It’s amusing to see this quote mining war going on. To me, bringing Einstein’s (or any other) quotes to support a religious view is grasping at straws. Why care what he personally said on religion or, really, anything at all for that matter? Einstein was just another human; he is remembered and honored for his contribution to science, but other than that, his opinion is pretty much irrelevant: even his theories would be nothing were they not validated by the scientific community. It’s akin to asserting that Darwin recanted the Theory of Evolution on his deathbed — meh. Boring.
Yes, I realize that I’m talking about a person who was much more intelligent than I could ever hope to be, but still, Einstein’s personal opinions are just that, curious things to think about; not laws to live by. Sadly, many people don’t understand that.
I also realize that what I just said is taken straight from Critical Thinking 101 freshman course
The way it works for a Christian seems to be to look for someone famous ever referring to “god”, or better yet, “God”, in a non-negative way and then you copy/paste that quote everywhere as proof that they were a believer.
There are several quotes from Einstein where he used the word and much debate about what he meant. Frankly, I don’t care. Even if he were a Christian, guess what? He obviously didn’t make an obnoxious show of it or else there wouldn’t be any fucking debates over what he meant when he uttered “god”, and that’s the point. Believe whatever nonsense you want, just accept that it’s your choice to indulge and don’t impose on others due to your damn indulgence.
By their logic, my profligate use of the phrase “god damned” is proof that I’m a bleeber. As I see it, when I occasionally use the phrase “god only knows,” I am technically correct. The meaning of the phrase is that the object is unknown. The entity with knowledge of said object is non-existent. Therefore, the object is unknown. QED
alex-a:
You’re right about the fact that whatever Einstein believed about gods, ghosts, goblins and the like is not particularly important. Everyone has to weigh evidence for himself or herself and draw a conclusion. The reason I posted this is that Christians have a habit of appealing to authority by pulling an Einstein quote out of thin air and saying, “See, even a genius like Einstein believed in god. Who are you to disagree with Einstein?”
Philly:
You pretty much pinpointed why I posted this. People who read this quote and say, “Well, gee whiz. A genius like Einstein didn’t believe in god. Who am I to disagree with Einstein?” are not dealing with the evidence as they should; they’re simply engaging in their own appeals to authority.
the chaplain:
Oh, I understand that. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to criticize you. Just pointing out that whether Einstein was an evangelical born-again Christian, an atheist, or anything in between, at the end of day, it really doesn’t matter what he said. There are plenty of other philosophers out there So, a better response to a Christian claiming that Einstein supported a notion of God, IMHO, would be something along the lines of “so what?”
PhillyChief:
I think it’s like saying that when an atheist says “bless you” when somebody sneezes or “god damn” when they spill their coffee, it’s an evidence that they believe in god. Childish semantic games, nothing more.
That’s why if you say anything, it should be “gesundheit”. There are lots of god crap subtly and not so subtly present in our language. For instance, “thankfully we didn’t run into any trouble on our trip.” Nothing might seem wrong at first, but just who are you thankful to? And of course if you know me you’ll know my #1 goddy language faux pas is when atheists say, “I lack belief.”
As for “lack of belief” and dictionary definitions, I think this is just turning it into semantic games once again. “Oh, so you ‘lack’ belief; does that mean that you are in need of it?” – “No, by ‘lack’ I mean simple absence thereof” – “Hm. Absence is a failure to be present, according to some definitions. Are you saying that your beliefs are a failure?” — you get my drift. The only way to win this game is not to play at all.
Language is heavily based on tradition; in fact, I’d say it’s nothing but tradition (and, of course, I’m a layman here). Unfortunately, the fact that much of this tradition has been religious puts us nonbelievers into an inconvenient spot all the time, kind of like the BC/AD calendar system (and no, BCE/CE is not much better; just a different name for the same thing) and weekdays named after pagan deities. The difference is how you treat it: as a religious affirmation or simply as a remnant of the past. I prefer the latter; otherwise, we’d have to reinvent the wheel to please religious trolls.
In casual conversation when the question of religion comes up, I usually say something like, “I don’t indulge in superstitions” or if someone says they’re religious I might say, “oh, I’m sorry to hear that” or simply ignore the comment in hopes that the subject will change to something more meaningful.
