Einstein's thoughts on God

[Guest TrueMetis]

However or whatever scientists do to arrive at conclusions does not alter the fact that some scientists wavered (and that includes Darwin).....and some are still wavering as we speak.

Again that means absolutely nothing.

I mentioned Darwin because his correspondence with Asa Gray showed the conflict in him.

The following is taken from an old thread titled, "DARWIN," in this forum.

Gray may have believed that Darwin "brought back teleological considerations into botany," and Darwin may have swung that way in his book on orchids, but by 1867 Darwin had definitely swung back to the other side."

You should read you sources more carefully. But again I have to mention that even if Darwin himself said evolution was entirely false that doesn't make it true. You want to know what Darwin really thought try reading On the Origin of Species.

http://www.asa3.org/...F9-01Miles.html

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=14060&st=0

First link doesn't work, second is a thread where you got your ass kicked.

[ToadBrother]

I doubt if theists with true faith seek spiritual comfort from scientists.

And yet so many seem to determined to go against Einstein's explicit statements in an attempt to make him into something he wasn't.

It is just interesting to note that views of some famous scientists were not conclusive with the findings they hoped and wished to find. The fact that they wavered - like Darwin -, some even to the point of conversion really say a lot.

The story of Darwin's supposed "wavering" was a fraud. It was made up by the god-fearing Lady Hope. So much for the moral highground belonging to the theists.

As I said in the other thread "Rejoice....," if you set out to prove your belief, if you're honest, you must be prepared to disprove it. The honesty is the hard part.

I'm not setting out to prove anything.

[betsy]

The story of Darwin's supposed "wavering" was a fraud. It was made up by the god-fearing Lady Hope. So much for the moral highground belonging to the theists.

I am not talking about his alleged conversion near the time of his death. So the reference to Lady Hope is irrelevant.

I am talking about his waverings. Darwin himself - in that letter which he wrote Fordyce - clearly stated his own admittance regarding what he called his FLUCTUATIONS !

His long correspondence with ASA GRAY also clearly shows his spiritual torment!

Speaking as a believer in God, what fascinates (is that the right word?) me about scientists is the awful position they must find themselves in when they find science inevitably pointing to the existence of "Design"...or "Intelligent Design".....their sort of acknowledgement of a God.

I am not setting out to prove anything either. As a believer I don't need any. I was just referring to scientists and people who set out to do their own investigative work to prove their belief.

Edited August 29, 2010 by betsy

[betsy]

Sorry. Double posting.

Edited August 29, 2010 by betsy

[Guest TrueMetis]

Speaking as a believer in God, what fascinates (is that the right word?) me about scientists is the awful position they must find themselves in when they find science inevitably pointing to the existence of "Design"...or "Intelligent Design".....their sort of acknowledgement of a God.

This is only true if you are deluded enough to think 1) That there is actually evidence supporting creationism and 2) There aren't any religious scientists, there are plenty of them most of them think of evolution as the work of a god.

Edited August 29, 2010 by TrueMetis

[betsy]

Again that means absolutely nothing.

This is my statement which you just answered:

However or whatever scientists do to arrive at conclusions does not alter the fact that some scientists wavered (and that includes Darwin).....and some are still wavering as we speak.

And you say that means absolutely nothing! Then pray explain why there is such a term called "INTELLIGENT DESIGN" being bandied about by some scientists?

You should read you sources more carefully.

Nothing is wrong with my sources. Btw, where are your sources?

But again I have to mention that even if Darwin himself said evolution was entirely false that doesn't make it true.

And on that same token I have to mention that if Darwin himself said evolution was entirely false.....it could very well also mean that he spoke the truth and was right!

You want to know what Darwin really thought try reading On the Origin of Species.

No, you're wrong on that. If you honestly and truly want to know what Darwin really thought about spiritual matters, including the origin of species....read his correspondence, specially the ones written AFTER the publication of Origin Of Species.

First link doesn't work, second is a thread where you got your ass kicked.

Try this link: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2001/PSCF9-01Miles.html

So you say I got my ass kicked. Why such crudely contentious, almost- insulting words in response to what I'd consider just plain simple statements from me. Kinda gives the impression you're on defense mode right away!

Mind you, that's just your opinion, you're entitled to it. But really, why does talking about this kind of topic makes it seem so contentious right away from start?

