And of course the shape and nature of reality isn’t an easy or a simple concept. In fact, no one knows quite what it is. So I don’t mind that Einstein’s writings on the subject, taken as a whole, are hard to pin down. My concepts of God are somewhat simpler than Einstein’s but then so am I.
Einstein’s views on god are almost as difficult to grasp as his theory of relativity.I don't know Lausten, I'm no genius (understatement) but I found his views on religion clearly stated and understandable. I wonder how he would be classified on the latest atheist scale and how his views might be altered if he was living in this time period and witnessed the scientific advancements and insights since his death. It appears from his statements concerning atheists (it sounds as if he's aiming his comments at antitheists) they are missing out on the wonder and mystery of life. Also, from what I've read of Sagan's views on religious philosophy they both appear to be the same page. I do find it ironic that the very people who created the OT spawned the future scientists who separated religious Belief from emperical fact. Cap't Jack
And of course the shape and nature of reality isn’t an easy or a simple concept. In fact, no one knows quite what it is. So I don’t mind that Einstein’s writings on the subject, taken as a whole, are hard to pin down. My concepts of God are somewhat simpler than Einstein’s but then so am I.Just outa curiosity PlaClair, and I meant to ask you this earlier, you mentioned that you are religious and have a concept of god. Could you elaborate? Would you also consider yourself an agnostic? Cap't Jack
I will concede to the consensus here on Einstein, which is not clarified, but less hyperbolic than my statement. I admit to being less well versed than some, I’m only aware of few common quotes, not the extensive material linked. My time for reading is reduced at the moment, but I can always find time for snarky comments.
we need to add the following to the title of every page of this forum…center for inquiry - separation of church and state…
Sure. Here's LaClair-on-religion in a nutshell. I grew up a Roman Catholic and took it very seriously. Though I discarded theism at the age of 21, I appreciated that my parents were good people who were deeply committed to doing the right thing: life wasn't just about me, it was also about others, whose lives were as meaningful and as important to them as mine is to me. In addition, I never lost that deep curiosity-about-everything that children have naturally; so I understand what Einstein is saying about that even though I'm no scientist. When we look carefully at the history of religion, we see that it began with people asking questions to understand their circumstances. "What was thunder and why did it happen," for example. Having no good answer, they made up a story, as homo sapiens is inclined to do. Many secularists make the mistake of treating religion only as the answers to the questions. If we look deeply, though, we see that it is the attempt to bring everything together into a coherent whole; in other words, it is being part of life, the human community and all things. I've always been religious and that is what it means to me. I wouldn't know how not to be. It's like breathing. There are at least two concepts of God that I could endorse. Their common element is that God is an idea, a human construct, a way of looking at things. I have no problem with people having a conception of God. My problem is with theism, for many reasons: the way it makes fact claims, the way it fudges the distinction between the real and the symbolic, etc. 1. God is the ultimate reality, whatever is true and real is God. The difference between a theist and me is that I see no value in looking for God in ancient texts, or even within ourselves by this definition; science is the best method we have for understanding reality. 2. God is the ideal state, or highest good, in every dimension; in other words, God is what we desire most broadly and deeply. This is a conception of God that is understood from within. I don't call myself an agnostic any more. Here's what I believe: 1. We know the genesis of belief in a supreme being or other gods. People all over the world have made up those stories for thousands of years, continuing to the present. The stories are completely different from each other. There isn't a shred of doubt where these stories come from: they come from human desire, or as Freud put it, theism is wish fulfillment. 2. We cannot empirically disprove the existence of a being that supposed created the universe. But that is a meaningless and trivial point because it calls for proof of a negative. There is an infinite number of fantastic ideas (fantastic as in "fantasy") that people could come up with if we accepted that test. The proof of that is the thousands of god-concepts that people have made up over the several millennia of our history. 3. However, we can logically disprove the existence of the biblical god. The Bible contains too many absurdities for anyone to take it seriously as a literal history. 4. We haven't a shred of evidence that a being created the universe. That would require a conscious entity without a material brain; that fantasy contradicts everything we know about what consciousness is and where it comes from. 5. Any conception of God as omniscient, omnipotent and all-good is not tenable. Suffering cannot reasonably be explained by "free will" and God throwing an extended temper tantrum, etc. The idea of a chosen people makes no sense if every human being is created in God's image. If God had sent a savior whom he wanted us to believe in as a condition to being saved (from what?), the whole world would have known about it. Christian theology contains more absurdities than I have time to shake a stick at. 6. The world looks exactly what we would expect it to look like if it was the product of blind natural forces. You may call that what you will.And of course the shape and nature of reality isn’t an easy or a simple concept. In fact, no one knows quite what it is. So I don’t mind that Einstein’s writings on the subject, taken as a whole, are hard to pin down. My concepts of God are somewhat simpler than Einstein’s but then so am I.Just outa curiosity PlaClair, and I meant to ask you this earlier, you mentioned that you are religious and have a concept of god. Could you elaborate? Would you also consider yourself an agnostic? Cap't Jack
PLaClair, I agree with you 99 percent. We only disagree on the label. I do not call my beliefs religious; I call them humanist.
