RE: Einstein and G*d

RE: Einstein and G*d (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Rule -> RE: Einstein and Gd* (5/13/2008 5:32:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RealityLicks And I think it's to his credit that he addresses that perception of him frequently in his writings. Nevertheless, people do still seem to value his opinions and that gives them a de facto worth. I have judged him in this respect an ignoramus - and that is definitive. quote: ORIGINAL: RealityLicks What's more, ultimately we are either convinced or unconvinced by a philosophical or religious proposition and I think he suggests that this conviction is itself akin to an act of faith. Then he excluded me, for I am not a believer. I either know or I do not know. quote: ORIGINAL: RealityLicks I think he was always mindful of the fact that there is always another mystery after this one, then another and that we can only solve each with the benefit of others' work and that it is in human nature to be drawn to examine these mysteries. I do not know that he was mindful of that at all. Methinks that you are projecting your own convictions onto him, trying in that way to find support for your opinions. Cannot you stand on your own feet?

RealityLicks -> RE: Einstein and Gd* (5/13/2008 5:41:06 AM)
[sm=abducted.gif]

batshalom -> RE: Einstein and Gd* (5/13/2008 5:41:39 AM)
~quick hijack, sorry!~ Rule, would you please explain to me (cmail so we don't keep hijacking the thread) your thoughts on Einstein? Why do you think he was wrong, and what do you think he was wrong about? I am always interested in other points of view and this one has me flummoxed. I said before that you're an interesting fellow, and I meant it sincerely.

batshalom -> RE: Einstein and Gd* (5/13/2008 5:45:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule Methinks that you are projecting your own convictions onto him, trying in that way to find support for your opinions. We all do it, Baby, everybody. It's elementary psychology; and while it's not necessarily wrong it sure can lead to some mistaken conclusions (the vaccine / autism debacle comes to mind). In the instance of god, however, there is no way to prove who is right and who is wrong - we all have to search for whatever makes the most sense and seems the most in line with our beliefs.

RealityLicks -> RE: Einstein and Gd* (5/13/2008 6:07:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: batshalom It is a good point; however, de facto worth is pretty meaningless in terms of reality. Such de facto worth, in fact, keeps people from inspecting things too closely for themselves, which is very troubling to me. Then again, most of us have heard about Milgram's study on obedience to authority, so I suppose it's not overly surprising. I take your point regarding the relative value of de facto meaning but at that juncture was actually addressing whether such value existed. An idea may be plain wrong but still gain currency because it is so widespread and yes, many have had our differences with the pseudo science which continues to afflict society - but that is itself an attestation of it's value in reality, if not in "truth". It appears that while Einstein was keen to demote his expertise in cosmology as qualification as an authority on other matters, he also recognised that as many religious people believed that god was "out there" on some level, or that he had achieved a deeper understanding of the universe, he'd never escape questioning on the topic. That is very different from setting himself up as an authority - we are all entitled to our views, aren't we? Its just that yours and mine aren't as widely sought after. So it's evident that he never gave the type of edict Milgram examined because there is a debate to this day as to what the guy actually thought. To the extent that this letter is being reported on around the world. Surely Milgram was concerned with responses to direct orders? And surely by now "I was only following orders" is as much a part of the social fabric as it can ever be?

SleepyDom -> RE: Einstein and Gd* (5/13/2008 6:36:19 AM)
RL, by your own statements, Albert cannot be mindful of the FACT that there is always another mystery after this when it is NOT a fact but rather "akin to an act of faith" since it is a philosophical or religious proposition. If you were to say he was mindful of his faith that there is always another mystery after this, ok, that's consistent enough. And I don't know why you ask Dawkins to pay attention as if it's obvious his position is wrong. What's wrong with annihilating religious belief altogether? Many have made the case that religion is very harmful, that its negative influence far outweighs any good influences it might have (Christianity being used as justification for crusades, even slavery (I mean the bad, non-D/s kind ;)), Islam being used as justification for terrorism, etc.). Anyway, there is no authority on philosophy and religion. Academic philosophy is a fraud as there's no method in philosophy to show the truth of anything. Even the anal-ytical philosophy's pride in analysis and argumentation is just a sham, nothing more than prettying up the presentation of their views. If you understood what argument is in analytic philosophy, you'd understand that arguments prove absolutely nothing. So, yes, Albert was right in that regard--that beliefs in philosophical propositions is akin to faith. And authority on religion? Hah! Religion doesn't even pretend to be able to show the truth of anything, everything's merely faith. You might as well counter "well I have faith that all religions are false" and they'd have nothing better to counter you except non-intellectually (i.e. threaten you with eternal damnation yadayadayada). And no, I'm not saying all this because my MA in philosophy is completely useless, I'm saying it as simple observation. Please, don't nobody start a debate or demand an argument why philosophy has no method to show the truth of anything! That's not a philosophical proposition, but a simple observational statement. If you really believe pink elephants exist, all you have to do is produce one, not demand for philosophical arguments for their nonexistence. If you can't produce one, why should anyone believe you? Hey, I LOOKED for it for over 10 years that I studied the discipline and I didn't find it. I'm willing to bet any money you won't either. But if you think you have, present it, I'd love to see it and see how it shows the truth of any damn philosophical statement. And good luck with that! ;)