I think it’s best to frame the issue as theirs, not ours. In other words, the issue of belief is something they chose to address, not us, even though yes, we address it by choosing not to buy into it. It may seem silly, but when framed that way the focus is on them, on why they believe, rather than on why we don’t and what’s “wrong” with us. I think that’s a tremendous shift in the discussion which gives us the high ground and puts them on the defensive, yet it’s accomplished rather effortlessly. We’ve been on the receiving end for too long. The debate shouldn’t be over why we’re not buying, but why they are or why anyone should.
Yes, but you still have to be careful not to get trapped defending why you’re calling it excessive baggage. Same for me calling religion a superstition I suppose, but it shouldn’t cause too much trouble if you know what you’re doing.
Yes, the motivation is probably to use the quote for an appeal to authority, but you have to wonder how much of the quote mining of “god” statements is deliberate deception and how much is pure ignorance. By that I mean they see “god” and ignorantly assume that must mean their god (well technically gods with that trinity shit, plus Catholics have the saints, but I digress) and stop there. As Gump would say, “maybe it’s both.”
Anyway, the man also smoked, had a mustache and wasn’t a fan of haircuts, so if one accepts the argument that they should believe in a god because it appears Einstein may have and he was so smart, then they should definitely adopt those other things he clearly endorsed as well, no?
I just imagined a whole bunch of people looking like Einstein running around and blabbering about god — something out of Aphex Twin’s music videos. I’m terrified now.
alex-a:
“So what?” is the best response to a lot of religious nonsense.
Philly:
You’re right about a lot of religious assumptions being built into every day language. It’s difficult to break a lifelong habit of saying those things automatically. I’m still working on it.
WRT Einstein’s smoking, mustache and hairdo, I stopped smoking when I was a teen, the deacon does not want me to grow a mustache (actually, I don’t want one either), and I’m still working on the hair (I’m in the midst of changing styles. Again. At least I don’t change hair colors.).
I have seen enough of people with high IQs and academiv “credentials” to be largely unimpressed by their belief and knowledge systems.
We moved into our new house when I was a teen and my parents, for a housewarming party, invited their Sunday school classes in for the party. Borrowed the coffee urn from the church, and predictably, a fuse blew.
One gentleman (8th grade education, former marine raider in WWII, then the keeper of the Woodrow Wilson bridge) found it, was ready to change it, and in came four other gentlemen.
They frowned the first gentleman out of the basement did some things with wires that bypassed everything, burned out the wiring in the basement ruined the fuse box, and came very close to burning down our brand new house. They were engineers and “had degrees”, one a doctorate in physics. They were also devoutly “born again”.
Possibly would have happend if the first man hadn’t gone out to the pole and pulled out the fuse block, according to the electrician who came next day. (I handed him the fuse that the first gentleman had given me when he left, a ten cent fuse that was “too simple” almost cost us our whole house, and DID cost over $3000 to fix. And that was in the 1960′s.
They just couldn’t deal with something simple, so they built something up that nearly caused us disaster with their over-thinking.
They also took it as a fact that a deity existed, they were sinners in need of vicarious redemption, and that the bible was literally true.
I learned a good lesson from that.
Also, my wife and both my sons are members of Mensa. They seem to have the same differences as to supernatural belief as the rest of society, and for pretty much the same reasons.
No, I haven’t. Luckily, my wife and sons are very sensible people (oldest son non-theist, wife and youngest are deists) and as one who has met some of their club members … well…
I took the test, they said, “try Densa, down the street”. Densa referred me to “Dunsa”, who said, “Keep walkin’, you’ll get to the rest of the paramecia after a bit…”
What I think the problem is with what Einstein said about god is that he was philosophical about it. He spoke in a language suited for the learned of the world.
Less than intelligent Christians read the statements and do what they do with the Bible. They interpret in favour of what suits their world view.
alex a
August 26, 2010 at 1:42 am
It’s amusing to see this quote mining war going on. To me, bringing Einstein’s (or any other) quotes to support a religious view is grasping at straws. Why care what he personally said on religion or, really, anything at all for that matter? Einstein was just another human; he is remembered and honored for his contribution to science, but other than that, his opinion is pretty much irrelevant: even his theories would be nothing were they not validated by the scientific community. It’s akin to asserting that Darwin recanted the Theory of Evolution on his deathbed — meh. Boring.
Yes, I realize that I’m talking about a person who was much more intelligent than I could ever hope to be, but still, Einstein’s personal opinions are just that, curious things to think about; not laws to live by. Sadly, many people don’t understand that.
