Subtle are Einstein's thoughts

Physics World via PhysicsWeb ^ | September 2005 | Alan H Batten

[tortoise]

How do you stomach living amongst a majority of people (In the Carolinas) that believe in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ? Are they all just completely deluded psychos? How far do you have to drive to avoid a building that houses your fellow citizens who weekly are being taught and believing that Jesus rose from the dead on the third day?

Why would it bother him? Most people go through life utterly ignorant of most "facts" they profess to believe in. Basic science, basic math, basic economics, basic history, basic geography, etc may be at odds with their belief but that does not stop them from having it. And most seem quite happy in their ignorance.

Given that sheer number of other ridiculous beliefs people have about everyday things, why should throwing one more ridiculous belief on that stack bother anyone? The only thing that ever bothers me about the beliefs of others is the extent to which I have to pay for the stupid ones they carry.

And make no mistake, the number of trivially falsifiable beliefs that your average person carries is truly astounding. A belief on the order of the Resurrection is relatively insignificant by comparison, even if it was false.

[furball4paws]

Einstein actually wrote a pretty good book on music. Many scientists are accomplished musicians.

[djf]

Although I have never read it, it was covered by Hofstader in his book Godel, Escher and Bach: The Eternal Golden Braid

[Doctor Stochastic]

Are you not thinking of Alfred Einstein. He was a well-known music scholar and possibly a sixth cousin of Albert.

[js1138]

Sixth cousin?

I think my wife might be a sixth cousin. That's reaching pretty deep.

[bondserv]

"Are they all just completely deluded psychos?"

No, why would you think I thought that?

Belief in the Resurrection is not something that requires faith. It is a historical event better documented than anything in Ancient History. It would be like saying belief in the success of the American Revolution requires faith. Belief in Aristotle, Plato and Socrates is unquestioned by most rational people, and their doings are scarcely documented.

As reinforcement, the end of the road for the Disciples of Christ was a gruesome death, because of their unfailing message of the truth of the Resurrection.

Islam was propagated by individuals that could rape and pillage as reward for their faith, and we don't question the existence, words and doings of Mohammad of which was far less documented than Christ's life 800 years before him.

Liberals are deluded by their revisionist view of reality and we can spot them by their fruits. Whereas most Christians aspire to a higher set of standards upon which personal responsibility is a key to the success of a free society.

People are miraculously transformed by accepting the pardon that Jesus offers through His death. People who become personally responsible, when they were complete flakes days before. Ask some of your Christian friends who did not grow up in a Christian tradition.

Scientism is a belief system that bases reality on a purely materialistic worldview. Anything supernatural can be considered superstition.

A person who follows Scientism is easy to spot. A conservative with a broken moral compass. Dr. James Dobson is the enemy, as well as a certain School Board member from Kansas.

Followers of Scientism also hate that the Founders chose to say: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Unalienable rights are derived from the Creator, not the conceptions of mankind.

[Alter Kaker]

Belief in the Resurrection is not something that requires faith. It is a historical event better documented than anything in Ancient History.

If that's the case, how come there is no documentation outside of the Bible? How come contemporaneous and near-contemporaneous historians make no mention of Jesus, let alone of the resurrection?

[doc30]

You sound like my ex-wife and her church friends. They told me I had to give up being a scientist because science was Satanic because it was not in accordance with the literal interpretation of the Bible. Even heard preachers say it is better to be uneducated and poor, but go to heaven than to go to college and lose your salvation. She was very pentacostal.

[Alter Kaker]

Out of curiosity, if evidence for the existence of Jesus (let alone the resurrection) were so ironclad, how come early Christians had to go and insert forged accounts into Tacitus and Josephus? I have no problem with you believing whatever it is you'd like to believe, but please do not state that it is historical record, for it is not. It is simply faith.

[Moonman62]

From my casual readings of Einsteins non-science stuff, I get the feeling that he was way too much of an empericist to get a good hold on religion.

Which is a bit odd when you think about it, because alot of his theories themselves were not proven till we had the technology to do it.