orfunboi -> RE: Einstein and Gd* (5/13/2008 6:42:54 AM)
I am not sure why I should care if Einstein believed in God or not?

SleepyDom -> RE: Einstein and Gd* (5/13/2008 6:54:58 AM)
You shouldn't.

kittinSol -> RE: Einstein and Gd* (5/13/2008 6:58:05 AM)
I disagree. It's interesting to find out about Einstein's views on spirituality; he was a great mind, a visionary. A monument all of his own. Perhaps you're just not into history :-) .

SleepyDom -> RE: Einstein and Gd* (5/13/2008 7:15:36 AM)
You're right kittinsol, I'm just not into history. But more to the point, I was replying to orfunboi that HE shouldn't since he appears not to care about history as well. And unless you can convince me why we should be into history, I stand by that. :) Actually I'm really being cheeky here. What I really meant is that we shouldn't care what Einstein believed if our goal was to get at the truth. Any elementary logic student knows that argument from authority is a fallacy (even if you could argue that he WAS an authority), and even worse, as I said, there is NO authority on the matters of philosophy and religion, therefore anyone's BELIEFS is just irrelevant. It may be interesting, I suppose, if you find Einstein interesting, but irrelevant nevertheless.

batshalom -> RE: Einstein and Gd* (5/13/2008 7:37:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RealityLicks I take your point regarding the relative value of de facto meaning but at that juncture was actually addressing whether such value existed. An idea may be plain wrong but still gain currency because it is so widespread and yes, many have had our differences with the pseudo science which continues to afflict society - but that is itself an attestation of it's value in reality, if not in "truth". So it would be more like "truthiness" than actual truth, or "realitiness" instead of "reality." I think there is truth ... and then there are everyeone else's perceptions of what the truth is, and truth varies from one state to the next. Some truths will be close to reality, and some will only be personally salient, but in the end I suppose it doesn't really mater. quote: ORIGINAL: RealityLicks we are all entitled to our views, aren't we? Its just that yours and mine aren't as widely sought after. Until we are perceived as authorities on something, this is true, not as widely sought after, although we each have the ability to influence someone (even without meaning to do so). Therefore, you may change someone's reality, I may help define someone's truth ... but the reality and truth of the matter is that we probably will never know what is correct and what is not, at least not so that we'll ever have the opportunity to debate it. quote: ORIGINAL: RealityLicks So it's evident that he never gave the type of edict Milgram examined because there is a debate to this day as to what the guy actually thought. To the extent that this letter is being reported on around the world. Surely Milgram was concerned with responses to direct orders? And surely by now "I was only following orders" is as much a part of the social fabric as it can ever be? I don't know, RL. I think some people will see Einstein's letter as a direct order - he is an intellectual authority, yes? (At least that was my point with regard to Milgram and authority, and is the truthiness as I experience it. ~good natured grin~)

