Belief in God 'childish,' Jews not chosen people: Einstein letter

[C1ay]

Albert Einstein described belief in God as "childish superstition" and said Jews were not the chosen people, in a letter to be sold in London this week, an auctioneer said Tuesday.

 

The father of relativity, whose previously known views on religion have been more ambivalent and fuelled much discussion, made the comments in response to a philosopher in 1954.

 

As a Jew himself, Einstein said he had a great affinity with Jewish people but said they "have no different quality for me than all other people".

 

"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.

 

More at Breitbart....

[Pyrotex]

Veddy interesting...

[Turtle]

And yet, Albert said, "When I examine myself and my methods of thought, I come to the conclusion that the gift of fantasy has meant more to me than any talent for abstract, positive thinking."

 

Arguably the fantasies of others drove him to say this too.

[Essay]

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." -Einstein

 

...busy week, but this came up as I turned on the computer. ...wanted to be first, er fourth....

 

Einstein letter calls Bible 'pretty childish' - Faith - MSNBC.com

LONDON - Albert Einstein: arch rationalist or scientist with a spiritual core?

A letter being auctioned in London this week adds more fuel to the long-simmering debate....

 

As I read that first sentence, I thought 'why does that have to be an "or" statement; can't one be both?'

My next thought came as I read "...expressed complex and arguably contradictory views on faith, perceiving a universe suffused with spirituality while rejecting organized religion;" and again it was basically the same: 'Where is the contradiction?'

 

John Brooke, emeritus professor of science and religion at Oxford University, said the letter lends weight to the notion that "Einstein was not a conventional theist" — although he was not an atheist, either.

"Like many great scientists of the past, he is rather quirky about religion, and not always consistent from one period to another," Brooke said.

...or 'not consistent from one context to another,' perhaps?

....Translating and/or emphasizing things differently, depending on context.

 

Maybe there is something to learn here; but either way....

 

Well, it's a nice little article. I've seen Isaacson speak about his book before [thanks BookTV] and he includes many of his best points: ("Einstein was no Einstein"), etc., in this obnoxious (but short) video interview.

 

msnbc.com Video Player http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24579466#24579466

video of Einstein on NBC interview: "May 12: Walter Isaacson, author of "Albert Einstein: His Life and Universe," takes Mika Brzezinski and Chris Matthews inside the mind of the genius who was able to combine intelligence and creativity."

I liked his answer to Pat Buchanan's (if i recognized the voice right) "question" about Intel. Design.

[Turtle]

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." -Einstein

 

Better a lame guide dog than a dead horse. ;) Do ya think Albert quaffed a few when he came up with that one? :)

 

 

As I read that first sentence, I thought 'why does that have to be an "or" statement; can't one be both?'

My next thought came as I read "...expressed complex and arguably contradictory views on faith, perceiving a universe suffused with spirituality while rejecting organized religion;" and again it was basically the same: 'Where is the contradiction?'

 

The contradiction perhaps is in time, or more to the point, Albert's time. Organized religions then really held more sway on the latitude of spiritual thought, the my-way-or-the-highway hymns. Maybe not seeing any contradiction is an indication some advance is made and we haven't wasted our time after all. Nah; that's just fantasy. :hihi:

[HydrogenBond]

Science without religion is lame.

 

In Einstein's time, the world witnessed how science made it possible for humans to make themselves extinct. If you recall, 1954 was the first hydrogen bomb test. It was also close to the discover of DNA. If there is no check on humans, in the privacy of the mind, someone like a Hitler can use this science to end humanity. Science was lame in the sense that science could cripple itself unless it understood the limitations of human nature. Global warming is sort of an another possible example of science making the CO2 that could alter the earth and cripple all the good science has done. It needs longer vision for guidance.

 

Religion without science is blind.

 

On the religious side 1954 was also the year of the Catholic dogma of the Assumption of the Virgin after over 1000 years of debate. Essentially it accepted mother-matter-nature and therefore its truth called science. The reality of modern culture is that it is very much indebted to science. From simple things like sitting in a church there is science everywhere in the building. Even a religious war benefits by good science. The terrorist benefit by computers, the internet, guns, explosives, cell phones. Without science they would be far less effective. The good side of religion benefits the most from science in terms of food, transport of supplies, and even the printing of the bible or any religious text. The list is huge. To deny that science has not been very helpful to religion, is blind.

 

Religion and Science is like husband and wife that fight all the time. But if either one left for good they would be missed by the other. Even if it was for the simple fact of no-one to fight with. But it goes deeper.

[freeztar]

Science without religion is lame.

...It needs longer vision for guidance.

Science, that is *pure* science, has no place in politics or economics. Be careful where you place your blame.

 

Even a religious war benefits by good science. The terrorist benefit by computers, the internet, guns, explosives, cell phones. Without science they would be far less effective. The good side of religion benefits the most from science in terms of food, transport of supplies, and even the printing of the bible or any religious text. The list is huge. To deny that science has not been very helpful to religion, is blind.

Extreme Fundamentalists using modern technology to "proliferate" their message to the masses does not exemplify how religion has "benefited" from science. The descriptions of the "benefits" that you give seem more like detriments to me. Nonetheless, this is attributable to utilization of science rather than science itself.

 

Religion and Science is like husband and wife that fight all the time. But if either one left for good they would be missed by the other. Even if it was for the simple fact of no-one to fight with. But it goes deeper.

 

No logical reason exists for why science and religion should fight. They are two separate, and diametrical, entities.

[HydrogenBond]

What may be a good science study, to show a positive relationship between science and religion is to look at the brain. Science is more analytical, while religion is more intuitive. This suggests science will reside more in the left side of brain and religion more in the right side of brain. Say, hypothetically there was a loose correlation. An old superstition was against left handed people. The Latin word for left is sinister. The below link shows how left is biased evil in many languages. Westerners write from left to the right or there was a social push to go from the left to the right.

The Language of the Left

 

Because of the way the arms and hands are cross wired in the brain, this religious or superstition bias was actually favoring more use of the left or the science brain. Weird. Religion gave science an evolutionary push. Science then helped to get rid of this superstition allowing the left hand to have the same social value. This was science, returning the favor, helping the right hemisphere where religion resides. Also weird.