Belief in God 'childish,' Jews not chosen people: Einstein letter

The question of truth depends on the standards of proof demanded. If I stand in my living room and hold a ball in my hands and open my fingers, I don't have to see the ball fall to know that it will drop. I do not have to conduct mathematical tests of the Pythagorean theorem to verify that it is correct. Such proofs are possible only in cases of science and mathematics.

For other questions of life, we demand far less rigorous standards of proof. A normal child of five does not need to be reassured constantly by his or her parent that he or she is loved: the child knows this truth by instinct and experience. We convict individuals of murder on the basis of proof beyond a reasonable doubt; mistakes are made but the possibility of mistakes is the reason for appellate review and executive clemency.

Religious and moral questions present a certain difficulty as many are answered based on cultural norms. To a devout Muslim (and many Orthodox Jews) it is immoral for a woman to appear in public without a scarf covering her hair.
To most, such clothing restrictions are foolish and unnecessary. Yet for all the cultural basis of religious and moral questions, there remains in most people (but certainly not all) a deep sense that the material part of this life is temporary and passing away and that the spiritual part is permanent. St Paul writes that God's attributes have been there for all to see - assuming that he or she will look - and, therefore, we have no excuse for denying the existence of the Divine. How do we know this? We know it the same way a child knows that his or her parents love him or her; or we know the same way that a juror knows the accused is guilty, even though doubt (but not reasonable doubt) exists.
We know that is it wrong to kill, to steal, without the proscription of law. Unless one is a Muslim - who are allowed to lie to advance the faith - that lying is wrong. And it is most amazing, that those who are most outraged when lied to are the habitual liars.
Can one be wrong and sincerely wrong? Of course. I believe that Mohammed believed that he saw an angel from God in the cave, whereas, Christians understand that the angel was the devil, as we were warned by St Paul. I believe that Joseph Smith was mislead, when he believed he was visited by an angel, but millions of Mormons sincerely believe that Smith was right. Simply because discovering the truth is difficult and frustrating does not excuse one from seeking it. And as a Christian, I acknowledge readily and joyfully - for this admission only confirms St Paul's teaching - that all religions have discovered some truth. Yet I believe to the marrow of my soul that only through faith in the Triune God of Biblical Christianity can one find all truth. I do not rest my belief on the powers of my own mind, for during long stretches of my life I disdained the God of the Bible or of any faith. And I know how weak and fallible are mens' minds. I rest my beliefs on reading and study, and, of course, prayer. I listed a book and a web site that aided me. I suggest another: WHATS SO GREAT ABOUT CHRISTIANITY by Dinesh D'Souza. These books and this web site will aid you. Don't hesitate to take advantage of them. If you don't wish to use them, then go directly to the Bible itself. Don't start at Genesis or even Matthew. Start at the Gospel of John. Read with an open mind. To paraphrase Pascal: if you believe in God and die and you turn out to be wrong, you have lost nothing. But if you refuse to believe and die and God does exist and judges you for a hard heart, you have lost eternity. So, you have nothing to lose by believing. You're an intelligent man. You should have no fear of conducting an open and honest investigation, unless you're afraid of what you might discover. I challenge you to make the attempt. If you do and discover I'm wrong, you will fortify your faith. If you do and discover I'm right, think how joyful and thankful you'll be.

Standards of proof may be different but that does not make the relative. Relativity implies that one is as good as another, relative to the situation. Some proofs are far superior to others. For instance, the standard of proof in a criminal trial is guilt is beyond a reasonable doubt, but in a civil trial the standard is preponderance of evidence. It is possible to demand the same for both types of trials, but would you prefer to be tried if the prosecutor was only required to prove your guilt based on a preponderance of evidence?

Likewise, as human beings have no real access to the spiritual world, we cannot demand that spiritual truths be proved with the accuracy of a mathematical theorem. And for the same reason we cannot demand scientific standards of proof because scientific studies require that the test be repeatable by another party and the results obtained be the same or similar. As access to the spiritual world is limited and extremely individualized, such a requirement is impossible. For instance, we cannot stand on the shores of the Red Sea, hold up a staff, and ask (and expect) that God will part the waters, as Moses did.

So be it what? Would you believe that God exist if a person (say, your great-great grandfather) returned from the dead? Would you believe that Jesus is the Messiah should such an event occur? Would Jesus have to be present for such a miracle to occur? Or would you be satisfied if a minister of God was present at the resurrection?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.