And speaking of opinion, you ought to read that thread again....and I suggest you also read the thread, "REJOICE ON THIS DAY" before giving yours. For your convenience, let me pull the Darwin thread up for you.

That way, I can't say you're just doing a typical pick-and-choose statement here and there....or just loosely throwing baseless opinion.

Makes debate more credible and worthwhile that way.

Edited August 29, 2010 by betsy

[betsy]

This is only true if you are deluded enough to think 1) That there is actually evidence supporting creationism and 2) There aren't any religious scientists, there are plenty of them most of them think of evolution as the work of a god.

Wow! I said:

Speaking as a believer in God, what fascinates (is that the right word?) me about scientists is the awful position they must find themselves in when they find science inevitably pointing to the existence of "Design"...or "Intelligent Design".....their sort of acknowledgement of a God.

Do you even read at all? I was explaining about my own fascinations and speculations....SPEAKING AS A BELIEVER IN GOD!

I don't even think we're on the same page. Bye-bye.

[DogOnPorch]

Why did 'God' make this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangulum_Galaxy

[ToadBrother]

Speaking as a believer in God, what fascinates (is that the right word?) me about scientists is the awful position they must find themselves in when they find science inevitably pointing to the existence of "Design"...or "Intelligent Design".....their sort of acknowledgement of a God.

Good thing they don't, then. If quite avowed Christians like Dobzhansky were smarter than that. There is no inevitability to any of it, and a proper scientist doesn't assume his conclusion. You might be best to read Dobzhansky's famous essay to get a glimpse at how a scientist of religious convictions actually functions.

http://people.delphiforums.com/lordorman/light.htm

[ToadBrother]

Why did 'God' make this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangulum_Galaxy

All things dull and ugly,

all creatures short and squat.

All things rude and nasty,

the Lord God made the lot.

Each little snake that poisons,

each little wasp that stings.

He made their brutish venom,

he made their horrid wings.

All things sick and cancerous

All evil great and small.

All things foul and dangerous,

the Lord God made them all.

Each nasty little hornet,

each beastly little squid,

Who made the spiny urchin?

Who made the sharks? He did!!

All things scabbed and ulcerous,

all pox both great and small.

Putrid foul and gangrenous,

the Lord God made them all.

Edited August 29, 2010 by ToadBrother

[betsy]

Speaking as a believer in God, what fascinates (is that the right word?) me about scientists is the awful position they must find themselves in when they find science inevitably pointing to the existence of "Design"...or "Intelligent Design".....their sort of acknowledgement of a God.

Let me expand on my statement above. In a way, I am envious....or in awe (I can't seem to think of the proper word at the moment) of these scientists who wavered, and most especially...especially of those who eventually converted to Christianity.

Fascinated by that inner struggle....what a dilemma to bear!

Envious and in awe in a way that only mere contemplation and speculation on my part....about how it must feel for them to suddenly come to the realization that with all their superior knowledge and capability....they unmistakeably found God!

I assume these people did not just come to that shattering conclusion so easily...there must've been great skepticism and reluctance....of double-checking...or triple checking to make sure. But they just keep coming to that road sign saying, "Yield"...."God Up Ahead."

I could only imagine how it must feel that exact moment of realization....the one that made them convert.

Edited August 29, 2010 by betsy

[ToadBrother]

Let me expand on my statement above. In a way, I am envious....or in awe (I can't seem to think of the proper word at the moment) of these scientists who wavered, and most especially...especially of those who eventually converted to Christianity.

Fascinated by that inner struggle....what a dilemma to bear!

Envious and in awe in a way that only mere contemplation and speculation on my part....about how it must feel for them to suddenly come to the realization that with all their superior knowledge and capability....they unmistakeably found God!

I assume these people did not just come to that shattering conclusion so easily...there must've been great skepticism and reluctance....of double-checking...or triple checking to make sure. But they just keep coming to that road sign saying, "Yield"...."God Up Ahead."

I could only imagine how it must feel that exact moment of realization....the one that made them convert.

I'm more interested in their science. Their religious leanings are rather irrelevant. Does it matter whether Darwin was an agnostic or not? What counts was the theory.

