pdf gives Einstein's complete answer, as Viereck reported it, not just the directly responsive portion I quoted. From that source:)

“May I not,” he added after a pause, “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 marvellously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations.

(The last sentence is disputed as authentically Einstein's, however, it may well accurately Viereck's recollection or notes.) Even allowing for the looseness of frankly figurative speech, it is clear that the "child" (us) has ample justification for a confident and affirmative answer to the question of God, but no basis for any detailed positions about God's attributes, except to restate the evidence (there is an appearance of order and someone must have written those books).

That implies an ineffable God, which is a routine enough position and does not distinguish among theist, deist, pantheist or even agnostic - many broad answers to the question of God include views that are based on some expectation of divine ineffability.

[Leonardo]

As far as I know, eb, the positions of Theological Noncognitivism/Ignosticism do not deny the existence of God, but only argue the term is undefined (or cannot be defined) and so discussion on the subject is essentially meaningless.

This does seem to chime with what Einstein is quoted as relating to the question of whether he "believes there is a God".

I suppose a theological noncognitivist/ignostic might also describe themself as a Deist, thus proclaiming they believe deity does exist but reflecting they also believe it is not, or cannot be, known. However, that position would then appear to be contradictory as, if such a thing is not/cannot be known then it also is not/cannot be known to be.

When Einstein refers to "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists" but then caveats this with "It is not a question I

can answer simply with yes or no. ... The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds.", I believe he is leaving enough wiggle room to suggest such a "force that sways the constellations" may be entirely natural, rather than supernatural, and that Spinoza's "God" may be an anthropomorphisation, rather than an actual entity.

Of course, not being Einstein, I might equally be wrong.

Edited June 29, 2014 by Leonardo

[Frank Merton]

When I dig deep down asking what is behind it all, while it is fairly simple to reject the simplistic "God did it" types of response, I have to realize that I just don't know and don't think I can know. That doesn't make me an agnostic. I don't think there is a god of any sort -- "answers" along those lines are not answers but arbitrary assertions.

I don't buy, either, what I think Einstein thought -- that there are signs of deep design in the universe; that it is indeed comprehensible by humans being the biggest sign. This thinking may have been behind his problems with Bohr and company and spooky action at a distance and God playing dice. As we have progressed the universe seems less and less like that Einstein had in mind.

So it's as the Buddha said, speculation and we should get on with our immediate problem of our own existence. I guess that is why I tend to Buddhism more than to Taoism.

[Bluefinger]

When I read the Bible in its entirety instead of picking out chapters and verses here and there, I realised that it read like a very human production. Every time I read the book it convinces me that my disbelief in the deity, featured therein, is justified.

I read it in a very formal, analytical way and it convinces me of God's existence.

People too easily pick up the Bible and use themselves for sources of interpretation, often without any formal training or methodology.

[Leonardo]

I read it in a very formal, analytical way and it convinces me of God's existence.

People too easily pick up the Bible and use themselves for sources of interpretation, often without any formal training or methodology.

Hi there, Bluefinger.

Training in what, might I ask?

Training (education) in the culture of the time the various narratives were written? Training (education) in the social and/or geopolitical/military situation those cultures resided in?

Because training (education) in those areas would not convince a person methodologically approaching the reading of the scripture that "God exists", only that the people of that culture and those times/situations held to a belief in a deity.

Or are you referring to 'training' as in induction/indoctrination into the religion and/or theology before reading the scripture - in which case you've already convinced yourself God exists without having to resort to the narrative you say "convinces" you of that.

Edited June 29, 2014 by Leonardo

[Davros of Skaro]

It's funny how believers think that the Holy Spirit guides them in the interpretation of scripture.They will never realize the biochemistry, and psychology of self delusion.

[XenoFish]

Some people will believe anything. Be it true or not. I guess it's somewhat comforting to have belief is such a thing. I call it false hope.