I also realize that what I just said is taken straight from Critical Thinking 101 freshman course
PhillyChief
August 26, 2010 at 7:36 am
The way it works for a Christian seems to be to look for someone famous ever referring to “god”, or better yet, “God”, in a non-negative way and then you copy/paste that quote everywhere as proof that they were a believer.
There are several quotes from Einstein where he used the word and much debate about what he meant. Frankly, I don’t care. Even if he were a Christian, guess what? He obviously didn’t make an obnoxious show of it or else there wouldn’t be any fucking debates over what he meant when he uttered “god”, and that’s the point. Believe whatever nonsense you want, just accept that it’s your choice to indulge and don’t impose on others due to your damn indulgence.
desertscope
August 26, 2010 at 1:08 pm
By their logic, my profligate use of the phrase “god damned” is proof that I’m a bleeber. As I see it, when I occasionally use the phrase “god only knows,” I am technically correct. The meaning of the phrase is that the object is unknown. The entity with knowledge of said object is non-existent. Therefore, the object is unknown. QED
the chaplain
August 26, 2010 at 8:30 am
alex-a:
You’re right about the fact that whatever Einstein believed about gods, ghosts, goblins and the like is not particularly important. Everyone has to weigh evidence for himself or herself and draw a conclusion. The reason I posted this is that Christians have a habit of appealing to authority by pulling an Einstein quote out of thin air and saying, “See, even a genius like Einstein believed in god. Who are you to disagree with Einstein?”
Philly:
You pretty much pinpointed why I posted this. People who read this quote and say, “Well, gee whiz. A genius like Einstein didn’t believe in god. Who am I to disagree with Einstein?” are not dealing with the evidence as they should; they’re simply engaging in their own appeals to authority.
alex-a
August 26, 2010 at 8:42 am
the chaplain:
So, a better response to a Christian claiming that Einstein supported a notion of God, IMHO, would be something along the lines of “so what?”
Oh, I understand that. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to criticize you. Just pointing out that whether Einstein was an evangelical born-again Christian, an atheist, or anything in between, at the end of day, it really doesn’t matter what he said. There are plenty of other philosophers out there
PhillyChief:
I think it’s like saying that when an atheist says “bless you” when somebody sneezes or “god damn” when they spill their coffee, it’s an evidence that they believe in god. Childish semantic games, nothing more.
PhillyChief
August 26, 2010 at 8:53 am
That’s why if you say anything, it should be “gesundheit”. There are lots of god crap subtly and not so subtly present in our language. For instance, “thankfully we didn’t run into any trouble on our trip.” Nothing might seem wrong at first, but just who are you thankful to? And of course if you know me you’ll know my #1 goddy language faux pas is when atheists say, “I lack belief.”
alex-a
August 26, 2010 at 9:31 am
“Gesundheit” it is; I love me some German!
As for “lack of belief” and dictionary definitions, I think this is just turning it into semantic games once again. “Oh, so you ‘lack’ belief; does that mean that you are in need of it?” – “No, by ‘lack’ I mean simple absence thereof” – “Hm. Absence is a failure to be present, according to some definitions. Are you saying that your beliefs are a failure?” — you get my drift. The only way to win this game is not to play at all.
Language is heavily based on tradition; in fact, I’d say it’s nothing but tradition (and, of course, I’m a layman here). Unfortunately, the fact that much of this tradition has been religious puts us nonbelievers into an inconvenient spot all the time, kind of like the BC/AD calendar system (and no, BCE/CE is not much better; just a different name for the same thing) and weekdays named after pagan deities. The difference is how you treat it: as a religious affirmation or simply as a remnant of the past. I prefer the latter; otherwise, we’d have to reinvent the wheel to please religious trolls.
phhht
August 27, 2010 at 7:00 pm
One of life’s deep lessons is to eschew Gesundheit.
the chaplain
August 29, 2010 at 12:30 pm
Philly:
Would you be happier if atheists said something like, “I don’t carry excess baggage?”
PhillyChief
August 29, 2010 at 12:58 pm
In casual conversation when the question of religion comes up, I usually say something like, “I don’t indulge in superstitions” or if someone says they’re religious I might say, “oh, I’m sorry to hear that” or simply ignore the comment in hopes that the subject will change to something more meaningful.
