Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Tegularius]

“The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the "opium of the masses"—cannot hear the music of the spheres.” -Albert Einstein

Einstein as a scientist...a genius even if far from the only one.

Einstein as a philosopher, as a thinker...pathetic and more often, a disgusting little hypocrite.

Hi Teg! LOL, there wouldn't happen to be any irony in your response would there

Consider philosophers like William James and Maslow having drawn from thier cognitive studies/patients in psychology (their couch sessions), a physicist who philosophizes about cosmology and religion seems to carry more weight, accordingly.

No irony intended, implied or communicated. If you take the statement apart, as is, regardless who wrote it, it comes across as ignorant, trivial, naive if not downright stupid. He never believed in any religion himself. This is far from the only one Einstein came up with having all the value of a bin item. For one thing, there weren't that many militant atheists around in his time; atheists yes, who mostly express their indifference in an "I don't know; I don't care" manner, but hardly of the militant variety. Also, within context, the expression cannot hear the music of the spheres is truly pathetic. Atheists are more likely to hear that music since they don't have any preconceived religious notions as to what created or how the universe operates. When the term GOD is used it's usually as a metaphor for mystery.

But most people are idiots. They accept anything, especially from the famous or established as having come down from Mount Sinai...no questions asked. As I stated, he was a great scientist, but he too was standing on the shoulders of giants in developing his theories. But whenever he attempts to be guru-like, it usually amounts to a big nothing laminated with gold because of the name.

[3017Metaphysician]

“The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the "opium of the masses"—cannot hear the music of the spheres.” -Albert Einstein

Einstein as a scientist...a genius even if far from the only one.

Einstein as a philosopher, as a thinker...pathetic and more often, a disgusting little hypocrite.

Hi Teg! LOL, there wouldn't happen to be any irony in your response would there

Consider philosophers like William James and Maslow having drawn from thier cognitive studies/patients in psychology (their couch sessions), a physicist who philosophizes about cosmology and religion seems to carry more weight, accordingly.

No irony intended, implied or communicated. If you take the statement apart, as is, regardless who wrote it, it comes across as ignorant, trivial, naive if not downright stupid. He never believed in any religion himself. This is far from the only one Einstein came up with having all the value of a bin item. For one thing, there weren't that many militant atheists around in his time; atheists yes, who mostly express their indifference in an "I don't know; I don't care" manner, but hardly of the militant variety. Also, within context, the expression cannot hear the music of the spheres is truly pathetic. Atheists are more likely to hear that music since they don't have any preconceived religious notions as to what created or how the universe operates. When the term GOD is used it's usually as a metaphor for mystery.

But most people are idiots. They accept anything, especially from the famous or established as having come down from Mount Sinai...no questions asked. As I stated, he was a great scientist, but he too was standing on the shoulders of giants in developing his theories. But whenever he attempts to be guru-like, it usually amounts to a big nothing laminated with gold because of the name.

Hi Teg!

It is indeed, ironic, based upon your emotionally charged observations. Consider too, that Atheism (their belief system) is not logical, and based upon a similar aversion towards same. Einstein keyed-in on that psychological aspect.

[Tegularius]

Einstein as a scientist...a genius even if far from the only one.

Einstein as a philosopher, as a thinker...pathetic and more often, a disgusting little hypocrite.

Hi Teg! LOL, there wouldn't happen to be any irony in your response would there

Consider philosophers like William James and Maslow having drawn from thier cognitive studies/patients in psychology (their couch sessions), a physicist who philosophizes about cosmology and religion seems to carry more weight, accordingly.

No irony intended, implied or communicated. If you take the statement apart, as is, regardless who wrote it, it comes across as ignorant, trivial, naive if not downright stupid. He never believed in any religion himself. This is far from the only one Einstein came up with having all the value of a bin item. For one thing, there weren't that many militant atheists around in his time; atheists yes, who mostly express their indifference in an "I don't know; I don't care" manner, but hardly of the militant variety. Also, within context, the expression cannot hear the music of the spheres is truly pathetic. Atheists are more likely to hear that music since they don't have any preconceived religious notions as to what created or how the universe operates. When the term GOD is used it's usually as a metaphor for mystery.

But most people are idiots. They accept anything, especially from the famous or established as having come down from Mount Sinai...no questions asked. As I stated, he was a great scientist, but he too was standing on the shoulders of giants in developing his theories. But whenever he attempts to be guru-like, it usually amounts to a big nothing laminated with gold because of the name.

Hi Teg!

It is indeed, ironic, based upon your emotionally charged observations. Consider too, that Atheism (their belief system) is not logical, and based upon a similar aversion towards same. Einstein keyed-in on that psychological aspect.

I don't know exactly what it is your saying. It's a little hard to decipher with so few words, your meaning is ambiguous, which is ok. No need to continue. I don't know what psychological aspect Einstein keyed in on as you affirm. His words are perfectly plain to me. Perhaps I misconstrued something though it doesn't seem so to me and you single sentence explains nothing.

The only thought I want to conclude with is, if atheism is a belief system, which in principle it is not, it's only because it was used as a pejorative during the very long times in which theism ruled. One either believed or did not believe, both types centered in the world belief. If you weren't theistic as universally encountered, you were atheistic. To qualify atheism as a belief system is no-longer relevant as it once was. Atheism, now excludes most of the superstitions that once ruled without which theism could not exist as well as there being no historical or empirical data of any kind that any such overlord entities as gods, ever existed. The empirical perspective requires much less belief than theism which requires nothing but belief.

In short, atheism has for the last two hundred years become an empirical function and not one which merely counters belief. Data or lack thereof provides its own logic.

[3017Metaphysician]

Hi Teg! LOL, there wouldn't happen to be any irony in your response would there

Consider philosophers like William James and Maslow having drawn from thier cognitive studies/patients in psychology (their couch sessions), a physicist who philosophizes about cosmology and religion seems to carry more weight, accordingly.

No irony intended, implied or communicated. If you take the statement apart, as is, regardless who wrote it, it comes across as ignorant, trivial, naive if not downright stupid. He never believed in any religion himself. This is far from the only one Einstein came up with having all the value of a bin item. For one thing, there weren't that many militant atheists around in his time; atheists yes, who mostly express their indifference in an "I don't know; I don't care" manner, but hardly of the militant variety. Also, within context, the expression cannot hear the music of the spheres is truly pathetic. Atheists are more likely to hear that music since they don't have any preconceived religious notions as to what created or how the universe operates. When the term GOD is used it's usually as a metaphor for mystery.

But most people are idiots. They accept anything, especially from the famous or established as having come down from Mount Sinai...no questions asked. As I stated, he was a great scientist, but he too was standing on the shoulders of giants in developing his theories. But whenever he attempts to be guru-like, it usually amounts to a big nothing laminated with gold because of the name.

Hi Teg!

It is indeed, ironic, based upon your emotionally charged observations. Consider too, that Atheism (their belief system) is not logical, and based upon a similar aversion towards same. Einstein keyed-in on that psychological aspect.

I don't know exactly what it is your saying. It's a little hard to decipher with so few words, your meaning is ambiguous, which is ok. No need to continue. I don't know what psychological aspect Einstein keyed in on as you affirm. His words are perfectly plain to me. Perhaps I misconstrued something though it doesn't seem so to me and you single sentence explains nothing.

The only thought I want to conclude with is, if atheism is a belief system, which in principle it is not, it's only because it was used as a pejorative during the very long times in which theism ruled. One either believed or did not believe, both types centered in the world belief. If you weren't theistic as universally encountered, you were atheistic. To qualify atheism as a belief system is no-longer relevant as it once was. Atheism, now excludes most of the superstitions that once ruled without which theism could not exist as well as there being no historical or empirical data of any kind that any such overlord entities as gods, ever existed. The empirical perspective requires much less belief than theism which requires nothing but belief.

In short, atheism has for the last two hundred years become an empirical function and not one which merely counters belief. Data or lack thereof provides its own logic.

Hi Teg!

In paraphrase, Einstein understood that without human sentience, religion or non-religion (a-theism) would not exist. Similarly:

Religion and science go together. As I've said before, science without religion is lame and religion without science is blind. They are interdependent and have a common goal—the search for truth. Hence it is absurd for religion to proscribe Galileo or Darwin or other scientists. And it is equally absurd when scientists say that there is no God. The real scientist has faith, which does not mean that he must subscribe to a creed. Without religion there is no charity. The soul given to each of us is moved by the same living spirit that moves the universe. --Albert Einstein

He is saying both beliefs are good (science and religion). With respect to your supposition concerning 'empirical perspective' , can you elucidate a bit more there?

With respect to your reply, my view is that Atheism is a belief system that is not logical, which is not necessarily a bad thing. For instance, if the Atheist's disbelief is based upon Omin-3, then it becomes an emotional reaction rather than a logical one, since Omni-3, like many other explanations of things in life (consciousness itself, the paradox/illusion of Time, etc. etc), is ' logically impossible' a priori. And with respect to your a posteriori logic (empiricism), that too would be problematic since many people report personal religious experiences which include the ineffable. Similarly, since one experiences themselves as something separate from everything else (subjective truth/objective truth), their truth is theirs and no one else's. Hence, from cognitive science: What you are not, you cannot perceive to understand. It cannot communicate itself to you.

Of course in Christian religion, Jesus existed in a history book (the Bible), so one can conceive of that existence like any other historic figure.

[Tegularius]

Religion and science go together. As I've said before, science without religion is lame and religion without science is blind. They are interdependent and have a common goal—the search for truth. Hence it is absurd for religion to proscribe Galileo or Darwin or other scientists. And it is equally absurd when scientists say that there is no God. The real scientist has faith, which does not mean that he must subscribe to a creed. Without religion there is no charity. The soul given to each of us is moved by the same living spirit that moves the universe. --Albert Einstein

Religion and science don't go together. The are inimical to each other. They are not in the least interdependent. The goal of religion is to establish truth through dogma; science through observation and experimentation. It's also illogical: if they were interdependent, science could not exist without religion or in reverse. I don't think Einstein could have said anything so ludicrous; more likely it's a translation error since he expressed himself best in German.

And with respect to your a posteriori logic (empiricism), that too would be problematic since many people report personal religious experiences which include the ineffable.

The problem here is what I experience as ineffable is not what you would experience as ineffable. Religious or not, that depends on the inner person's ability to react to different kinds of qualia; it has nothing to do with logic.

Hence, from cognitive science: What you are not, you cannot perceive to understand. It cannot communicate itself to you.

Correct...up to a point. What may seem alien at one time may be incorporated at another time and communicate itself as best I understand it. It's not a fixed rule.

Of course in Christian religion, Jesus existed in a history book (the Bible), so one can conceive of that existence like any other historic figure.

I would revise that a little. The bible is not a history book per se, but a book which events in history created, viz., a totally human artifact.

[Gertie]

Weil argues that this creates an incomplete and, in its incompleteness, illusory representation of reality — even when it bisects the planes of mathematical data and common sense, such science leaves out the unquantifiable layer of meaning:

If the algebra of physicists gives the impression of profundity it is because it is entirely flat; the third dimension of thought is missing.

That third dimension is that of meaning — one concerned with notions like “the human soul, freedom, consciousness, the reality of the external world.”

The significant dichotomy is between the objectively quantitive physical nature of the world which science models, and the subjective qualiative perspective conscious experience introduces. (''Common sense'' is an aspect of consciousness).

The existence of conscious entities brings meaning, value and purpose into the world, and as Goldstein who the article references points out, ''mattering'' and oughts/morality.

The interface between the material world of objects, and the experiencing of subjects, remains mysterious, two 'magesteria' which are related, but apparently give very different types of accounts of the world and ourselves.

Religions can offer a type of explanation, it's possible they remain prevalent because they somehow key in to some innate truth detector consciousness imbues our species with. But of course there are more prosaic and less attractive explanations for religions, which means such a position needs to be argued for. And any such claim will inevitably cherry pick from the thousand or so religions, from Volcano worship to Norse myth to Buddhism, to find the key bits which resonate with the contemporary cherry picker. Seek and ye shall find pretty much anything you want in one religion or other.