Science itself is necessarily agnostic, of course, and having talked with a few scientists who have religious beliefs, they just as readily as their agnostic and atheist counterparts state that that is the key principle of scientific investigation.

Edited August 29, 2010 by ToadBrother

[DogOnPorch]

All things dull and ugly,

all creatures short and squat.

All things rude and nasty,

the Lord God made the lot.

Each little snake that poisons,

each little wasp that stings.

He made their brutish venom,

he made their horrid wings.

All things sick and cancerous

All evil great and small.

All things foul and dangerous,

the Lord God made them all.

Each nasty little hornet,

each beastly little squid,

Who made the spiny urchin?

Who made the sharks? He did!!

All things scabbed and ulcerous,

all pox both great and small.

Putrid foul and gangrenous,

the Lord God made them all.

Well that galaxy (M33) is rife with new star formation...as are untold millions of other galaxies. Us perfect creatures in God's image should be aware that he's/she's/it's choosing the 'Start New Game' option on his/her/its Sim Earth program.

Edited August 29, 2010 by DogOnPorch

[Bonam]

Well that galaxy (M33) is rife with new star formation...as are untold millions of other galaxies. Us perfect creatures in God's image should be aware that he's/she's/it's choosing the 'Start New Game' option on his/her/its Sim Earth program.

Lot's of star formation in our own galaxy, too.

[DogOnPorch]

Lot's of star formation in our own galaxy, too.

Oh yes...of course. Just with a galaxy like M33 you can see these regions in nice glowing rows in the spiral arms. Other galaxies seem to be filled with Population II stars with limited or even no star formation.

[Bonam]

Oh yes...of course. Just with a galaxy like M33 you can see these regions in nice glowing rows in the spiral arms. Other galaxies seem to be filled with Population II stars with limited or even no star formation.

Milky Way star formation: 3-5 solar masses per year

Andromeda star formation: ~1 solar mass per year

Triangulum star formation: 0.45 solar masses per year

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda_Galaxy#Mass_and_luminosity_estimates

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangulum_Galaxy#Star_formation

However, you are right in that star formation activity is highly visible in Triangulum; it has a higher average aerial density of star formation (about 4x compared to Andromeda), since it is a much smaller galaxy.

Regardless, your original point is well taken, vast amounts of solar systems continue to be created throughout the universe on a continual basis. That being said, Kurzweil's perspective on intelligent life is interesting, according to his analysis (which I don't fully buy, but it definitely makes some good points), we may well be the first civilization that has attained our level of advancement in our galaxy.

[DogOnPorch]

Milky Way star formation: 3-5 solar masses per year

Andromeda star formation: ~1 solar mass per year

Triangulum star formation: 0.45 solar masses per year

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda_Galaxy#Mass_and_luminosity_estimates

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangulum_Galaxy#Star_formation

However, you are right in that star formation activity is highly visible in Triangulum; it has a higher average aerial density of star formation (about 4x compared to Andromeda), since it is a much smaller galaxy.

Regardless, your original point is well taken, vast amounts of solar systems continue to be created throughout the universe on a continual basis. That being said, Kurzweil's perspective on intelligent life is interesting, according to his analysis (which I don't fully buy, but it definitely makes some good points), we may well be the first civilization that has attained our level of advancement in our galaxy.

Much like the old Drake equation, some numbers might need adjustment if water proves to be more common in its triple state than thought and we keep finding Earth-ish planets at the rate we have (or faster).

[Guest TrueMetis]

This is my statement which you just answered:

However or whatever scientists do to arrive at conclusions does not alter the fact that some scientists wavered (and that includes Darwin).....and some are still wavering as we speak.

And you say that means absolutely nothing! Then pray explain why there is such a term called "INTELLIGENT DESIGN" being bandied about by some scientists?

There isn't intelligent design was made up by creationists in order to try to bring some credibility to it. This was shown in the court case Kitzmiller vs Dover where are christian conservative judge smacked down ID as Creationism and therefore unconstitutional.

Nothing is wrong with my sources. Btw, where are your sources?

You source says that "Gray may have believed that Darwin..." Not that Darwin ever actually did believe.

And on that same token I have to mention that if Darwin himself said evolution was entirely false.....it could very well also mean that he spoke the truth and was right!