Yes, it is odd, and maybe that means your first statement should be reconsidered. Einstein was a theoretician, maybe the best ever. Perhaps he was so good because he accepted and understood empirical results and their implications so well before anyone else. Even now there is a satellite dedicated to observing frame dragging around the Earth called Gravity Probe B. There are probably very few theoreticians who have even one of their predictions verified. Here we are over a hundred years later still working on Einstein's. I would say his work borders on the mystical.

[bondserv]

You sound like my ex-wife and her church friends. They told me I had to give up being a scientist because science was Satanic because it was not in accordance with the literal interpretation of the Bible. Even heard preachers say it is better to be uneducated and poor, but go to heaven than to go to college and lose your salvation. She was very pentacostal.

You've got me wrong. I have always said science is fun, and occasionally helpful.

Science is by definition amoral and should therefore not be worshiped. The pursuit of knowledge can become a God to many. Knowledge or traditions concieved by men cannot endow unalienable rights.

[bondserv]

Out of curiosity, if evidence for the existence of Jesus (let alone the resurrection) were so ironclad, how come early Christians had to go and insert forged accounts into Tacitus and Josephus?

Reputable Historians don't try to deny the truth of Jesus Christ's existence. You've been reading some Liberal crackpots rendition of History. Be careful who you choose to believe. Look into their other writings to test their fruits. They are going against all of recorded History to make these spurious claims.

So you are saying that evidence not acquired through the scientific method is invalid. Our justice system is based on evidenciary methods that fall outside of science. Is it completely invalid as well.

The world was forever turned upside down by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Within one generation Christianity had spread throughout the majority of the Western world.

[Alter Kaker]

Reputable Historians don't try to deny the truth of Jesus Christ's existence.

Whether Jesus existed or didn't exist, the only source is the Bible, and it seems strange to me that his contempories didn't mention him. But you're not just saying that his existence is a historical fact, you're saying that the resurrection is, and that's patently false. I'm not trying to tell you your faith is wrong, but please don't tell me that it is a matter of historical record, because there's simply no evidence for it.

You've been reading some Liberal crackpots rendition of History.

Josephus was a liberal? Don't tell me my sources are liberal, tell me what your sources are, other than the Bible, that confirm the historical basis of the resurrection. You say it's a proven historical fact. Ok then, show me the history.

So you are saying that evidence not acquired through the scientific method is invalid.

I haven't said anything of the kind. I would, however, like a single non-biblical account of the resurrection from someone who was alive at the time. That seems like a very low burden to me.

Within one generation Christianity had spread throughout the majority of the Western world.

Within one generation, people from Mongolia to Nicaragua were quoting Lenin, and he was still wrong.

[djf]

Which is a bit odd when you think about it, because alot of his theories themselves were not proven till we had the technology to do it.

Yes, it is odd, and maybe that means your first statement should be reconsidered. I appreciate what you are saying. But I will maintaine again, Einstein gave us 2 of the 5. I remember slightly the description about writing: What Where How When Why Einstein told us where and when. From my readings, that's it. He was a geometrer. In particular, since I have done alot of study into QM and it's philosophical implications, I am inclined to think Einstein missed something. For a very good desctiprion, read A. S. Eddingtons' "On Science and Religion". A. S. Eddington was one of those who proved Einsteins conjectures by photographing stars during an eclipse, We are talking two different spheres. One is the eternal, the majestic, the hidden, The other is the knowable, the finite, the temporal (by temporal I mean for this last minute or hour or day). And the greatest unknown is the quantum arena. Bell proved absolutely that Einstein was wrong about locality And the result is that maybe, just maybe, all the wonder that religion mentions is true.

[SeaLion]

It has been traditionally thought by the originators of Western Civilization that the Holy Spirit inspired and preserved the Old and New Testament. It has been taught by the vast majority of the founders of our American Universities that the only valid revelation from the Creator is the Old and New Testament.

"The originators of Western Civilization" -- it would help your argument to indicate who you are including and excluding from this roster?

Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Lucretius, Pliny, Thucydides, Aeschylus, Tacitus, Hammarabi of Babylon, Thales, Heraclitus, Apollonius of Rhodes, Herodutus, Cleisthenese, Solon, Josephus, Sophocles &c. &c. &c. -- that is a fraction of the names I would list among the founders of our western culture--but living in the pre-Christian era, would take exception to you statement above

[SeaLion]

Within one generation Christianity had spread throughout the majority of the Western world.

