Got feedback on the new design? We're Listening! Send us Feedback

Einstein's Letter Makes View Of Religion Relatively Clear: Childish Superstitions »

Posted by: Neophile 2 months, 3 weeks ago

6.2

Scale of 1 to 10

Read: 22

Propped: 44

Comments: 21

Click Prop It to Raise Score

Prop it

Due to be auctioned this week in London after being in a private collection for more than 50 years, the document leaves no doubt that the theoretical physicist was no supporter of religious beliefs, which he regarded as "childish superstitions".

Read Full Story at guardian.co.uk

Join the Discussion

+ Add Comment

Comments So Far: 21

0%
Fedquip2 months, 3 weeks ago

Finally that argument can be put to rest
Reply
3 Replies
- 0%
  RickyDawkins2 months, 3 weeks ago
  
  Wouldn't that be nice!
  Reply
- 0%
  CRYMTYPHON2 months, 3 weeks ago
  
  Fedquip said: "Finally that argument can be put to rest".
  You are new at this, I take it.
  Reply
  1 Reply
  - 0%
    Radiofreeeuropa2 months, 3 weeks ago
    
    Well fellaz, Ya gots to haves faith in stuffs that ain't so!
    Einstein wuz a christian conservative no matter what he says.
    
    Reply
0%
grace5552 months, 3 weeks ago

Well it should make no differance anyway,its not an "object of faith".
If I have to use Einstein as proof to me of God Almighty exisitance ,well I really dont beleive (in the Biblicial sense)anyway.
Reply
0%
DropkickaLib2 months, 3 weeks ago

Immanuel Kant demonstrated that science can neither prove nor disprove God. The moral and religious views of a scientist are just someone else's opinion.
Reply
13 Replies
- 0%
  CRYMTYPHON2 months, 3 weeks ago
  
  But on what ground should we value Immanuel Kant's opinion, then?
  Reply
  5 Replies
  - 0%
    DropkickaLib2 months, 3 weeks ago
    
    Read the Critique of Pure Reason and get back to me. He was a brilliant philosopher who demonstrated that religion relies on faith and, therefore, is not subject to science.
    Reply
    4 Replies
    - 0%
      CRYMTYPHON2 months, 3 weeks ago
      
      Das kann ich nicht! Der deutche ist zu schwer!
      Alright, I will read it in english and get back to you.
      Wait there.
      Don't go anywhere.
      Hold your breath, too.
      Reply
      1 Reply
      - 0%
        DropkickaLib2 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        I enjoyed your post. :) It was a fair question though, I suppose. Kant's writings formed a basis for the coexistence between science and religion in the aftermath of the Enlightenment.
        Reply
    - 0%
      memestryker2 months, 3 weeks ago
      
      That's the rub. It's philosophy--a humanity--not science. Of course our traditional folklore isn't subject to science! We can cherish our cultural traditions and spend holidays with our families celebrating them, and still not literally believe in ancient religious dogma.
      Reply
      1 Reply
      - 0%
        DropkickaLib2 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        Actually, and I should have stated this yesterday, while Kant is best known as a philosopher now, he was also a scientist. He, therefore, was not in opposition to science but rather saw that science and religion could coexist.
        Reply
- 0%
  memestryker2 months, 3 weeks ago
  
  Since there is no proof, it doesn't make a lot of sense to blindly believe it on hearsay, though, does it?!
  Reply
  4 Replies
  - 0%
    DropkickaLib2 months, 3 weeks ago
    
    I see you haven't read Kant. Still comparing the incomparable. Religion is practical morality.
    Reply
    3 Replies
    - 0%
      memestryker2 months, 3 weeks ago
      
      Religion is a lot more than practical morality. And yes, I studied Kant's philosophy, including the categorical imperative, etc. Amazingly, I'm still an atheist.
      
      Reply
      1 Reply
      - 0%
        DropkickaLib2 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        Well, I gave you a pos for the quality of the discussion. Maybe I just find Kant more persuasive.
        Reply
    - AtheismIsRealityComment removed: User banned.
- 0%
  smithichie2 months, 3 weeks ago
  
  "Immanuel Kant demonstrated that science can neither prove nor disprove God".
  Did Kant imagine his 'prime mover' god was not powerful enough to provide at least as much evidence as we have for elephants, blackholes or giant squid? Of course, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, I am merely saying Science COULD prove A god (at least to the level of elephants or blackholes) if there was evidence of such.
  The moral and religious views of a scientist have nothing to do with the science. Pi does not change in value according to culture or religion, even if that culture or religion pretends it alone knows the TRUE value of Pi.
  
  Reply
  1 Reply
  - 0%
    CRYMTYPHON2 months, 3 weeks ago
    
    "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".
    That hurts my brain, somehow.
    Don't say that again.
    
    Reply
0%
memestryker2 months, 3 weeks ago

"In the letter, he states: 'The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.'
Einstein, who was Jewish and who declined an offer to be the state of Israel's second president, also rejected the idea that the Jews are God's favoured people."

Reply
0%
Radiofreeeuropa2 months, 3 weeks ago

One wonders about how a person chooses to believe something there is no evidence for. Simply because there is no evidence against? One claims there is a photo of Charlie Chaplin on orbiting around the sun in opposition to the earth, perhaps we can't see it because the sun is in the way. Who would choose to believe such a claim with no evidence? If I said God was an elephant named Fred, would you accept that as true simply because there is no proof God is not an Elephant or named Fred? Kant was looking for a justification of his preconceived beliefs, interesting philosophical masturbation, nothing more.
Reply