RealityLicks -> RE: Einstein and Gd* (5/13/2008 7:38:51 AM)
"Sleepy", let's have it. First be quite clear, I am no more an enthusiast for Einstein's thoughts on religion than the next man - it's simply a platform for debate but if you think them irrelevant, you ought to simply pass the thread by. Anyway, to reply -- quote: ORIGINAL: SleepyDom RL, by your own statements, Albert cannot be mindful of the FACT that there is always another mystery after this when it is NOT a fact but rather "akin to an act of faith" since it is a philosophical or religious proposition. If you were to say he was mindful of his faith that there is always another mystery after this, ok, that's consistent enough. This might have been a stronger argument if you had shown the same level of linguistic rigour throughout your post. quote: And I don't know why you ask Dawkins to pay attention as if it's obvious his position is wrong. What's wrong with annihilating religious belief altogether? Many have made the case that religion is very harmful, that its negative influence ... My intention was not to make a judgement on whether annihilating all religious belief was wrong, simply to point out that there are other approaches than his form of atheism - with the ironic footnote that one's choices in this regard can themselves parallel acts of faith. quote: Anyway, there is no authority on philosophy and religion. I haven't claimed that there was. Its an assumption that's easy to make given the cult of personality that's grown around this great thinker. I actually view this as a debate about a debate - with me? quote: Academic philosophy is a fraud as there's no method in philosophy to show the truth of anything. Even the anal-ytical philosophy's pride in analysis and argumentation is just a sham, nothing more than prettying up the presentation of their views. If you understood what argument is in analytic philosophy, you'd understand that arguments prove absolutely nothing. Regardless of the merits of "analytic philsophy", what bearing does it have on any of this? quote: So, yes, Albert was right in that regard--that beliefs in philosophical propositions is akin to faith. He didn't say that, I did. And more elegantly, if I may say so. quote: And authority on religion? Hah! Religion doesn't even pretend to be able to show the truth of anything, everything's merely faith. You might as well counter "well I have faith that all religions are false" and they'd have nothing better to counter you except non-intellectually (i.e. threaten you with eternal damnation yadayadayada). And no, I'm not saying all this because my MA in philosophy is completely useless, I'm saying it as simple observation. Please, don't nobody start a debate or demand an argument why philosophy has no method to show the truth of anything! That's not a philosophical proposition, but a simple observational statement. If you really believe pink elephants exist, all you have to do is produce one... And so on. But we get the idea. Seriously, seeks, is this the best you can do? Even with a name change, you show the same inability to read a post as you do under your usual moniker. Get a grip, you're not getting any younger, you know?

batshalom -> RE: Einstein and Gd* (5/13/2008 7:40:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SleepyDom And I don't know why you ask Dawkins to pay attention as if it's obvious his position is wrong. What's wrong with annihilating religious belief altogether? Many have made the case that religion is very harmful, that its negative influence far outweighs any good influences it might have (Christianity being used as justification for crusades, even slavery (I mean the bad, non-D/s kind ;)), Islam being used as justification for terrorism, etc.). I'm not religious but I don't buy it. Anything that is taken to the extreme can be "justification" for negative actions with regretful consequences.

RealityLicks -> RE: Einstein and Gd* (5/13/2008 7:53:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: batshalom So it would be more like "truthiness" than actual truth, or "realitiness" instead of "reality." I think there is truth ... and then there are everyeone else's perceptions of what the truth is, and truth varies from one state to the next. Some truths will be close to reality, and some will only be personally salient, but in the end I suppose it doesn't really mater. I mean to persist with this point because without it my post can't make much sense to you. On the south coast of England is a place known in Saxon times as Brighthelmseastone, then in the William's Domesday Book as Brighthelmston. With time, the name has continued to contract and we all call it Brighton today. The place is always the same but common parlance varies it's take on it. If any belief is common enough, it gathers so much momentum that it affects an altering of reality. If its a common belief that god is "out there" (rather than say, a way of accessing what is "in here") then the weight of importance they place on the views of the man who studies "out there" become important - simply because so many believe they are.

batshalom -> RE: Einstein and Gd* (5/13/2008 7:58:30 AM)
Or maybe its name was godmereldamseastone, but in order to be useful it had to be called god instead. Heh. (Not making light of your post - that's the first thought that hit me, I love taking the comedic low road, and I'm running late to study for my final exam in, of all things, one of my classes in pseudoscience.) Catch you later - I've enjoyed it thus far.

Rule -> RE: Einstein and Gd* (5/13/2008 7:59:13 AM)
I do not care about the fallacies of other people. Such misconceptions are not important, but sad.

RealityLicks -> RE: Einstein and Gd* (5/13/2008 8:02:52 AM)
Yeah, gotta move too.

seeksfemslave -> RE: Einstein and Gd* (5/13/2008 8:08:32 AM)
quote: RealityLisks in response to a post from SleepyDom Seriously, seeks, is this the best you can do? Even with a name change, you show the same inability to read a post as you do under your usual moniker. Get a grip, you're not getting any younger, you know? Reality, Sleepy is not me. I am undergoing the male menopause and my mind shut down about two weeks ago. I read the threads and I remain resolutely blank. Who is this chap Einstein anyway ? As for God, I think that just might be KittenSol.

kittinSol -> RE: Einstein and Gd* (5/13/2008 8:10:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave As for God, I think that just might be KittenSol. Absolutely not, though I commend you for thinking something so plausible.

LadyEllen -> RE: Einstein and Gd* (5/13/2008 8:11:48 AM)
nah, she is the Messiah - and I should know, I've followed a few E

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875