There are at least two concepts of God that I could endorse. Their common element is that God is an idea, a human construct, a way of looking at things. I have no problem with people having a conception of God. My problem is with theism, for many reasons: the way it makes fact claims, the way it fudges the distinction between the real and the symbolic, etc. 1. God is the ultimate reality, whatever is true and real is God. The difference between a theist and me is that I see no value in looking for God in ancient texts, or even within ourselves by this definition; science is the best method we have for understanding reality. 2. God is the ideal state, or highest good, in every dimension; in other words, God is what we desire most broadly and deeply. This is a conception of God that is understood from within.Ok, thanks for the detailed explanation and I take it that this is the essence of your belief. But if your concept of a "god" is the ultimate reality wouldn't that be empericism as well? Or am I saying tomato and you tomahto? You are using science to discover the ultimate truth. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by the highest good in every dimension, as in a multiverse? I do agree with your explanation of theism however; adherents often blur the lines between fact and fancy but sometimes it's used as a coping mechanism and I really have no problem with that. BTW I came from a religious background as well and both of my parents consider themselves as committed to xtianity (Methodists). I believe that we all approach this subject with an innate prejudice colored by those belief systems that we learned almost from birth. I knew, for instance that your background was Catholic and that it diverged from my Protestant upbringing. IMO those with a strong Catholic background seem to have a harder time breaking away from the dogma. It would be interesting to hear from former Muslims on this topic but so far I.J. Is about the only one who shares his thoughts and he's a committed theist. Cap't Jack
But if your concept of a "god" is the ultimate reality wouldn't that be empericism as well? . . . Cap't JackNot necessarily. The ultimate reality isn't known. We uncover it empirically as best we can but parts of reality remain hidden from us; so much that we don't even know its contours. So in this conception, God includes all the things we don't yet know, and may never know. It's a useful concept for the reasons William James alluded to when he wrote of an "unseen order."
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by the highest good in every dimension, as in a multiverse? . . . . Cap't JackNot a multiverse, just this: many theisms posit the existence of a heaven, or ideal state. Good people strive toward a universal good. "Imagine all the people sharing all the world," as John Lennon put it. In this conception, God is unbounded Love, knowledge, generosity, kindness and all the other values and virtues.
IMO those with a strong Catholic background seem to have a harder time breaking away from the dogma. . . . Cap't JackAgreed, but as I've gotten older I've been able to turn that into an asset, I think. By maintaining my Catholic sense of order, I've been able to look at these issues more systematically. It's a perspective not often seen in Humanism, and I think it has a value.
I found it difficult to reconcile the two lists. The second one is all about what is not true about theism, but then you have the first list of what God is. The first item is fine, and in an ideal future, that is the definition of God, probably with a small “g". The second item gets dicey, introducing terms like “from within" and “we desire". Mind you, I am being extremely picky here and you don’t need to respond to this at all. Cap’t Jack covered these too.
Matt Dillahunty challenged me once via email on the “within" thing, and I’ve seen him do it to others on the ACA show. I’m not sure “within" means anything other than thoughts we haven’t expressed. These could be secrets or could be things we don’t have the language for. Do you see a difference between “looking within" and “thinking about"? “Thinking about" has a more mundane feeling to it, but is there really something to be found when “looking within" or do we give it a flowery name because we hope there is something in there?
Not a multiverse, just this: many theisms posit the existence of a heaven, or ideal state. Good people strive toward a universal good. “Imagine all the people sharing all the world," as John Lennon put it. In this conception, God is unbounded Love, knowledge, generosity, kindness and all the other values and virtues.As a secular humanist I agree to the above, of course if you want to bundle up all of those positive characreristics and label them god I see the analogy. In that respect I could say that I believe in "god" as well, especially the knowledge part. But as far as I'm concerned, these are very inherently human traits programmed into our brains for group survival. Whatever the case though I'd faaaar rather be around someone who exemplifies these, virtues? than a narcissist, hedonist or sociopath. And that from personal experience if you accept anecdotal evidence! Cap't Jack
I found it difficult to reconcile the two lists. The second one is all about what is not true about theism, but then you have the first list of what God is. The first item is fine, and in an ideal future, that is the definition of God, probably with a small “g". The second item gets dicey, introducing terms like “from within" and “we desire". Mind you, I am being extremely picky here and you don’t need to respond to this at all. Cap’t Jack covered these too. Matt Dillahunty challenged me once via email on the “within" thing, and I’ve seen him do it to others on the ACA show. I’m not sure “within" means anything other than thoughts we haven’t expressed. These could be secrets or could be things we don’t have the language for. Do you see a difference between “looking within" and “thinking about"? “Thinking about" has a more mundane feeling to it, but is there really something to be found when “looking within" or do we give it a flowery name because we hope there is something in there?It's OK, I enjoy the discussion. There's no need to reconcile the lists. They address completely different things. The two broad conceptions of God that I offer do not make any objective fact claims, which is the main problem with theism. They are only ways of condensing a concept of the good into a single, ineffable, image or idea. Necessarily, the result is hard to pin down. That's OK, as long as people keep in mind that it's just a way of looking at things, and is highly individualized. When I refer to what is within, I refer to the life experience that each of us has. For example, when I awake in the morning, I feel a certain way, see, touch and smell certain things, am thinking about certain things, etc. That is my Truth at that moment. And though I don't know what your awaking moments are like, I know enough about you from being human to know that you awake and have experiences too. It has nothing to do with whether we express it or don't express it to others. It's the life experience itself. This is not only important - there is not merely "something to be found" in this - it's the basis for every value, every law, every ethical and moral decision we make. Because it is only by being human, and having human experiences, that we have some understanding of what other humans (and non-human sentient creatures) experience, value, fear, etc. Our individual human experience - our personal revealed Truth - is a necessary foundation for our relationships with others. And indeed, people who have been badly damaged in their lives have very difficult times interacting with others for precisely this reason. It is only because we are human beings, who have had and continue to have human experiences, that we can form civil societies, enact laws, love others and strive toward a planetary ethic, as stated in CFI's mission statement.
When I refer to what is within, I refer to the life experience that each of us has. For example, when I awake in the morning, I feel a certain way, see, touch and smell certain things, am thinking about certain things, etc. That is my Truth at that moment. And though I don't know what your awaking moments are like, I know enough about you from being human to know that you awake and have experiences too. It has nothing to do with whether we express it or don't express it to others. It's the life experience itself. This is not only important - there is not merely "something to be found" in this - it's the basis for every value, every law, every ethical and moral decision we make. Because it is only by being human, and having human experiences, that we have some understanding of what other humans (and non-human sentient creatures) experience, value, fear, etc. Our individual human experience - our personal revealed Truth - is a necessary foundation for our relationships with others.I can't quite get on board with "personal revealed Truth". It's a way of seeing knowledge that caused a lot of trouble in the past. When Descartes sat down and started eliminating everything he couldn't verify, he came to a terribly wrong conclusion that got stuck in philosophy for a couple centuries. Obviously the type of revealed truth in the book of Revelations is more troublesome. The word "god" could continue to be watered down, gaps filled, until everyone sees it as a concept instead of a real being, or it could take on a meaning more like "intuition". That is, something that can't be shown to exist but people still have a sense that they have it, they sense it as a real experience, without too much consideration of whether it is or not.
I can't quite get on board with "personal revealed Truth". It's a way of seeing knowledge that caused a lot of trouble in the past. When Descartes sat down and started eliminating everything he couldn't verify, he came to a terribly wrong conclusion that got stuck in philosophy for a couple centuries. Obviously the type of revealed truth in the book of Revelations is more troublesome.Right but this isn't "knowledge" in the usual sense of the word. It's experience. My experience is a window into the experience of others. My observation is a window into the workings of nature. That's as far as it goes. Michael Dowd speaks of day language and night language. Day language is what we think is literally true. Night language is how we symbolize things. The main problem with theology is that it hasn't kept the two separate. This is one way to help do that.
The word "god" could continue to be watered down, gaps filled, until everyone sees it as a concept instead of a real being, or it could take on a meaning more like "intuition". That is, something that can't be shown to exist but people still have a sense that they have it, they sense it as a real experience, without too much consideration of whether it is or not.It's not watering it down. It's identifying what it really is: a human construct. As you identified before on another topic, we seem to be saying quite similar things.
Just a question here... do atheists ever bother to add their comments on religious forums? I noticed that religious folks post here at times, which I actually find engaging (sometimes only), but do atheists ever bother to post on religious forums? I would guess not, unless you like arguing and getting nowhere, but maybe there are people who do? No idea. Any input? Thanks. MichelleOne doesn't have to be an atheist to quickly learn you are wasting your time when trying to even carry on a civil conversation with "true believers". The true believers live in a vacuum and the only sounds they will listen to come from an echo chamber. I belong to a diverse group that hold salons where we carry on conversations about most anything we can even imagine. We are civil, respective and honestly care about the well being of each other. I am three score and nine and never in my life have I felt more at ease than I am with our little group of "assorted nuts". Its all a breath of fresh air and even makes me feel a bit younger.
I belong to a diverse group that hold salons where we carry on conversations about most anything we can even imagine. We are civil, respective and honestly care about the well being of each other. I am three score and nine and never in my life have I felt more at ease than I am with our little group of "assorted nuts". Its all a breath of fresh air and even makes me feel a bit younger.Cafe Socrates?
By "watering down" I mean changing from a definition that includes actual powers (like parting seas) to invisible powers (like putting something in your heart) to no power at all, at least no more power than any other words. And I'm not sure it's going that way. A few intellectuals have an understanding of human constructs, but even they argue, and since they do, the rest of us don't know what to trust. I can imagine all of the current religions becoming equal to how we currently treat Druids or fairies, and by "we" I'm including people who actually dress up and go to Stone Henge on the solstice. We might get rid of Popes and mega-churches, but I don't think we'll ever eliminate all of the Wayne Dyers and Oprah Winfreys.The word "god" could continue to be watered down, gaps filled, until everyone sees it as a concept instead of a real being, or it could take on a meaning more like "intuition". That is, something that can't be shown to exist but people still have a sense that they have it, they sense it as a real experience, without too much consideration of whether it is or not.It's not watering it down. It's identifying what it really is: a human construct. As you identified before on another topic, we seem to be saying quite similar things.
By "watering down" I mean changing from a definition that includes actual powers (like parting seas) to invisible powers (like putting something in your heart) to no power at all, at least no more power than any other words. And I'm not sure it's going that way. A few intellectuals have an understanding of human constructs, but even they argue, and since they do, the rest of us don't know what to trust. I can imagine all of the current religions becoming equal to how we currently treat Druids or fairies, and by "we" I'm including people who actually dress up and go to Stone Henge on the solstice. We might get rid of Popes and mega-churches, but I don't think we'll ever eliminate all of the Wayne Dyers and Oprah Winfreys.No, probably not. Still, people have been making the argument that God is of human invention for a very long time: "God didn't create man, man created God." Much rides on how we present it. There are times and places for standing ground and emphasizing that there is no evidence that a supreme being exists. But there are also times and places where the most productive point to make is that people have made up thousands of gods; that your audience, in many instances, rejects all of them but one, believing that all those other gods are just stories people made up. It's easy to see where the explanation goes from there. So in a sense it's not a matter of changing definitions; it's more a matter of recognizing that people have long entertained many definitions or conceptions of God, and being able to shift the focus from the universe (objective) to the human mind (subjective) when we want to do that. If the entire Humanist community spoke as one on these points, instead of fighting endless and essentially meaningless battles for linguistic turf, we would be better positioned to make progress in getting our ideas across. At the very least, I'd like to see the meaningless word wars come to an end.
If the entire Humanist community spoke as one on these points, instead of fighting endless and essentially meaningless battles for linguistic turf, we would be better positioned to make progress in getting our ideas across. At the very least, I'd like to see the meaningless word wars come to an end.That is a problem, but your solution seems to be to settle on a new and improved cultural definition. A sort of Joseph Campbell "re-mythologizing". But as he said, when there is rapid change, mythology can't take hold. So, we have this terrible mix of Gaia hypothesis old hippies on one side and young Ayn Randians who can't see past their own pocketbooks on the other. I'm terrible at predicting the future, but I just don't see an understanding of a socially constructed concept becoming the meaning of a word. That kinda goes against what a socially constructed concept is, doesn't it? I have a recorded old English version of The Green Knight. It is barely understandable. It doesn't have the word "table", they use "dais". But either way, I know what their talking about. I don't think it will be that easy with "god". I suspect it will take at least a few generations and the invention of a new word to get where you are pointing to. And there will still be lots of people using "god" as if it means just what it does today. Maybe, eventually, there will be a pill for it, but experiencing oneness with the universe is part of who we are. The trouble being neuro-psychology. Thomas Jefferson thought everyone would be UU by now. In the 70's sociologists were predicting the end of religion. But now, we're finding out people don't lie about their OBO experiences, they really feel like they are flying around. Pointing out that they can't prove it, or that what they saw is not verifiable, or that we know how to simulate that feeling doesn't matter.
Laursten, those are all very good points. I’m not convinced, though that a new construct has to take over the old one and “become” the word. A greater awareness that “God” can mean many things might suffice. I could be wrong: most people do seem to like having a place to put their stuff, to paraphrase George Carlin. All the same, if enough people can make the shift from God as an objective fact claim to God as an ideal, that could both mark and engender significant changes.