Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: microgood
Even Einstein believed intently in the Creator, and he was way smarter than anyone currently alive.

Not true. And upon learning what Einstein believed, will you change your mind and follow his opinion? After all, you say that "he was way smarter than anyone currently alive."

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.

The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exists as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot. But I am persuaded that such behavior on the part of the representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is able to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress.

From two different Einstein documents found here: Some of Einstein's Writings on Science and Religion

Right, everyone that lived before you were born is an idiot [to believe "an intellectual obscenity like Creationism"]. But you have all the answers for the rest of us stupid morons. You must be a lot of fun at cocktail parties.

Before a discovery is made, everyone is ignorant of what is not yet known. No shame in that. But once a thing is discovered, and widly taught, then it becomes reasonable to criticize those who, having been exposed to the information, refuse to deal with it. For example, we are forgiving of primitive tribesmen from millennia past who may have thought the world is flat. We don't regard them as idiots. Today, however, it is quite correct to regard a flat-earther as an idiot.

304 posted on 05/07/2004 1:47:35 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 298 | View Replies ]


To: PatrickHenry
Not true. And upon learning what Einstein believed, will you change your mind and follow his opinion? After all, you say that "he was way smarter than anyone currently alive."

This contradicts some other statements he made (related to quantum mechanics) but I do not base my belief on what Einstein believed. I just do not see any other viable alternative since I believe both abiogenesis and macro-evolution are highly speculative (and never observed) hypotheses and certainly aren't even in the slightest league with our observable knowledge that the earth is round but closer to the realm of the global warming junkscience we hear of all the time. And them global warming folks claim their stuff is absolute fact too, even though its based on a lack of data (which macro-evolution suffers from as well) and bogus computer models.
307 posted on 05/07/2004 2:01:28 PM PDT by microgood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 304 | View Replies ]

To: PatrickHenry
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.

The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exists as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot.

 

He appears to believe in a 'creator', but not One who would intervene in the affairs of Men.


312 posted on 05/07/2004 2:14:08 PM PDT by Elsie (Truth is violated by falsehood, but it is outraged by silence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 304 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson