Say it's not so!
Of course science changes, it's called progress.
Religion is rooted in the primitive history of Man - it would be best left there.
kfc posts:
daiwa posts:
S &JTEARS POSTS
I'm with you S&JTears.
KFC # 39
S&JTEARS
kfc posts 45
I think way too much praise has been given Albert Einstein. He supposedly discovered the theory of "relativity"...related to measurements in the physical sciences. KFC, think on this....what is Einstein's theory of "relativity" applied to philosophy and religion....It's cultivated Atheism. Einstein's own writings, as well as others who personally knew him say that it's the principle of relativity applied to philosophy and religion that caused Einstein to deny belief in a personal God, to deny belief in free will, to reject the revealed code of morality to which every person is subject and to be a patron of subversive organizations.
It was the application of Einstein's theory of relativity to philosophy and religion that prompted Cardinal O'Connell to write, "a befogged speculation producing universal doubt about God and His creation, that cloaks the ghastly apparation of atheism." Evidently, a Rabbi in New York cabled Einstein and asked him, "Do you believe in God?" Einstein's now famous answer was, "I believe in Spinoza's god who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns Himself with fates and actions of human beings."
Check out "Spinoza" and you'll find out that he advocated a pantheistic god, one that emanated from matter. Turns out that for believing this, Spinoza was rightly expelled from the Synagague in Amsersdam in the 17th century.
Well put, very lucid, and intriguing. (Wow, my saying that is a first...mea culpa lula)
~Alderic
Sorry, I'm confused. Are you saying that Einstein applied the theory that distance is not fixed but altered by speed to religion? What on earth does the theory of relativity have to do with religon?
Speaking of fallacies, this is a whopper, maybe the whopper of the whole thread.
No.
Einstein's "religiosity" and concept of God not unlike that of Spinoza has given way to the myths of moral and cultural relativism. Einstein's theory of general relativity has been misused.....if time and space are relative, so too are moral, cultural and religious values. His theory has been misapplied by those who would have us believe there are no absolutes.
Lula, there is such thing as moral relativsm. Take a look at the different cultures for example, their morals, their right and wrong have been shown to be different to yours, or others.
Saying that certain things are not relative, i.e. different according to cultures and so on - means you're just full of it.
~Alderic/hope4iran
How is it a fallacy and a whopper? Back it up.
Einstein demonstrating human faith wrote, "The cosmic religious experience is the strongest and noblest driving force behind scientific research....What a deep faith in the rationality of the structure of the world and what a longing to understand even a small glimpse of the reason revealed in the world there must have been in Kepler and Newton to enable them to unravel the mechanism of the heavens...." Cosmic Religion, New York 1931 pgs. 52-53.
Einstein evidently thought that Kepler and Newton unraveled the mechanism of the heavens, did they?
Lula, you have to understand that Einstein, when he often spoke about God, et al. - he often did not mean the same God as you do. That, I think, is where you fail to understand him. In fact, here he is in his own words:
"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment."
"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."
In fact, Einstein is reported to have said that he felt Jesus to be a myth.
He was no christian. If nothing else, we was...a combination of naturalistic deism. Or, in a sense, someone who relied on science.That's my interpretation at least. In fact, the comment there - in my eyes - seems to point to not religion, or faith or anything like that, but the desire to explore and understand the world. There's an interesting bit, on page 234 of this book. It starts at "The religious genius'..."
Addendum:
To clarify things a bit - Einstein could, and likely does - fall into the category of people who:
1. He says he believes in Spinoza's God.
2.Spinoza's God is a pantheistic God, in which the universe and nature and God, are one in the same.
3. So, taking that into account - it is logical to assume that Einstein believed that God could be found through science, nature, etc.
You get where I'm going with this?
OK, if you insist:
1. Religion begins with Divine faith.
Substitute 'blind' for 'Divine' & the meaning is unchanged. How has 'Divine' been determined? It has been 'judged' to be Divine by... fallible humans.
2. Faith that will not, in fact can not deceive.
A posit which cannot be tested, proven or disputed.
3. Science begins with human faith.
Umm... no. Science begins with observation of data.
The fallacy is in the assumption that religion is infallible and science is not.
Alderic,
Yes, I KNOW there is such a thing as moral relativism...that's exactly what I'm writing about...As a matter of fact, moral relativism abounds in this day and age....and I bemoan this fact. The relativist dogma is that there are no absolutes, except relativism.
Which is my point, that you abscribe to their being absolutes when clearly...there is no such thing.
Your misunderstanding is due to failure to appreciate what faith and study really is and its basic role in the sphere of science and religion.
Religion and science call for belief both by faith and study from whom? An authority.
Divine faith isn't an emotional, blind submission to the unknowable. Rather Divine faith is an intellectual assent of the mind to something not seen, and the acceptance of truth upon the authority of someone else. In religion it's Divine Authority, that cannot decieve or be decieved.
Umm....yes. In science, even observation of data begins on human faith and study from a fallible human authority, that may or may not be right depending upon its personal integrity.
Ah....the self refuting logic of relativism..If no truth is absolute, what about the "truth" that no truth is absolute??
Relativism is unscientific, illogical, self defeating, and dangerous.
There are of course alot of things that are absolute truths, there are also a hell of a lot of things that are relative.
There is a truth about gods existance, there are realtive moral values.
"There is so much bias in science, people have no idea." My son told me that not too long ago when we were discussing these things. He is a Scientist and said everyone and every experiment starts with a bias. We all come to the table with our biases.
Not forever.
not true Dawia. Our faith is not blind. Now, that's a fallacy. It's based on evidence. Sure, we can't see God but we can see evidence of him everywhere. When Jesus came it says he gave sight to the blind. He did so in more ways than one you know. There's physical blindness and there's spiritual blindness. There are many seeing people who are very very blind.
That's only because you believe what you see is not just evidence, but self-confirming proof. No matter how you slice it, you cannot provide any evidence of God's existence or of the 'truth' of the Bible, only circular reasoning.
Mind you, that doesn't mean I believe you can't or shouldn't practice your religion and adhere to the beliefs you hold dear. Just don't pretend those beliefs are something that they aren't.
I don't. I'm not in the pretending business. I gave up fiction a long time ago.
Why don't you admit that there's a possiblity that you could be spiritually blinded?
Couldn't that be true?
Charles Haddon Spurgeon (Prince of all Preachers) said, “Faith goes up the stairs that love has made and looks out the window which hope has opened.”
I for one am willing to admit that I could wrong in be denying the existance of your 'god'. I am also willing to admit that I could be wrong in denying the existance of the flying spaggetti monster, etc. I'm not willing to list the number of gods that I admit I could be wrong in denying the existance of.
If you prove a) that any god exists that your god exists over the evidence for every other god I will agree with you.
That was meant to be that.....
AGGHHHH "b )"
Because I'm not, and 'No.'
There is a possibility that little monkeys fly oughta my ass in the middle of the night while I'm asleep.
But ulimatly it is impossible to say 'there is no god'. A god capable of creating the universe is also capable of hiding.
It is possible to say that 'I think god existance is as likely as the existance of tiny invisable ass monkeys flying out of my ass every night'
With this I agree.
However, the impossibility of proving that there is no God is not evidence, let alone proof, that there is one. We'll never know either way.
Actually that's not my job. It's not up to me to prove God's existence. Besides all that, even if I did, you wouldn't believe. For most there isn't enough proof that would convince them.
alrighty then. You see just perfectly. But you don't see God?
ya, that's good. But he says that if we seek him we will find him.
It would be more correct for you to say "I don't know."
Because I do know.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
