Posts
…every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe -- a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.
Make no mistake: Einstein did not believe in a "personal" or "anthropomorphic" God, but he did believe in God.
9 comments:
Yes, and I think this is why Einstein failed miserably after his brilliant discoveries, because his belief in a god clouded his judgment (I.e his unification theory was a complete waste of his valuable neurons).
There's a tendency for mathimaticians who study infinity to go completely insane. Why? Often, it has to do with them thinking they will find God during their quest. In other words, they are trying to dominate infinty, something that is impossible (see previous EJ comments).
Remove the delusions of god from the scientist's mind and we will enjoy an unprecedented era of discovery. (I know there are plenty believers who are scientists. That's my point. This is what's holding us back.)
Jeff Harmsen (as opposed to HarmsOn).
Jeff, if I were you, I would not so casually assume I was smarter than Einstein.
As for religious faith holding scientists back, how do you explain that it is the most prominent scientists who seem most often religious?
I do not assume I'm smarter than Einstein, not by a long shot. I am simpy dispossed from religion, that is all. Science and religion are diametrically opposed. The former is reliant on empirical research, the latter on blind faith. So, good question Steve, how do we explain one ideology mingling with the other?
First, as I stated before, there's no underestimating the power of the church's brainwashing (as I have defined the term). Christmas alone is one of the most brilliant forms of propaganda ever devised. (Think about it: people who never set foot in a church are reinforcing Christianity. And, the parents willingly fit the bill, often to the point of depbt they may never climb out of, while the church doesn't pay a cent! It' absolutely brilliant!)
Second, from what I understand, many (the majority?) of scientists are busy at their research and do not want to get into trouble with institutions that have a tentency to become fantical.
Third, there are plenty of examples of brilliant scientists who have stood up against religious dogma: Galileo, Darwin, Giordano Bruno, Richard Dawkings, the multitude that stand up against the "Intelligent" Design delusion, etc.
Bruno was burned to death for speaking the truth, Galileo was sentenced to house arrest, Darwin was stiffled (but not before letting the cat out of the bag).
No wonder many scientists don't want to deal with the deluded. Instead, they quietly go about their business of finding cures, saving the planet, etc. Any way you want to slice it, religious delusions are a clog to science and thus, a clog to the betterment of humankind.
Let's be clear, Jeff; you have cited four scientists who were supposedly opposed to religious faith, but neither Bruno nor Galileo would have had any truck nor trade with atheism. Nor is it clear that either Bruno or Dawkins are in the scientific first rank.
That leaves you with one example of scientific agnosticism or atheism, Darwin. He seems to have been an agnostic, but insisted he was not an atheist.
We can't blame scientists of antiquity for believing in a God. Besides being brainwashed like the masses, they did not have the knowledge we have today. Since Galileo was willing to stick his neck out by opposing church dogma based on watching the moons go around Jupiter, it seems logical that he would have renounced his faith if he had known more about astronomy or the theory of Evolution, say.
Bruno was brilliant. I mean, without a telescope he was way ahead of the church's cosmological delusions.
Dawkins is merely stating the obvious. This takes courage when the truth (even when it's obvious) goes against the grain of the masses and their god delusions. (Check out his interview with Ted Haggard, the homosexual Pastor who pontificated against gay marriage.)
The agnostics are part of the evolution towards atheism. Basically, they are admitting the gaping flaws of religious dogma, but are not quite ready to let go of the God delusion. A common agnostic sentiment, "There's just gotta be something else out there."
OF COURSE THERE'S SOMETHING ELSE OUT THERE: IT'S CALLED THE INFINITE UNIVERSE. IT INCLUDES EVERYTHING THAT'S NOT YOU!
Bruno was not even a scientist. Wikipedia refers to him as a "philosopher, priest, cosmologist, and occultist." He does not seem to have fully understood Copernicus.
A cosmologist studies astronomy, a science.
The term "cosmology" can refer to a branch of astronomy. The primary meaning, though, is a philosophical enquiry into the ordering principle of the universe (cosmos). In Bruno's day, the former meaning did not yet exist. He wrote philosophical tracts; he performed no observations or experiments.
Among his theories, he held that all matter is conscious.
Clearly Bruno talked about stars (i.e that our sun was but one of an infinity of stars). This is astronomy.
Considering what was known back then, his revelation was well beyond his time.
With an overall lack of knowledge, many brilliant thinkers of yesteryear had crazy theories. Aristotle believed the brain was located in the heart. Jesus believed in God.
Post a Comment