I think it’s best to frame the issue as theirs, not ours. In other words, the issue of belief is something they chose to address, not us, even though yes, we address it by choosing not to buy into it. It may seem silly, but when framed that way the focus is on them, on why they believe, rather than on why we don’t and what’s “wrong” with us. I think that’s a tremendous shift in the discussion which gives us the high ground and puts them on the defensive, yet it’s accomplished rather effortlessly. We’ve been on the receiving end for too long. The debate shouldn’t be over why we’re not buying, but why they are or why anyone should.
the chaplain
August 29, 2010 at 1:41 pm
Wouldn’t referring to their beliefs as “excess baggage” shift the burden to them? Doesn’t that frame it as their issue rather than mine?
PhillyChief
August 29, 2010 at 1:59 pm
Yes, but you still have to be careful not to get trapped defending why you’re calling it excessive baggage. Same for me calling religion a superstition I suppose, but it shouldn’t cause too much trouble if you know what you’re doing.
PhillyChief
August 26, 2010 at 8:49 am
Yes, the motivation is probably to use the quote for an appeal to authority, but you have to wonder how much of the quote mining of “god” statements is deliberate deception and how much is pure ignorance. By that I mean they see “god” and ignorantly assume that must mean their god (well technically gods with that trinity shit, plus Catholics have the saints, but I digress) and stop there. As Gump would say, “maybe it’s both.”
Anyway, the man also smoked, had a mustache and wasn’t a fan of haircuts, so if one accepts the argument that they should believe in a god because it appears Einstein may have and he was so smart, then they should definitely adopt those other things he clearly endorsed as well, no?
alex-a
August 26, 2010 at 9:35 am
I just imagined a whole bunch of people looking like Einstein running around and blabbering about god — something out of Aphex Twin’s music videos. I’m terrified now.
the chaplain
August 26, 2010 at 9:14 am
alex-a:
“So what?” is the best response to a lot of religious nonsense.
Philly:
You’re right about a lot of religious assumptions being built into every day language. It’s difficult to break a lifelong habit of saying those things automatically. I’m still working on it.
WRT Einstein’s smoking, mustache and hairdo, I stopped smoking when I was a teen, the deacon does not want me to grow a mustache (actually, I don’t want one either), and I’m still working on the hair (I’m in the midst of changing styles. Again. At least I don’t change hair colors.).
Sarge
August 26, 2010 at 11:59 am
I have seen enough of people with high IQs and academiv “credentials” to be largely unimpressed by their belief and knowledge systems.
We moved into our new house when I was a teen and my parents, for a housewarming party, invited their Sunday school classes in for the party. Borrowed the coffee urn from the church, and predictably, a fuse blew.
One gentleman (8th grade education, former marine raider in WWII, then the keeper of the Woodrow Wilson bridge) found it, was ready to change it, and in came four other gentlemen.
They frowned the first gentleman out of the basement did some things with wires that bypassed everything, burned out the wiring in the basement ruined the fuse box, and came very close to burning down our brand new house. They were engineers and “had degrees”, one a doctorate in physics. They were also devoutly “born again”.
Possibly would have happend if the first man hadn’t gone out to the pole and pulled out the fuse block, according to the electrician who came next day. (I handed him the fuse that the first gentleman had given me when he left, a ten cent fuse that was “too simple” almost cost us our whole house, and DID cost over $3000 to fix. And that was in the 1960′s.
They just couldn’t deal with something simple, so they built something up that nearly caused us disaster with their over-thinking.
They also took it as a fact that a deity existed, they were sinners in need of vicarious redemption, and that the bible was literally true.
I learned a good lesson from that.
Also, my wife and both my sons are members of Mensa. They seem to have the same differences as to supernatural belief as the rest of society, and for pretty much the same reasons.
No, I don’t qualify for Mensa … not even close…
PhillyChief
August 26, 2010 at 12:10 pm
Ever read Woody Allen’s The Whore of Mensa?
Sarge
August 26, 2010 at 9:17 pm
No, I haven’t. Luckily, my wife and sons are very sensible people (oldest son non-theist, wife and youngest are deists) and as one who has met some of their club members … well…
I took the test, they said, “try Densa, down the street”. Densa referred me to “Dunsa”, who said, “Keep walkin’, you’ll get to the rest of the paramecia after a bit…”
quantum_flux
August 26, 2010 at 5:06 pm
The word “god” is meaningless without a definition.
Lorena
August 28, 2010 at 1:03 am
What I think the problem is with what Einstein said about god is that he was philosophical about it. He spoke in a language suited for the learned of the world.
Less than intelligent Christians read the statements and do what they do with the Bible. They interpret in favour of what suits their world view.
Mar
July 1, 2012 at 3:40 am
This doesn’t sound like Einstein.