Nope, because after 150 of research Darwin is the last source people go to for information of evolution. You may not realize it but their is more evidence for evolution than there is gravity, we've found the cause of evolution, still haven't found the higgs boson. So should we teach intelligent falling in science classes?

No, you're wrong on that. If you honestly and truly want to know what Darwin really thought about spiritual matters, including the origin of species....read his correspondence, specially the ones written AFTER the publication of Origin Of Species.

He continued to publish and republish On Origin Of Species throughout his life, you think he would have mentioned something like this in one of the latter editions but he doesn't.

Try this link: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2001/PSCF9-01Miles.html

Your inability to read your own links is rather sad. Because when you actually read it you get the opposite view of what your trying to claim Darwin said. You get a whole bunch of Darwin arguing against design but saying he wished it was true. Then one example that is arguably him saying design may be real, which he apparently revokes afterwords.

I also don't trust the ASA because it makes some very basic mistakes about what evolution is.

[betsy]

Your inability to read your own links is rather sad. Because when you actually read it you get the opposite view of what your trying to claim Darwin said. You get a whole bunch of Darwin arguing against design but saying he wished it was true. Then one example that is arguably him saying design may be real, which he apparently revokes afterwords.

I also don't trust the ASA because it makes some very basic mistakes about what evolution is.

So you don't trust Asa Gray or the ASA for some reason that you claim, but that is your own opinion....which is worth nothing on this debate since your claim is based on nothing. Not to mention how you just showed your opinion in this topic is askew. I'm telling you we're not on the same page!

I couldn't care less whether Asa Gray or the ASA is right or wrong. I'm not debating whether evolution is real or not. I've already done that...in lots of other topics.

Anyway, here's another link. Now surely you must trust the CBC!

• Darwin described himself as an agnostic, and was puzzled by the sometimes heated arguments between evolutionists and creationists. In an 1879 letter to his friend John Fordyce, Darwin wrote, "It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent Theist and an evolutionist." In 1898, he said "there is no reason why the disciples of either school should attack each other with bitterness."

http://archives.cbc.ca/science_technology/natural_science/topics/3696/

And another interesting site:

Letter 12041 — Darwin, C. R. to Fordyce, John, 7 May 1879

Dear Sir

It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent Theist & an evolutionist.— You are right about Kingsley. Asa Gray, the eminent botanist, is another case in point— What my own views may be is a question of no consequence to any one except myself.— But as you ask, I may state that my judgment often fluctuates. Moreover whether a man deserves to be called a theist depends on the definition of the term: which is much too large a subject for a note. In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God.— I think that generally (& more and more so as I grow older) but not always, that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind.

http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-12041

Yes, indeed that's what my link is revealing isn't it? The WAVERINGS.....AND FLUCTUATIONS (Darwin's own word!).....which is what I was musing about!

I'm not going to reply anymore unless you've got something worthwhile to say. Bye-bye.

Edited August 30, 2010 by betsy

[DogOnPorch]

So you don't trust Asa Gray for some reason that you claim, but that is your own opinion....which is worth nothing on this debate since your claim is based on nothing. I couldn't care less whether Asa Gray is right or wrong. I'm not debating whether evolution is real or not. I've already done that...in lots of other topics.

Yes, indeed that's what my link is revealing isn't it? The WAVERINGS.....AND FLUCTUATIONS (Darwin's own word!).....which is what I was musing about!

So don't talk to me about not reading, when you clearly demonstrate that it is you who's thumping on the wrong page!

Bye-bye.

How old is the planet Earth?

[ToadBrother]

So you don't trust Asa Gray for some reason that you claim, but that is your own opinion....which is worth nothing on this debate since your claim is based on nothing. Not to mention how you just showed your opinion in this topic is askew. I'm telling you we're not on the same page!

I couldn't care less whether Asa Gray is right or wrong. I'm not debating whether evolution is real or not. I've already done that...in lots of other topics.

Yes, indeed that's what my link is revealing isn't it? The WAVERINGS.....AND FLUCTUATIONS (Darwin's own word!).....which is what I was musing about!

I'm not going to reply anymore unless you've got something worthwhile to say. Bye-bye.

I'd like you to get to the point.

[betsy]

I'd like you to get to the point.

Why, does everything have to have a specific point? One can't muse....or express....or ramble on?

