|
|
|
|
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 4/28/2008 11:36:05 AM |
do you think anyone should be fired, denied tenure, censored, etc, for exploring an idea - any idea, whether that Idea be that the Holocaust never happened or ID or the Flying Spaghetti Monster or anything? I know this wasn't addressed to me but I just wanted to try to explain a couple things.
Firstly, people generally get fired/refused tenure/etc for their actions, or lack thereof, not their beliefs. If you are hired to do scientific work and fail to do so, you should be fired. Whatever beliefs you have or don't have is irrelevant. And if there was a lousy employer in a scientific academy that fired an employee unjustly, that invalidates science about as much as a lousy employer at a grocery store invalidates farming.
Also, Stein, being the dishonest hatemonger that he is, lied about all his censorship claims. See here for more details. http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth
Secondly, science does not = free speech any more than the bible = genesis. Both statements are partly true, in that science allows anyone to present a position and the bible does contain genesis, but they also both contain a lot more than that. It is not enough to merely state your position, you have to have evidence to support it - and IDers have none, nor do they have anything with explanatory power, anything falsifiable, or predictive. If we allowed ID into science class, that would open the door for thousands of other equally 'valid' creation beliefs to pollute the curriculum as well.
It isn't censorship that excludes ID from the scientific field, it is peer-review. | |
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 4/28/2008 12:09:55 PM |
And the link doesn't confirm what you said at all. It confirms what I said, which is that this is a list of scientists who believe in God, not a list of scientists who believe in ID. The title of the damn page is "50 NOBEL LAUREATES AND OTHER GREAT SCIENTISTS WHO BELIEVE IN GOD ," for crying out loud. To assert that belief in God is the same thing as belief in Intelligent Design is an outright lie and an equivocation of the worst sort.
Alright, since you are unwilling to look for yourself I have posted a small sampling of quotes by various scientists and their belief that this Universe and the life in it is a result of a superior intelligence which most refer to as God. I don't do this as an appeal to authority but simply for verifying that ID has been around for a long time and has been accepted as a fact by mostly everyone who has had a significant contribution to the field of the sciences.
Sir Isaac Newton
“Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the solar system, I see the earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance.” (Newton, as cited in Tiner 1975).
GALILEO GALILEI
“When I reflect on so many profoundly marvellous things that persons have grasped, sought, and done, I recognize even more clearly that human intelligence is a work of God, and one of the most excellent.” (Galileo, as cited in Caputo 2000, 85).
NICOLAUS COPERNICUS
In his revolutionary work De revolutionibus orbium caelestium (On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres, 1543), Copernicus wrote:
“For who, after applying himself to things which he sees established in the best order and directed by Divine ruling, would not through diligent contemplation of them and through a certain habituation be awakened to that which is best and would not admire the Artificer of all things, in Whom is all happiness and every good? For the divine Psalmist surely did not say gratuitously that he took pleasure in the workings of God and rejoiced in the works of His hands, unless by means of these things as by some sort of vehicle we are transported to the contemplation of the highest good.” (Copernicus, 1873, 10-11).
JOHANNES KEPLER
“The World of Nature, the World of Man, the World of God - all three fit together. We see how God, like a human architect approached the founding of the world according to order and rule, and measured everything in such a manner.” (Kepler, as cited in Tiner 1977, 172).
LORD KELVIN
“Overpoweringly strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie all around us; and if ever perplexities, whether metaphysical or scientific, turn us away from them for a time, they come back upon us with irresistible force, showing to us through Nature the influence of a free will, and teaching us that all living things depend on one ever-acting Creator and Ruler.” (Kelvin 1871; see also Seeger 1985a, 100-101).
SIR ROBERT BOYLE
“When with bold telescopes I survey the old and newly discovered stars and planets, when with excellent microscopes I discern the unimitable subtility of nature’s curious workmanship; and when, in a word, by the help of anatomical knives, and the light of chemical furnaces, I study the book of nature, I find myself oftentimes reduced to exclaim with the Psalmist, ‘How manifold are Thy works, O Lord! In wisdom hast Thou made them all!’ ” (Boyle, as cited in Woodall 1997, 32).
JOHN RAY
In his book The Wisdom of God Manifested in the Works of the Creation (1691), John Ray wrote: “There is no greater, at least no more palpable and convincing Argument of the Existence of a Deity, than the admirable Art and Wisdom that discovers itself in the Make and Constitution, the Order and Disposition, the Ends and Uses of all the Parts and Members of this stately Fabrick of Heaven and Earth.” (Ray 1717, Part I).
CHARLES DARWIN
“With respect to the theological view of the question; this is always painful to me. I am bewildered. I had no intention to write atheistically.
I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe and especially the nature of man, and to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance.” (Darwin 1993, 224).
ERNST HAECKEL
“The monistic idea of God, which alone is compatible with our present knowledge of nature, recognises the Divine spirit in all things.
God is everywhere. As Giordano Bruno has it: ‘There is one Spirit in all things, and no body is so small that it does not contain a part of the Divine substance whereby it is animated’.” (Haeckel 1895, 78).