If instead you rely on some personal experiential revelation you can ignore the need for all that arguing your case, but that's got a checkered history too. It's a minefield for bias and self-delusion, a dangerous one at that. Anyone who believes themselves keyed in to some eternal, unalterable truth and purpose which some of us just don't get, who sees some higher value than our shared humanity, can righteously do inhumane things in its name.

[3017Metaphysician]

Religion and science go together. As I've said before, science without religion is lame and religion without science is blind. They are interdependent and have a common goal—the search for truth. Hence it is absurd for religion to proscribe Galileo or Darwin or other scientists. And it is equally absurd when scientists say that there is no God. The real scientist has faith, which does not mean that he must subscribe to a creed. Without religion there is no charity. The soul given to each of us is moved by the same living spirit that moves the universe. --Albert Einstein

Religion and science don't go together. The are inimical to each other. They are not in the least interdependent. The goal of religion is to establish truth through dogma; science through observation and experimentation. It's also illogical: if they were interdependent, science could not exist without religion or in reverse. I don't think Einstein could have said anything so ludicrous; more likely it's a translation error since he expressed himself best in German.

And with respect to your a posteriori logic (empiricism), that too would be problematic since many people report personal religious experiences which include the ineffable.

The problem here is what I experience as ineffable is not what you would experience as ineffable. Religious or not, that depends on the inner person's ability to react to different kinds of qualia; it has nothing to do with logic.

Hence, from cognitive science: What you are not, you cannot perceive to understand. It cannot communicate itself to you.

Correct...up to a point. What may seem alien at one time may be incorporated at another time and communicate itself as best I understand it. It's not a fixed rule.

Of course in Christian religion, Jesus existed in a history book (the Bible), so one can conceive of that existence like any other historic figure.

I would revise that a little. The bible is not a history book per se, but a book which events in history created, viz., a totally human artifact.

Hi Teg!

No, you are suggesting a false dichotomy. Consider the American currency of 'In God We Trust'. We in America have a constitution that allows for religious freedoms, and we also separate it from many laws: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." So it's not an either/or proposition. We allow for both to co-exist.

By the same token, as Einstein observed, and using your concepts, to be 'logical' would mean being objective and stoic (indifferent) towards one's so-called professional approach/analysis/research in those domain's of physics and cosmology. That doesn't mean one should be ignorant to a causational super-turtle, or the concept of a God. If that were the case, no (empirical) inquiries would be made that could be tested, such as the judgement: all events must have a cause. Most all physical theories start with synthetic propositions since they allow for testing.

Imagine of we didn't have that sense of wonder, you wouldn't be able to discover/uncover anything somewhat novel.

With respect to the ineffable, you would be accurate to say what is considered your 'ineffable experience' might indeed be different than my particular ineffable experience. Agreed. And so that in itself doesn't support your position of Atheism being a belief system that is objectively logical.

Anyway, Atheism as 'purification' (whatever that means) seems like an Einsteinian emotional grudge of some sort.

[Tegularius]

as Einstein observed, and using your concepts, to be 'logical' would mean being objective and stoic (indifferent) towards one's so-called professional approach/analysis/research in those domain's of physics and cosmology. That doesn't mean one should be ignorant to a causational super-turtle, or the concept of a God. If that were the case, no (empirical) inquiries would be made that could be tested, such as the judgement: all events must have a cause. Most all physical theories start with synthetic propositions since they allow for testing.

A concept whose forever destiny is to continue as a concept should eventually be relegated to the ashes. The god concept never subscribed to any empirical test which is why it continues as concept in the process of growing bald. Also, not all events have a cause as if it were based on volition. Nature doesn't deal within the cause & effect paradigm which is so natural to us.

Imagine of we didn't have that sense of wonder, you wouldn't be able to discover/uncover anything somewhat novel.

Wonder is our response to what we experience as mysterious and sublime. It requires neither philosophy or religion to allow for its influx. It could even be claimed that philosophy, religion to a degree and science are its derivatives.

With respect to the ineffable, you would be accurate to say what is considered your 'ineffable experience' might indeed be different than my particular ineffable experience. Agreed. And so that in itself doesn't support your position of Atheism being a belief system that is objectively logical.

I don't know what you read, but I never said that Atheism is a belief system or that it even requires being objectively logical. This is what I wrote...

if atheism is a belief system, which in principle it is not, it's only because it was used as a pejorative during the very long times in which theism ruled.

Clearly stated, a-theism is the negation of theism which does not imply that it becomes its own belief system because if it did, it would paradoxically be forced to negate itself as just another belief.

[3017Metaphysician]

as Einstein observed, and using your concepts, to be 'logical' would mean being objective and stoic (indifferent) towards one's so-called professional approach/analysis/research in those domain's of physics and cosmology. That doesn't mean one should be ignorant to a causational super-turtle, or the concept of a God. If that were the case, no (empirical) inquiries would be made that could be tested, such as the judgement: all events must have a cause. Most all physical theories start with synthetic propositions since they allow for testing.

A concept whose forever destiny is to continue as a concept should eventually be relegated to the ashes. The god concept never subscribed to any empirical test which is why it continues as concept in the process of growing bald. Also, not all events have a cause as if it were based on volition. Nature doesn't deal within the cause & effect paradigm which is so natural to us.

Imagine of we didn't have that sense of wonder, you wouldn't be able to discover/uncover anything somewhat novel.

Wonder is our response to what we experience as mysterious and sublime. It requires neither philosophy or religion to allow for its influx. It could even be claimed that philosophy, religion to a degree and science are its derivatives.

With respect to the ineffable, you would be accurate to say what is considered your 'ineffable experience' might indeed be different than my particular ineffable experience. Agreed. And so that in itself doesn't support your position of Atheism being a belief system that is objectively logical.

I don't know what you read, but I never said that Atheism is a belief system or that it even requires being objectively logical. This is what I wrote...

if atheism is a belief system, which in principle it is not, it's only because it was used as a pejorative during the very long times in which theism ruled.

Clearly stated, a-theism is the negation of theism which does not imply that it becomes its own belief system because if it did, it would paradoxically be forced to negate itself as just another belief.

Hi Teg!

Indeed yet another irony

The concept of a God, in theoretical physics for example, is the same as a super-turtle. Your 'relegation to ashes' would then mean or at least translate to no scientist making the judgement: all events must have a cause, in order to carry such a causational theory forward and advance it to where it can be tested. Hence, in your view, empirical science (physics) would somehow not be empirical science as we know it. Instead, what would it be, a bunch of tautologies, I wonder? (No pun intended.)

To this end, wonderment itself, is a metaphysical quality of consciousness or feature of the mind. This is much like the phenomena or experiences from other intellectual pursuits and existential feelings of love, colors, the will, music, mathematics, ingenuity, intention and other abstract structures of the mind. And with respect to your subordination, if I understand you correctly, yes I would agree there. Like mathematics and music; it is argued those things arrived on the scene first, then someone figured them out later. Meaning, in an Anthropic way, humans appeared on the scene and used abstract mathematical structures to figure out the laws of the universe, gravity, etc.. But that was only after they had already learned how to avoid falling objects to survive.

Similarly, humans played music, then someone figured out later how to write music abstractly through musical notation (music theory-diatonic scales, cadences, rhythm, time signatures, etc.), which is also yet another abstract metaphysical feature of the mind. Neither of which (including abstract mathematics itself), of course, confers any biological Darwinian survival value.

With respect to believe systems, A-theism, if based upon the disbelief of the Omni-3 paradox (which in itself is logically impossible) from
Theism, relegates that belief system to some sort of emotional response. Again, that's not necessarily a bad thing, since the mind itself (the descriptions/explanations of the conscious/subconscious working together/sentience and pure reason/logic) is logically impossible, not to mention we are not Trek-like beings anyway . In layman's terms, our existence, logically, in many ways and on many levels, has not been figured out using the pure reason of a priori mathematics and/or any other means/methods available to us. There's also another irony there, but I'll let you 'monder' that one a bit… .

Anyway, to continue the dialogue, this begs other questions about human value systems and what is considered to be one's justified true belief.