I've got some socks that need darning if you're up to it. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The truth of the matter is I don't see a link between the commentary and what we're talking about. jan.
You said: Ie. you're describing an ascending process. Einstein himself elsewhere noted that man doesn't need religion, that he can figure things out for himself - another example of claiming the efficacy of an ascending process. If you ask religious teachers, of different theistic religions, many will tell you that religion is a necessarily descending process - ie. that humans must rely on revelation from God, "descending from above", and that humans cannot figure out God - or any other big metaphysical truth - all on their own. Hence: The Absolute Truth, Transcendence, is never subject to the understanding of imperfect sensory endeavor, nor is He subject to direct experience. He is the master of varieties of energies, like the full material energy, and no one can understand His plans or actions; therefore it should be concluded that although He is the original cause of all causes, no one can know Him by mental speculation. /.../ The question may be raised, "Since there are so many varieties of philosophers theorizing in different ways, which of them is correct?" The answer is that the Absolute Truth, Transcendence, is never subject to direct experience or mental speculation. The mental speculator may be called Dr. Frog. The story is that a frog in a three-foot well wanted to calculate the length and breadth of the Atlantic Ocean on the basis of his knowledge of his own well. But it was an impossible task for Dr. Frog. A person may be a great academician, scholar or professor, but he cannot speculate and expect to understand the Absolute Truth, for his senses are limited. The cause of all causes, the Absolute Truth, can be known from the Absolute Truth Himself, and not by our ascending process to reach Him. /.../ http://vedabase.net/sb/4/11/23/
Not "obviously" unknowable... there are many who consider their personal god to be knowable. But again, you accept he was agnostic on the matter (i.e. that he considered it "unknowable") so I'm not sure of your disagreement here. Sure, the way saying that I live in Europe gives my address. But okay. If one has to pick from a group of religions, one should not take the fact that they have picked one as an endorsement of religion itself... but as being the preferred among the choices available. His preference, from what read of him, would be to arrive at the position without religion. I know what I said, thanks. My question is why you took this to mean "flat out agnostic"? Merely repeating my words back to me does not answer that. So again you acknowledge his agnosticism, yet you seem to argue against him being agnostic. I'm confused. One can be agnostic as well as a theist/atheist. It is not a middle position between the two. I see him as being agnostic with regard every aspect of his god other than perhaps the existence of god, which he seems to see evidenced through the universe itself. So you're going down the trivial route of causation, rather than the clear interpretation of "Morals come from God" as being that they have been directed and provided to us as is by God. If we define our own moral principles, it would seem that few would see them as "coming from God" other than in your trivial sense. Not all concocted gods are necessarily personal ones. After all, from where I sit, yours is a concocted god. There are... you just need to be careful with the interpretation of them. By noting Deism and Panentheism (note the spelling... it is slightly different to mere Pantheism) I clearly implied that they were significant influences / elements in what he believed. But thanks for being unwarrantedly trivial again. Not everyone examines their belief with honesty and admits that they do not actually know. And whether we label ourselves is irrelevant to how others might label us. Reducing to unwarranted triviality again. Thanks. Or that he knew how to use metaphors through anthropomorphising, in order to get his ideas across. By "know his thoughts" it seems more likely that he wanted to know how the universe ticks - the driving force behind it. Ah yes, introduce the "you can't understand because you're not religious" line of argument, thus putting yourself on a perceived pedestal of understanding. Pathetic. Why does it matter? Do you have a list of who he meant that you can corroborate? If you think that there is but one god, is this not specific? If you think all gods are in fact the same, how is this also not specific? Throughout you are trying to read into what I say that I think him an atheist... I can not fathom why. Obvious principle? Maybe for those that believe in that god it is obvious. It wasn't for many cultures. It's not for atheists, nor those who claim existence of such to be unknowable. Your religious bias is showing through. Other than being a pathetic attempt at one-upmanship ("Look, a great scientist is also a theist!"), and other than it (him being a scientist) being ultimately irrelevant to the truth or otherwise of his religious conviction other than in providing insight into why he thought what he did... no, I have no problem. You're still