THOMAS H. HUXLEY
In his article Science and Morals (1886), Huxley stated:
“The student of nature, who starts from the axiom of the universality of the law of causation, cannot refuse to admit an eternal existence; if he admits the conservation of energy, he cannot deny the possibility of an eternal energy; if he admits the existence of immaterial phenomena in the form of consciousness, he must admit the possibility, at any rate, of an eternal series of such phenomena; and, if his studies have not been barren of the best fruit of the investigation of nature, he will have enough sense to see that when Spinoza says, ‘Per Deum intelligo ens absolute infinitum, hoc est substantiam constantem infinitis attributis,’ the God so conceived is one that only a very great fool would deny, even in his heart. Physical science is as little Atheistic as it is Materialistic.” (Huxley 1893-94, Collected Essays, Vol. IX, p. 140).
LOUIS PASTEUR
“The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator. Science brings men nearer to God.” (Pasteur, as cited in Lamont 1995; see also Tiner 1990, 75).
2. “In good philosophy, the word cause ought to be reserved to the single Divine impulse that has formed the universe.” (Pasteur, as cited in Geison, 1995, 141-142).
3. “Little science takes you away from God but more of it takes you to Him.” (Pasteur, as cited in Guitton 1991, 5; see also Yahya 2002).
ALBERT EINSTEIN
“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.” (Einstein 1936, as cited in Dukas and Hoffmann, Albert Einstein: The Human Side, Princeton University Press, 1979, 33).
“In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.” (Einstein, as cited in Clark 1973, 400; and Jammer 2002, 97).
When I read quotes by these and other scientific men that consistently state their belief in an intelligently designed Universe, it would be ludricous to then take word of some poster on a forum stating that ID is false. That would truly make me gullible. | |
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 4/28/2008 1:50:02 PM | What the hell does a bunch of quotes from various scientists have to do with anything ?
Are you fully aware that these scientists also practiced actual science ? They did not just sit back and spend their time trying to proove ID. A tiny list of their accomplishments in actual science :
Albert Einstein - physicist - no need to state his academic contributions to science, we all know fully well his credits
Louis Pasteur - chemist/microbiologist - germ theory of disease, vaccines, pasteurization
Thomas H Huxley - biologist - theorized and evidenced that birds evolved from dinosaurs, advocate to Darwin's evolution theory, developed science education, publicly admitted to being an agnostic and brought agnostism to the forefront
Ernst Haeckel - biologist/physician - discovered and named various species, mapped the geneological tree of all species
Charles Darwin - naturalist - no need to point out his contributions, we know them
Sir Robert Boyle - chemist/physicist - formulated Boyle's law, known as one of the fathers of modern chemistry
John Ray - naturalist - classified various plants and species
Lord Kelvin - physicist/engineer - formulated various electric and thermodynamic theories/laws, developed the Kelvin scale of absolute temperature
Johannes Kepler - astronomer/mathmetician - established the laws of planetary motion, invented a better version of the refractor telescope
Nicolas Copernicus - astronomer/mathmetician - formulated heliocentric cosmology
Galileo Galilei - physicist/astronomer - improved the optics for telescopes, established kinematics, discovered 4 of Jupiters moons, observed and analyzed sunspots
Sir Isaac Newton - physicist/mathmetician - established gravitational theory, laws of motion
None of these scientists sat around all day fantasizing about ID. They practised actual for real science and utilized the scientific method.
Whether or not they believed in a creator had absolutely nothing to do with how they practiced science. Let me repeat that for you : Whether or not they believed in a creator had absolutely nothing to do with how they practiced their field of science(s).
Your google research is a complete waste of time and is in fact, futile, e.kyro. And it's duly noted that you've cherry picked a few quotes.... but it's also duly noted by the rest of us that we too can cherry pick some quotes from the exact same scientists that you mention that bend to our favour, Einstein being one perfect example right off the top of my head, many of these scientists questioned the idea of a creator but at the same time wanted to hold fast to their religious beliefs. Shall we waste a bunch of time on this thread and cherry pick some quotes to proove our point, e.kyro ? So you haven't benefited your position whatsoever.
But the agrument here isn't about who believed what, because it doesn't matter and is a moot point. The argument here is about whether or not science will allow so-called 'scientists' to dedicate their time sitting around attempting to come up with viable science methods in the prooving of ID..... time and energy sucking up government and private monies, government and privately funded science facilities and science staff, equipment, etc etc.
ID advocates want the freedom to dedicate all of their time researching and trying to evidence ID ?? Then let the ID 'scientists' build their own facilities, hire their own staff, hire their own 'scientists', buy their own equipment, raise private funds to maintain the institution, so on and so forth. Then they don't have to follow the scientific method at all. They can do whatever the hell they want on other people's monies who wish to fund the research. Why aren't the various churches/members pooling their resources to do exactly that if they're so convinced of ID ? They had no problem funding a creation museum.... why not fund a creation research institute as well ??!