My entry into this topic is just to simply state that Einstein was an agnostic.

And you replied to that with this:

And a very weak one at that. His views shouldn't be much comfort to theists. He certainly rejected all the trappings of organized religion and a personal god.

To which I answered:

I doubt if theists with true faith seek spiritual comfort from scientists.

It is just interesting to note that views of some famous scientists were not conclusive with the findings they hoped and wished to find. The fact that they wavered - like Darwin -, some even to the point of conversion really say a lot.

As I said in the other thread "Rejoice....," if you set out to prove your belief, if you're honest, you must be prepared to disprove it. The honesty is the hard part.

And it's true. A believer with true faith does not need any proof...hence I doubt they seek spiritual comfort from scientists!

I also mentioned another thread titled "Rejoice...." that documented what I was on about....notable people some of whom had set out to do their own investigative research to prove the Christian faith as false, only to find themselves converted.

I explained what fascinated me about the scientists....and even reiterated that I speak as a believer in God. And it just truly fascinates me that these men who eventually converted must have been blown away by what they found----that's why it's not just enough for them to just abandon the experiment and move on. Oh no, they just had to convert! To me, that must have been the closest for anyone to have come face-to-face with God.

Based from TrueMetis' initial crudely contentious reaction to my statement, - and your latest post, what I want to know now is: Why the knee-jerk reaction?

Edited August 30, 2010 by betsy

[ToadBrother]

Why, does everything have to have a specific point? One can't muse....or express....or ramble on?

My entry into this topic is just to simply state that Einstein was an agnostic.

I don't know why people like you try to treat people like me like morons. Of course there is a point. You're objections to evolution are well known, and like all anti-evolution types, you hope by casting doubt on Darwin that somehow the whole thing topples to the ground.

But Darwin isn't the Jesus of biology. Yes, he's well respected for creating an overarching theory, but evolutionary theory has progressed so far since his time that other than in the large picture, or in the interests of historical analysis, biologists don't really consider much of what Darwin wrote at all. For one thing, his theory entirely lacks a molecular explanation for evolution, which didn't happen until the 1930s through the 1950s with the Modern Synthesis. Of particular interest to someone like you is that one of the major formulators of the Modern Synthesis (or as some call it, Neo-Darwinism) was Theodosius Dobzhansky, who also happened to be a devout Orthodox Christian.

You probably should go out and find some writings by Dobzhansky and Ernst Mayr if you want to impress us all with how evolutionary researchers are, as you seem to want to claim, on the edge of revelations... hallelujah and all that rot. Other than that, your just simply wasting electrons.

Edited August 30, 2010 by ToadBrother

[betsy]

I don't know why people like you try to treat people like me like morons. Of course there is a point. You're objections to evolution are well known, and like all anti-evolution types, you hope by casting doubt on Darwin that somehow the whole thing topples to the ground.

Quite a revelation you made there about yourself.

Of course my belief is well-known. And so is yours. Someone mentioned that Einstein was an agnostic. I gave a simple reiteration of that fact (Einstein was an agnostic).

You didn't leave it at that. Like a dutiful sentry of the fortress of Atheism, you had to hold me back by saying..."theists shouldn't find comfort to that"....and now I say the same to you that Atheists most definitely shouldn't... and couldn't find comfort in that! How can you?

More so the problem for you than for me, don't you think so? I don't need any proof.

Your concern about the toppling down of evolution theory is just a minor detail.....your whole belief structure falls with it!

If scientists like Einstein....and Darwin...are confrimed AGNOSTICS, for them the possibility of a God is always there. Where does that leave your belief? Especially when Atheists are pinning their hopes on science?

Increasingly, science, your foundation, is turning against you.

Agnostic scientists - especially with the stature of Einstein and Darwin - don't make a foundation for Atheist belief. In fact, it poses a question to atheists.

I highlighted that statement you made above. What you're actually saying is....

My very simple reiteratement of a fact - Einstein was an Agnostic - was so threatening for you and TruMetis. Got you both all armored up for war.

Gee, you make me feel like I'm banging at the fortress gate!

Edited August 31, 2010 by betsy

[BubberMiley]

Gee, you make me feel like I'm banging at the fortress gate!

Can you tell us how atheists are going to have to explain themselves during the b**bquake?