taking the anthropomorphisation literally, Jan. I don't. Do you have evidence that he was asked and refused to comment? Or are you just surprised that a physicist did not comment on scientific theories in biology? His silence on the matter suggests to me that he had no issue with it, and would see evolution in the same way that he saw morals: merely the product of the mechanisms inherent within the universe. Theism is not an alternative to evolution. Evolution is entirely consistent with his sense of religiousness: Einstein, believed in a "spirit manifest in the laws of the universe," in a "God who reveals Himself in the harmony of all that exists". He once wrote: "The religious inclination lies in the dim consciousness that dwells in humans that all nature, including the humans in it, is in no way an accidental game, but a work of lawfulness that there is a fundamental cause of all existence." i.e. he held that God created the laws, and the universe follows those laws precisely, and there is no reason to think that he would not hold evolution to be entirely consistent with that. And again, his desire to "know his thoughts" is merely a metaphor for wanting to understand those laws. Eh? And how does any of that counter what I said? How is any of what you have written here not encapsulated in "patterns of activity within the brain"? And how does any of what you have written support the case of an objective reality of the belief?
Absolutely brilliant. You've successfully shown us all that Einstein was a liar in terms of what he believed in God. Congratulations! Btw, Einstein gave us Relativity and a better understanding of mass/energy. With the former, no one cares... however the latter is insurmountable as far as contributions are concerned.
Sarkus, Those who consider it as such do so because they believe. Like I said before, he was prepared to accept ''agnostic'', also ''atheist'' (compared to a jesuit priest). I believe it was for the sake of argument. What have you said that would lead me to think that you live in Europe? Not from what I've read... ''Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.'' It said what it said. What did you mean, if not plain ''agnostic''? I don't rate ''agnosticism'' as important enough to give it a dominent position. I think everybody agnostic about lot's of things. I don't. I see him as someone who believes in God, but doesn't have much time for institutions. A bit like myself to be honest. There is only one God, and the scriptures describe Him. Anything else is either based on ignorance, or blind faith in a personal god. I said God is the origin of everything, including the capacity to make choices, in this life. The choices we make are of our own doing. I don't think I can make it any clearer than that. I think you're mistaken. I don't have a god. There's no need of interpretation, one only needs to read them without bias. Which is why labeling folk as ''agnostic'', ''atheist'', and ''theist'', is ultimately a futile exercise. That aside, it sounds as if he knew that God created the world, and wanted to know His thoughts. I'd rather read what he said than put my own spin on it. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Well what do you think he meant by that statement? And do you think you understand ''theism''? Yes thanks. And it matters because this thread is called ''Einstein On God''. I think there are innumerable gods, but only one God. Multiples God's is logically incoherent. I don't think all gods are the same, and have never even so much as implied it. Yes, there can only be one Supreme Being. Which of the cultures wasn't it obvious for? And how do you know? Logically it is. What ''religious bias'' would that be? Good. As I don't see anthropomorphization in his statements, I don't see how. If someone say's ''I want to know how God thinks'' after admitting that God created the world, and all phenomena is mere detail, why would you say that person is anthropomorphizing? Why would he say all that to express mundane detail? Who is he spinning these metaphors to? Really? On whether or not I have evidences? That is irrelevant. I'm more surprised that a physicist commented on philosophy, politics, psychology, religion. Made jokes, and a host of other characteristics that made this man, the man he became. But never, ever, so much as touched on what was then, and now, seen as one of the most important scientific discoveries (in some circles). Do you think there are physicists now who never, ever, touch on that subject? I don't believe you. There are no scriptures which say darwinian evolution took place. In fact if we believe the creation process from any scripture, evolution does not get a look in. It is directly opposite to theism unless you concoct a personal god. Nonsense. You know what spirit means. Don't you? Basic definition goes: the non-physical part of a person which is the seat of emotions and character; the soul. And that's the secular version. ''God'' means ''Supreme Being''. ''Himself'' (with uppercase 'H') signifies a person not a metaphor for stuff just happening. And to top it all the spirit is ''manifest''. Evolution come nowhere in all of that which is probably why he may not have accepted it. Oh! It's a metaphor is it? How do you know? jan.
