Einstein was basically an atheist, but he didn't like the term and referred to himself as an agnostic. I suspect that this was an attempt to avoid total conflict with believers of Gods. "Einstein believed in God" is often used by religionists to back up their beliefs and unfortunately its been quoted so much that it has become urban myth. Personally I try not to use the term atheist to describe myself. Its a label for people who don't need a label. To paraphrase Ricky Gervais, if you go skiing you are a skier. You talk about skiing. It's a label that describes you. If you don't go skiing are you a non-skier? On job applications under hobbies do you write "not going skiing"? Religion is just something I don't do. Atheist is a useful label in discussions like this as it helps to identify those who don't believe. I notice that on more forms such as census etc. They have dropped the term atheist and have opted for "no religion" or the one I particularly dislike "no faith". I try to be non judgemental about religionists but its hard. People brought up in a country with poor education have got a reasonable excuse but anyone brought up here has been given the tools to figure out the truth. I think its important not to look down on the those with religion as it creates more division. As nonbelievers we can take the moral high ground regarding religious wars and those killed in the name of a god, but we must be careful not to alienate them totally. I can do without religious nutters in my life. I don't have any as friends and I won't employ them, but if someone wants to believe in Santa or god but keeps that to themself then that's fine by me. As I recently said to the headmistress of the CofE junior school where my boy will start in September, I don't have a problem with them teaching that Christians believe in a god but they must also teach that there are other religions and that they have different beliefs. The minute they teach my boy that those beliefs are fact is when they will have a new problem with me.
Einstein didn't beleive in God. That's theist propaganda. Like saying Hitler and Stalin were Atheists (Hitler was a Catholic and Stalin used religion as a political tool). There are scientists that are theists but generally supernatural beleif is less likely the more intelligent you are (Nyborg) and also the more economically developed your society. Members of the Royal Society have one of the lowest rates of religious beleif (3.3% vs 68.5% for the general UK populace acording to Lynn). But ultimately what if Einstein was a theist? What difference does it make? Does it make the predictions of general reletivity less true? This is the beauty of science - its NOT about authority. It is the antithesis of that. Religion is a bad explanation of reality so its no wonder it results in bad things happening to those that follow it. The more rigidly you adhere to a bad explanation the worse things are going to be.
Douglas Adams. He found a restaurant there! Read his books. Works of a genius. Especially Salmon of Doubt, such a shame god took him before he could finish it.
When I wrote in post #62, Let us take the whole bundle of physical laws which govern the universe, and give them a name. Let us call that name "God". Then perhaps we can all agree that god exists, as thus defined. what I had in my mind was just the kind of belief Albert Einstein had. He only "believed in god" in that sense. That's what the much-quoted 62% of the UK population believe in, isn't it? It might as well be 100% - but it has nil connection with going to church and praying etc (<10%). Actually I am rather attracted by the notion that the existence or non-existence of gods is decided by majority democratic vote of the people, like a general election. Perhaps we should have a referendum about it - I would vote for getting out (of religion that is). [You do know I'm joking, right?]
Religion should be a personally held belief or nothing at all. We should divorce religion from the state. Regarding ID we haven't yet mentioned the question that 'If life is so complex it could only have been designed then who designed the designer', so I have.
Science is about unravelling the mystery; religion is about refusing even to try unravelling. If some people really don't want to know the answers ("Spoiler alert!") and want to go on being ignorant, fine - that's up to them. My respect goes to people who dedicate their lives to increasing the scope of human understanding, not to those who spend their lives trying to suppress it.
There are actually common words used as labels for non-Jews, non-Muslims, non-Gypsies, non-priests, and lots of other non-characteristics. This is an ordinary part of language. Besides, if people refuse to use the word atheist we shall never be able to say that "50% of people are atheists" or whatever. I agree with Ricky Gervais about a lot of things, but not that point.
Indeed. Who would bother using Zip compression if the result was a bigger file than you started with? The concept is easy to grasp when you put it in practical terms but ID proponants don't require that their explanations be simpler than the phenomena they explain. The sentence 'god did it' sounds superficially simple but it raises more questions than it answers as you say.
This is an amazingly simplistic and lazy view. Science observes phenomena and creates a theory to explain it. The theory is tested by looking for phenomena that appear to back it up. Engineers take the theory and then use it to design things. These things work and are of use to mankind. Thus science produces cures for diseases, computers, cars, the internet, the national grid and countless, countless other things. Religion observes some phenomena and tells you "that is how it is" whilst ignoring all the phenomena which would seem to indicate that that is how it isn't. It produces nothing of any use. So to say that they are one and the same and of equal value is just a laughable position. To look at astrophysics, say you don't understand it (probably because you can't be bothered to read up about it) and then deride the thousands of people making contributions to it by suggesting it is just a load of old bollocks, is also a laughable position. It is also laughable to look at the fossil record and then equate the theory of evolution with creationism as having equal value. It's OK by me if people have religion, but I at least expect them to be honest about it. Just say "I don't have a shred of evidence for this, it's just something I feel is true. That's my faith." I can live with that. I just make allowances for their critical judgement. But don't tell me the two things have an equal value on an intellectual level. That's just Noddy and Big Ears stuff.
Now you see this is whats fun in places like this. Ayone has a contrary view and they are perceived lazy, stupid, ignorant or otherwise or all three. And the applicable insults follow. Top bombing.
You are welcome to make posts in which you pretend to be lazy and ignorant, if it amuses you Bradders. Don't be surprised though if people notice, and mention it.
All I was attempting was to add some balance. And make the point that pro anything too much adds blinkers to ones views, and thus makes it difficult to understand an opposing view. Statements that suggest an opposite view, whether its someone religious or someone anti relegion, when expeessed in such a matter if fact way deserve challenge. I believe all are equal in expressing their views and having whatever belief they have, even if its believing lizards cam from outerspace and contol the world. Do I agree? No. But I stop short of attempting ridicule and belittiling others. I cant say the same for many others on this thread, or many other threads, online generally. Trolling? Well maybe a little if its considered trolling to bring an alteranitve view into a discussion. And all without insults.
It's always good to challenge a theory. That's why we know so much, because somebody took the trouble to question the things that were taken as 'true'. And now we know the Earth isn't at the center of the universe (thanks to Galileo amongst others), and indeed we know the Earth isn't flat. We also know the earth is billions of years old and that living things evolve. All of these ideas were questioned at the time but have been proven to be fact. Personally I haven't taken the trouble to substantiate these scientific 'facts' but that doesn't make them untrue. Likewise, the expansion of the universe, if the scientists say it's so, that's good enough for me and I'll take it as fact. We may all disagree on the reasons for all of this but surely we can agree on the things we know to be true. Even religion accepts certain truths that once it would not. But with each new discovery made, there seems to be more questions raised. You peel away one layer and that reveals two more. Science will continue to peel these layers but until the big questions are answered (if indeed they ever will), there'll always be a place for the sky wizard believers.
But wont it be funny if, in all those years to come, they peel and peel and peel and find a beardy old fella sat with a bloke with horns sharing a joke pmsl
I'm not religious at all, I'm C. of E. My Vicar explained it all to me. "God made Charles Darwin, Steven Hawking and Richard Dawkins. He (God) has twelve billion years of experience, trump that. Roy