"Spread" is a bit generous--very small number of Christians are found in a few places within the Roman Empire within 'one generation'--they would have been outnumbered by cultists of every variety (chiefly religious cults from Persian and Egypt). Constantine, who adopted Christianity as the official state religion, was not even born until circa 274 AD--and even at the time, Christianity was still very much a minority cult

History of the early church is a fascinating topic, but let's endeavour to get matters of historical record as accurate as we can, it helps the debate!

[SeaLion]

Within one generation Christianity had spread throughout the majority of the Western world.

A further thought occurs on this point: it is demonstrable that Islam "spread" among a larger number of people and over a greater geographical area within one generation than did Christianity--but that does not make Islam 'true.' I really do think the speed of dissemination of any particular set of beliefs has no bearing on the truth of those beliefs, it really is a red herring that does nothing, with all due respect, to advance your argument here.

[Drammach]

Letters from Earth is also among the compilations by the Gutenberg Project..

Gutenberg Project: Mark Twain page..

And there is more..
Much, Much, More..

All copyright-free.. ( public domain )

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Belief in the Resurrection is not something that requires faith. It is a historical event better documented than anything in Ancient History"

Outside of the Bible, show me this vast documentation.

And this btw does not answer my question of why you would say I think Christians are deluded psychos. I DID notice your evasion.

" It would be like saying belief in the success of the American Revolution requires faith. "

No, there are numerous and varied sources to document that the American Revolution happened and that we won. There is only the Bible for the Resurrection.

"Belief in Aristotle, Plato and Socrates is unquestioned by most rational people, and their doings are scarcely documented."

There is more than one source for all of them.

"As reinforcement, the end of the road for the Disciples of Christ was a gruesome death, because of their unfailing message of the truth of the Resurrection."

That's the official story.

"slam was propagated by individuals that could rape and pillage as reward for their faith, and we don't question the existence, words and doings of Mohammad of which was far less documented than Christ's life 800 years before him."

You don't? Why not? How do you reconcile that with your belief in Christianity?

"Liberals are deluded by their revisionist view of reality and we can spot them by their fruits. Whereas most Christians aspire to a higher set of standards upon which personal responsibility is a key to the success of a free society."

This has WHAT to do with this discussion?

"Scientism is a belief system that bases reality on a purely materialistic worldview. Anything supernatural can be considered superstition."

Science (not your bogey-man *Scientism*) has no choice but to base it's theories on natural, material causes and lines of evidence. It is not because use of supernatural causes is *superstition* that scientists shun the supernatural; it's because there is no objective way to test or verify any supernatural cause or line of evidence. That was Galileo's method. That was Newton's.

" A person who follows Scientism is easy to spot. A conservative with a broken moral compass."

Basing science on material causes means nothing about our system of morality. The scientific methodology does not prove or disprove the existence of God; God's existence is outside of science and physical evidence.

A person who follows Creationism is easy to spot. A person who makes a lot of unwarranted assumptions about people who disagree with them.

" Followers of Scientism also hate that the Founders chose to say: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.""

Followers of creationism hate that the Founders did NOT say anything about the Resurrection or Christ in the Declaration of Independence.
Saying that we are endowed by our Creator with certain attributes is another way of saying those attributes are there naturally. It is our nature as people to have them. Very in line with a more or less Deistic world view.

" Unalienable rights are derived from the Creator, not the conceptions of mankind."

That is one view.

Thanks for not answering most of my questions in my earlier post. I am sure it was the embarrassment of being made to look foolish with your wild assumptions. MAYBE, if you stopped be so presumptuous, that wouldn't happen anymore.

:)

[Moonman62]

And the greatest unknown is the quantum arena. Bell proved absolutely that Einstein was wrong about locality And the result is that maybe, just maybe, all the wonder that religion mentions is true.

QM is actually very well known. It is the most precise branch of science there is. We just don't know why it's that way. And it certainly didn't agree with Einstein's sense of aesthetics. But I would think that he grudgingly accepted it as it was experimentally proved.

Which religion is true, which sect within those religions, which set of personal religious beliefs within those sects?