Albert Einstein - The Human Side,Selected and Edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press, 1979. From pp. 42 - 44
Consider what as such? If he considers God all but unknowable (i.e. in every aspect other than its existence), then he is agnostic in those regards, albeit a theistic agnostic. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I used it as an example of something as useful as you using the umbrella of "Eastern Philosophy". Yes, cherry pick individual quotes rather than look at the body of his arguments. Before one can use his quotes as you do, you need to appreciate what he means by the term "religion" and what he deems "religious": "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'm not an atheist, and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations." (from Max Jammer's "Einstein and Religion") As I have said: he believes god to exist, and sees the order in the universe as sufficient for him to know God exists. But in all other regards he remains agnostic on what his God is: "I don't try to imagine a God; it suffices to stand in awe of the structure of the world, insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to appreciate it." Your loss, and it diminishes your arguments. Whether he has time for institutions is somewhat irrelevant - unless you're talking about organised religions. It doesn't say anything about whether he was agnostic or not on aspects of God. So you believe. You are trying to have your cake and eat it. If you think "morals come from God" that is a separate matter (other than in the trivial sense you described) to Man defining their own morals. You want the label of one while admitting to the other. If you believe in god you "have a god". Maybe you're not familiar with the idiom. And your god (i.e. the god you believe in) looks concocted from where I'm sitting. Drivel - of course you need to interpret. Reading is merely the act of reciting the words. The interpretation is in understanding them. One can not understand without interpreting in some way. To think otherwise is just drivel. I am listening, and all I hear is someone who is trying to paint a biased picture without actually understanding the arguments. Not really, as it can give an initial idea as to the position held. Let's say it's at least giving the country of our address rather than the mere continent. Way to dismiss the purpose of discussion! Or do you think this thread is just to post his thoughts without actually trying to understand what he might have meant? Exactly what he said - that it is difficult to elucidate the feeling to anyone who is entirely without it. What he did not say, which you seem to be missing, is that if you have that feeling that you will be an authority on what he means. Yes, thanks. It means that you believe in (a) god(s). So please provide the list, with corroboration, that he considered "religious geniuses". For you, because of your belief. Unless you are reserving the title of God for when the belief is of but one. In which case your position is trivially true. Just because you label your one god as God does not mean all others adhere to that, or that your one God is the same as someone else's one God. Any number of pantheistic societies. One merely needs to read your ancient Latin or Greek texts. Yes, logically if they believe in a single god, then they believe in a single god. Your inability to think outside the notions of your religion. And this just seems to be more evidence of your religious bias - your inability to actually put multiple quotes and ideas of his together to see the picture he was painting, but instead you grasp hold of individual quotes, individual words without the wider view. He is saying that he wants to understand the underlying principles of the universe, not get messed up in the phenomena that they may give rise to... e.g. he wants to understand the core principles such as E=MC^2. Yes. Really. Yes, there are physicists who don't touch the subject: it just doesn't interest them. They stick to their areas of expertise. Do you not find it equally surprising that there is no record of anyone actually asking him the question, of pushing him on the matter? He saw God in the universe that he was fascinated with as a physicist. He wasn't a biologist. Why should he even approach such a subject in which he is not familiar, that he would understand is more than just personal matters of philosophy etc (i.e. that there are some facts behind it). It is all well and good discussing things that noone can actually prove you wrong about, where one person's view is just as valid as anyone else's. It is entirely something else to discuss matters where there are scientific facts to support positions (whether you find them convincing or not). It is for this reason that most physicists don't get into discussions about evolution when it is a field they know very little about, and where they do they often get the facts very wrong. Just look at the views of Michio Kaku when he said "mankind has stopped evolving". You don't need to. Nor is it surprising, given what else you have said. That is only if you believe in God from scriptures. Not every theist does. Pantheists don't, for example. But no, you don't have religious bias, do you. And once again you choose to pick on specific words rather than the sense and context in which he was talking. You can not see the wood for the trees. Because the metaphor is consistent with everything else he says, as you should be able to see from the quotes already posted. But you don't seem to be able, and instead latch on to words that you try to align with your own belief at the expense of overall context. And given this proclivity/agenda, I'm not sure there's anything left to discuss.
That the nonsense you're making up about Einstein's beliefs is contrary to what Einstein himself says.
It's not just nonsense, it's slander - bearing false witness. Just because the guy is famous, and famously ethical as well as intelligent, you want him to be theistic and you twist his words around and slant them so they imply theism as well as religion. He wasn't - people who don't have personal Gods, i.e. gods of their own, are atheist by definition. He might very well have seen value in religion - lots of atheists do - but he didn't, personally, have a god.
On the grounds of what can we assume that Einstein would agree with the conclusions _you _ are making about his beliefs?
Pantheists believe in a non-personal god, but they are still theists. Theism is not restricted to just belief in personal gods. And by all accounts, Einstein was a theist, along the lines of Panentheism: he saw the structure and underlying laws of the universe as evidence of the existence of God; but beyond that it seems (from what I gather) that he accepted God to be mostly unknowable, or out of reach of out understanding, but he sought to understand God as best he could through trying to understand what those laws were. He was actually against (organised) religion, or at least most of them. And he didn't believe in a personal God, but I think its clear enough for his writings that he did believe in God (akin to the panentheistic variety).
Sarkus, Yes, we're all agnostic about things we don't know. Isn't that an amazing discovery. "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'm not an atheist, and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations." (from Max Jammer's "Einstein and Religion" What is regarded as ''religious'' is personal to each and every individual. ''Religion'', however is a different matter. Here, he doesn't get into religion (but you wouldn't know that), so it seems you don't get what he meant by - ''''Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.'' It seems you're just quoting him because he uses key words like ''religious'', and the reference has the word ''Religion'' in it. IOW you're cherry picking. You're wrong, he believes God exists. He capitalized God. Why can't you? At least I'll know what you really mean. Wrong again. He wants to know how God thinks. Did you not catch that? Nobody knows, or claims to know what any living being thinks, let alone God. According to these definitions, and the quote you put forward, Einstein was not an agnostic. Now can you explain what you mean by ''in all other regards''? Thanks. He doesn't need to imagine God, as God is present within the structure of the world. Don't you get it? Wrong again! It improves my argument, because it removes the barriers which you hide behind. Plus I've established that Einstein invited the term ''agnostic'' for the sake of argument, and ''agnostic'' really has nothing to do with anything he is talking about. I've explained it twice to you. I'm sorry if you don't get it, but wasting anymore time on it. I cannot argue with stubborn ignorance, so if that is how you see it, and refuse to learn about something you have no real idea about, then so be it. You need to interpret these quotes, not me. It's pretty straightforward... It's about as useful as someones name, then it becomes a hinderance. A timewasting, devicive, segregational, tool. It bears no importance on attaining knowledge. The purpose of this thread is to post his thoughts on God which he expressed in abundance. You, however, seem to want to interpret those thoughts to something other than he actually said by claiming his reason for his language was strictly metaphor, and trying to categorize him as something he was prepared to accept for the sake of argument. Knowing what someone means on any given subject does not make one an authority, and arguing against what one sees as bogus meaning does not make one an authority. You're wrong with regarding to the meaning behind these quotes on God, that is obvious, and I think you know it, as you're fighting a losing battle. I can't help thinking that the particular quote in question appeals to similar mindset's to yours, as you aren't grasping the obvious (ie what he is actually saying), and feel the need to invoke ideas that aren't there eg. metaphor. No, it's not necessary. You're missing the point. God = Supreme, Transcendant, Being. The Original Cause. god = a powerful, material, being, who is caused by God. These are the definitions, and Einstein studied scriptures. The idea of a ''personal god'' is one similar to what you're implying here, a being that is limited to personal concoction. That is how you see ''God'' (which is why distinction matters not to you). Most religions see God in that way, which is why a lot of theists do not subscribe to ''religious institutes''. But the important thing here is that all concepts of God are taken from scripture, which were handed down by word of mouth in time gone by, and what's to be got, is the meaning, not just a reading of the words. I told you before, I don't have a god. It's rude to keep going on about someting I deny, and have given explanation for. Accept it from the horses mouth, and let's move on. I believe in God. Try and understand that. What ''religion'' would that be? Yes, he know God created the world, and he wants to know how He thinks and not get tied up in observed facts and/or situations. He believes science is (for him) a way to do this because he sees God within the creation of this universe. That is when he feels most religious (aside from reading the gospels). These are things he has stated. Because you're too stubborn. jan.
You tell me. It's not like Einstein is here himself to say "Jan Ardena is correctly understanding my stance" or "Jan Ardena is not correctly understanding my stance".
Obviously he's not here himself to say ''anybody is/is not correctly understanding my stance, but he did transmit his thoughts, meaning they were meant to be recieved and understood. So how exactly does him not being here render my posts ''nonsense''? jan.
After reading that post I would have to say that this is some of the best stuff you've posted, regardless of how much I agree with it or any other kind of disconnect between us. I thought you were more deliberate and thoughtful in your replies to Sarkus, as if you were better focused and responsive. There was even an aspect to your speech which conveyed a focus and sincerity that to me was refreshing. I'm not too sure how this forms the basis of a new thread, but I was left to guess that you wanted to point out to us that if Einstein ever wanted to endorse any religion, it would be Buddhism. Of course there are some other talking points, like the distinction between a personal God and the alternative, which he leaves open. We might develop the various ways Buddhists construct this alternative to the God of the West. At some point we might find within Buddhism that since nothing is important, God is not important, and arrive a variation on simple atheism which comports with many ways folks conceive of Buddhism in general. I found this remark surprising: While you have presented a variety of sides of your personal world view, there was a period in the last year or so when you were advocating Christian fundamentalism. I never did see the connection between those lines of thought and some of your prior remarks favoring Buddhism. They seem to me to be two conflicting ideologies. Also congruent with the presumption that you were actually a fundie were the many times you engaged threads on evolution arguing from the same objections specifically raised by fundies. In any case, it's surprising to see you casting yourself as an atheist from any point of view, since you've also been quite generous with characterizing atheists and atheism rather sternly (as in the allusion that all atheism is an evil reflected in the atrocities of Stalin, etc.) That's all water under the bridge. I really even came here to post at all upon reading the following: That doesn't make you an atheist in the eyes of the orthodox religions although as you get lower on the food chain I would probably agree that the average congregant wouldn't particularly care; that speaking in a manner "tantamount to atheism" is just as bad. But still this is not what interested me. I think it's this: That sounds more like what used to be limited to anti-papism, but then which spread in the fringe Christian sects (Anabaptists etc) who did their level best to make their religious practices about as democratic as it gets. I'm thinking of the Quietists -- and similar sects who are mainly still settled in the region of the original 13 British colonies that predated the US Republic. In any case, I would have to disagree with your statement. It clashes with the first 1500 years of Christian practice in which the Bible was extensively studied, all before there was any substantial reason to come to the conclusions that led Luther and Calvin to break from church authority. Most ironically, the Bible as you know it is the culmination of an effort set forth by a pope (perish the thought) -- minus the redactions the Protestants made -- who commissioned Jerome and his council to roam the world and gather up whatever they could find, after which they decided, in the form of an organized religious body, what to leave in and what to leave out. This was no trivial effort. Jerome himself spent a good part of his life as a monk ( I think it was in Palestine) just to master the Hebrew language so he could be better equipped to understand what he was reading. And throughout all of that there was nothing that led him into rebellion against Church authority. Of course this is in the late 4th c., not at all related to the medieval conflicts with the Vatican that sent Luther and Calvin into rebellion. And in fact those reasons were limited to specific practices (esp selling indulgences) which included corrupt practices by pretenders to "the throne of Peter" in the Vatican, not necessarily the duly elected leaders, which, under the heading of "Magisterium" (authority) is probably superior to any personal interpretation of the Bible. And by that I mean that the source material for that authority is probably the best possible source you can hope to find in this day and age (if you intend to espouse Christianity) since it had 11 centuries of research and development behind it before the Reformation. From the perspective of quality control, the extant Bible pales in comparison. All source material, authorship and traceability to the Bible was lost whereas this other material I'm referring to is rather meticulously preserved. So for that reason alone, I think all the folks who want to be Christians and yet who are at odds with the best source on Earth about what Christianity is are living a sort of paradox. That is, you believe the authority of that magisterium in part and you deny it in part. Namely, you accept that some of the writings it left you (presumably their Bible, stripped of the content removed by Protestants) and for some reason you deny all the rest. It's as if you are saying: Look - in the first century they were inspired by God, but after that God turned his back on them so you can't trust anything else they wrote. (Not you specifically, but all the Anabaptist-derived religions.) In fact it has to be important to a religious person to declare their religion, doesn't it? Certainly you don't want to be labeled a Catholic (evident from your remarks) nor a Methodist -- but that's also because you simply don't follow those teachings. But when you say "I follow the Bible", or words to that effect, you are putting yourself in that niche with the group I'm calling Anabaptists. My reason for saying this is that they were the people who took the ideas of Luther and Calvin (rejection of the Magisterium) and took it to a higher level - something called "priesthood of the people". So while you feel that the rest of the world is wrong (the ones who belong to organized Churches) you are still putting a label on yourself, and identifying with this particular branch. (At some point someone needs to come up with an updated name for you guys). Of course, if you don't subscribe to adult baptism, then scratch that, but you still fall into a niche (possibly stemming from the Mennonites or Amish). I'm skipping over the dual citizenship you enjoy with the Buddhist Church since that didn't influence your remarks concerning Stalin, evolution, etc. I guess my point is that religious identification becomes more than just a label when engaging in discussions like this. It's a convenient way to convey what the world view is that your advocating. It doesn't work to say "I read the Bible" (again not you specifically) since all the sects of Christianity do that. The only difference in this regard among each of the countless branches of Christianity then is whether or not they agree on how to interpret what they read and how to convert that interpretation into action. In the cases where that action includes putting up barn-like buildings (as in the American frontier) with steeples and bells, or the stone Gothic cathedrals you're probably familiar with, and then communing together as a society, or whether you live apart from any community and derive all of your plan of action in isolation -- there is no particular reason to conclude that one form is more valid or "God-centered" than another. This just reiterates the age old polemic between sects in which each is convinced of the authenticity of his/her own personal interpretation of "divine guidance".