[eight bits]

Leo

As far as I know, eb, the positions of Theological Noncognitivism/Ignosticism do not deny the existence of God, but only argue the term is undefined (or cannot be defined) and so discussion on the subject is essentially meaningless.

OK, so God is not completely describable by human beings. That doesn't tell me what I want to know in the first instance, which is

Does so-and-so believe that God exists?

If so-amd-so's answer to that is "the term God is undefined," saying no more, then I'll put them down for an admissible but unresponsive reply. Einstein's answer, however, was yes, with an explanation.

If you want to classify him downstream of "yes" more exquisitely than I am up to doing, then carry on. I can't find where he said God cannot be known, however, just that human beings can't do that fully, as in his "child in the library" parable.

Interesting, I think, that his protagonist is a child. Children grow up, if all goes well. I wouldn't rule out that that was part of Einstein's point, that he thought that growth was possible and that maybe, someday... but not us today.

I could be wrong, of course. I am not Einstein, either. There's a lot of that going around.

[Leonardo]

If so-amd-so's answer to that is "the term God is undefined," saying no more, then I'll put them down for an admissible but unresponsive reply. Einstein's answer, however, was yes, with an explanation.

Well, I might answer to the question "Do you believe God exists?" with...

"Yes. God exists as an archetype, or an explanation for things we cannot know or possibly know. God exists as a comforter against the fear of death and the unknown, and God exists as a justification for our own ego."

So, I reply yes, with an explanation - however nothing in my reply suggests that God exists as anything except an abstract and is not in any way a "being". Some of my reply might parallel how Einstein replied, and I cannot see from his reply how anyone can make a claim with certainty that the God Einstein affirmed existed was a being. All we can conclude is that Einstein replied that God existed - but did not clarify as to how God existed.

Edited June 29, 2014 by Leonardo

[Bluefinger]

As far as I know, eb, the positions of Theological Noncognitivism/Ignosticism do not deny the existence of God, but only argue the term is undefined (or cannot be defined) and so discussion on the subject is essentially meaningless.

But isn't that essentially a faulty position to take? That discussion is meaningless? Think about it. If we are to take that approach, then we should stop trying to discover mysteries of the universe, since they are essentially undefined at the moment. That doesn't stop scientific inquiry though.

And many atheists would theorize that, the more we discover about the universe, the more we'll find that God isn't real. Interestingly, however, I've heard that more and more physicists are coming to believe in a higher power. Just because the academic system is silencing them, it doesn't make it any less true.

[Davros of Skaro]

^ LOL!

[eight bits]

Leo

If I were as interested in your possibly hypothetical answer to the question of God as I am in Einstein's actual answer, already given here in some detail, then I might work out whether your (hypothetical) reply answered the question yes with an explanation, or, as it seems on casual reading, yes with a retraction. As I mentioned, Einstein answered yes, with an explanation.

I cannot see from his reply how anyone can make a claim with certainty that the God Einstein affirmed existed was a being.

Jung's God isn't a "being." So what? In any case, I didn't profess certainty about the mind of any other person.

All we can conclude is that Einstein replied that God existed - but did not clarify as to how God existed.

All? Who's we? Einstein taught that God doesn't fulfill petitionary prayer, or punish human bad actions. Those are fact claims about God that exceed "God existed." They are among Einstein's professions about God. What would Einstein, or anybody else, have to say about how God exists, if God exists? Just as well by me, then, that he apparently didn't say.

[scowl]

I read it in a very formal, analytical way and it convinces me of God's existence.

I went to Hebrew School and learned of a God that had nearly every human flaw I could think of. Since these were human weaknesses, I eventually concluded that the character "God" in the Bible was a human invention.

People too easily pick up the Bible and use themselves for sources of interpretation, often without any formal training or methodology.

There are far too many problems in the Bible that can be explained away as misinterpretation.

[Bluefinger]

Hi there, Bluefinger.

Training in what, might I ask?