Not everyone admits to not knowing those things, or admitting them to be unknowable. He did. Therefore we can say what he was agnostic about, rather than ourselves being agnostic on what he was agnostic about. It is mere flippancy on your part to trivialise the argument as you have done, and thus miss the point. All this amounts to you saying "You're wrong" with nothing to support it, nor support your interpretation of what he meant by "religion" or "religious" other than what has already been quoted of him. That they are separate words does not immediately imply that he uses the term "religion" as you wish to interpret it. He clearly distinguishes organised religion as being what he doesn't like, and so it becomes clear that he uses the term "religion" in his quote "science without religion is lame..." to mean that religious sense of wonder and awe. I did say that he believes God exists... "...sufficient for him to know that God exists". Was that unclear for you. I can't argue with your inability to identify anthropomorphic metaphors. :shrug: I never said he was agnostic with regard the existence of his god... I have been quite clear to the contrary in fact. Does he claim to know God exists? Yes. So he is not agnostic with regard the existence of God. Does he claim to know anything else about God? No, and he considers them to be unknowable. He is thus agnostic "in all other regards". Clear enough? I do not see how the issue of "needing" to is actually relevant. Being able to or not is a matter of ability, not of necessity. Yes, it clearly improves your argument when remove philosophical possibilities from the table. Heck, why not just remove every other term you don't like so we're left with just those you like. "5+4 is the closest I can get to the answer of 10" "Perhaps you might want to consider adding an additional 1?" "No, I don't consider 1 to be important enough!" I.e. You are limiting yourself, and claiming success when you get as close as you want to rather than actually looking at and reaching the target. You've explained your trivial interpretation, sure. If that's all you have, though, then probably best you don't repeat it. Right, so we agnostic atheists are now stubbornly ignorant, and refusing to learn something we have no idea about, despite your inability to convince? Of course, that must be our fault. Too stubbornly ignorant! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Your ego and sense of importance are shining through. I have done, explained my interpretation, and shown the consistency thereof throughout his quotes. You seem to be interpreting each in isolation without interpreting the bigger picture. You pick up on individual words in a particular quote, ignoring things like metaphor, or anthropomorphisation. Labels are actually a fundamental tool for sharing knowledge. It's called language, each word being a label for a concept. If this thread was merely to post quotes then why not just link to a repository with his works. The purpose of this thread (I thought) is to examine what those views were, to try to demystify and untangle it, examining the parts in light oft he whole. Not just take each individual quote and take every word of his at face value, ignoring metaphors etc. If you want to disagree with an interpretation, fine, but do so with some intelligence behind it more than "religion means X therefore in every context we must take it to mean X!" So we're agreed you're not an authority! Because now you are an authority? I am? On the latter, take it from the authority on my thought that you are incorrect, and on the latter, please do show how it is a losing battle... or is that what you think you've been doing thus far? You do know that when people communicate, especially when there are not adequate concepts/labels for what one means, that there is often a difference between the literal meaning and the intended meaning, right? I just can't help thinking that you can't see the wood for the trees. Now, did I mean that literally... Hmmmm. And I think you can't because of either deliberate or subconscious bias. Ill take that as a "no I can't" then. Fair enough. He did study scriptures, but he also knew religious concepts outside of those, such as Panentheism, Deism etc. The Deist god is not necessarily transcendent, although please show me scriptures that show the Deist God to be so. Yet they do refer to God as such (I.e. Capitalised). I.e. Not all concepts of God are the same, irrespective of your personal view. The one and only thing they might necessarily share (and I say "might" as I can't speak for them all) is that God was the original cause of the universe. So your belief tells you. First, do not have the audacity to tell me "how I see God". Second, your equating Personal God with one that is "limited to personal concoction" is woeful. As said, to a strong atheist, all gods (whether God or otherwise) are considered concocted, and as explained, the pantheistic God is not a personal God. Yet an atheist would consider this one concocted as well. And I find it dripping with irony that you encourage finding the "meaning, not just a reading of the words" yet your ability to do that with Einstein....? You can deny it all you want but I am telling you that if you believe in God then you "have a god". it is an idiom. Try to understand that, and let's move on. It is even in the scriptures (or at least the English translations): "You shall have no other gods before Me." Exodus 20:3 Ah, yes, but then you also tried to argue previously that you believe in God yet do not have a concept of God, even though you refer to God as "the Supreme Being" and "Original Cause" which are in themselves concepts. So is it any wonder that some might find your claim to not "have a god" baffling. Whatever beliefs you hold about God and your place with respect to God. Ah yes, he wants to do science without getting tied up in the observed facts. Listen to yourself, Jan. You don't see to have any true grasp. Drip. Drip. Drip.