Training (education) in the culture of the time the various narratives were written? Training (education) in the social and/or geopolitical/military situation those cultures resided in?

Because training (education) in those areas would not convince a person methodologically approaching the reading of the scripture that "God exists", only that the people of that culture and those times/situations held to a belief in a deity.

Hi Leo, the person reading from an analytical perspective will find more than just a culture and a history. You will find themes and messages within the writing as well. And the message of the writing is more important than the author, audience, the culture, or historical background. That is the very same message that people often overlook in attempts to discredit every book in the Bible. Are some less-deserving to be in the Bible? I think so. But that doesn't change the importance of what the authors were trying to communicate.

In essence, the moral of the story outweighs the importance of any other detail in the story.

For example: In the book of Daniel, which is more important? The author or the audience? Then what is more important? The audience or the message being communicated to them? If we say the author, then we are left the details that the author made a false prophecy starting in Daniel 11:37. If we say the audience, then we are left asking why? The message is the most important part, and the part most often overlooked.

Or are you referring to 'training' as in induction/indoctrination into the religion and/or theology before reading the scripture - in which case you've already convinced yourself God exists without having to resort to the narrative you say "convinces" you of that.

No. While tradition is compelling enough for some, it was not enough for me.

Edited June 29, 2014 by Bluefinger

[Bluefinger]

Double post

Edited June 29, 2014 by Bluefinger

[Bluefinger]

I went to Hebrew School and learned of a God that had nearly every human flaw I could think of. Since these were human weaknesses, I eventually concluded that the character "God" in the Bible was a human invention.

The problem is that you use your own reasoning as a source of interpretation, without ever considering whether or not it is flawed. And thus, humans are flawed. God is flawed. But your reasoning is not. If your system of reasoning cannot stand its own tests, then how do you know it is correct?

There are far too many problems in the Bible that can be explained away as misinterpretation.

But that is no reason to stop trying to get it right. When scientists get a cure wrong, they don't give up. They keep pushing forward, confident that they will find a cure. There is a right interpretation out there. But we cannot find it by using our own reasoning and not properly investigating the matter.

[scowl]

The problem is that you use your own reasoning as a source of interpretation, without ever considering whether or not it is flawed.

So you're declaring my reasoning flawed because it came to a different conclusion than yours. My, aren't we mighty!

And thus, humans are flawed. God is flawed. But your reasoning is not. If your system of reasoning cannot stand its own tests, then how do you know it is correct?

My reasoning is tested every day. No problems have been reported.

But that is no reason to stop trying to get it right. When scientists get a cure wrong, they don't give up. They keep pushing forward, confident that they will find a cure.

In other words when people come to conclusion that disagrees with yours, it's only because they haven't done enough work to see that you are right. So if you believe that matter can travel faster than the speed of light you tell the scientists to keep on working until they prove that you're right.

There is a right interpretation out there. But we cannot find it by using our own reasoning and not properly investigating the matter.

And during all this preaching you never even asked how I came to my conclusion. That must be because you're completely disinterested in anything that doesn't support your beliefs.

[XenoFish]

you use your own reasoning as a source of interpretation, without ever considering whether or not it is flawed

So who's reasoning should we use?

Edited June 29, 2014 by XenoFish

[scowl]

So who's reasoning should we use?

Obviously only someone who is qualified to understand the Bible and tell us what it really means. I wonder who will volunteer for that task!

[Leonardo]

But isn't that essentially a faulty position to take? That discussion is meaningless? Think about it. If we are to take that approach, then we should stop trying to discover mysteries of the universe, since they are essentially undefined at the moment. That doesn't stop scientific inquiry though.

Well, no. Theological noncognitivism and/or ignosticism do not suggest one relents from seeking to explain other things which are, as yet, unexplained, because "God" is a special case of 'thing'.

[karmakazi]

[/size]

So who's reasoning should we use?

And that is the question of the ages!!