But if IDers want to practice under the usage of the science communities' money, then the rule is they have to go by way of the science method and if they can't (as is the case thus far).... then tough tittie ! No ifs, ands, or buts about it. It's a simple rule and the rule is in place to control wasteful usage of limited available scientific research funds.
 | |
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 4/28/2008 2:24:19 PM | | I saw this movie two days ago. I highly recommend that everyone see it. Obviously many in here haven't seen it yet. Here's my review ... The main point the movie makes is that the current power structure in institutes of higher learning have erected a Berlin wall of sorts to keep out freedom of speech concerning the idea that there is intelligence behind creation. It is forbidden to be mentioned. This is not primarily a movie endorsing creationism and it is not a movie against evolution. It is a movie calling for open discussion instead of personal attacks and persecution. Several people with more degrees than a thermometer, are interviewed. Some of them have lost professional positions for merely mentioning intelligent design a single time or for even quoting someone else who mentioned it. Some of them who lost their positions are atheists and Darwinists who just want open discussion. Ultimately, the most rabid atheistic Darwinist of them all, a guy named Dawkins, agreed at the end of the movie that there must have been intelligence from some "alien" source at the time of creation, he just refused to call it God. The movie is very informative, fast paced, definitely not boring, occasionally funny, and enormously thought provoking. This is one of the finest films ever made. Run, don't walk, to the nearest theater and take several friends with you. | |
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 4/28/2008 3:19:20 PM |
Ultimately, the most rabid atheistic Darwinist of them all, a guy named Dawkins, agreed at the end of the movie that there must have been intelligence from some "alien" source at the time of creation, he just refused to call it God.
No he didn't, he said it was a "logical possibility". He did NOT say aliens seeded the planet FFS | |
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 4/28/2008 4:54:26 PM |
saintgasonline, do you think anyone should be fired, denied tenure, censored, etc, for exploring an idea - any idea, whether that Idea be that the Holocaust never happened or ID or the Flying Spaghetti Monster or anything?
No, I do not feel they should be fired or denied tenure for exploring any idea, but for exploring ideas that are manifestly stupid, halter any potential future research, embrace ignorance, have nothing to do with the discipline, or contradict fundamental foundations of the discipline for which there is a huge array of evidence solely through appeals to ignorance.
It is acceptable to question a prevailing theory and explore a new idea by proposing testable research claims, new lines of inquiry, and generally scouring up evidence that supports the position. ID, however, does not lead to testable research claims, new lines of inquiry, and is based solely on arguments from ignorance that do not establish positive evidence of design. You'd be fired if you worked for a publisher of English works and decided to write in gibberish, and that's essentially what ID is to science: complete frickin' gibberish.
Then should Dawkins be fired for placing the claims in the bible in such a context as to convert them into testable hypotheses(even though they are NOT testable) and proceeding to attempt to disprove them?
For one, Dawkins published works about atheism and evolution do not interere with his past position at his educational institution. He wasn't making arguments for atheism and claiming that is the research for his biological studies. Second, Dawkins is entirely correct to assert that the Bible makes testable hypotheses about the world, because it addresses historical people and places that can be easily verified, and proposes a God that interacts with the physical world. Third, I made it clear that I think those who believe in ID should only be fired if their belief is presented as part of their workin the sciences and subsequently interferes with the quality of their research and contributions to the university. If a scientist is a horribly misled young earth creationist in his personal life but otherwise engages in good scientific research in his day job, and doesn't try to inject pseudo-science like ID into his day job, then he shouldn't be fired. (Similarly, if Dawkins were to rant about atheism and totally ignore legitimate biology in teaching at a university, he should be fired. But he doesn't do this.)
But here's the kicker, Donkey: ALMOST NONE OF THE PEOPLE INTERVIEWED IN THE MOVIE LOST THEIR JOBS. And of those that did, it is questionable that they lost their jobs strictly because they believed in ID. Like I said, ID is only a relavant if it interferes with a scientist's work, but it seems it would in the large majority of cases, unless they have a special kind of cognitive dissonance that lets them ignore their idiotic leanings in practice and then suddenly warp into idiots as soon as they leave their offices at the university.
Again, this is not an issue about free speech or academic inquiry. This is an issue of JOB PERFORMANCE and SCIENTIFIC CREDIBILITY. Only a complete idiot would think a university should keep on a mathematician who insists two and two make five in his research and his teaching. | |
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 4/28/2008 5:06:21 PM | E.Kyro, those quotes are IRRELAVANT to biological evolution. I'm going to ignore the quotes of those scientists who lived before the theory of evolution was formulated, for obvious reasons, but let's look at one of the examples and I'll show you why it doesn't support ID.
(I also have my doubts about the legitimacy of some of these quotes, but I'll proceed anyway.)
I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe and especially the nature of man, and to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance..
This quote by Darwin does not support Intelligent Design, doofus. It supports, if anything, the fact that Darwin may have believed in God, and may have felt that God had some role in some aspect of design for the universe. This does NOT mean Darwin thinks God designed biological life, as the theory of evolution explains this adequately. For an example, Kenneth Miller believes God played a role, perhaps in the Big Bang, in creating the laws of the universe, but he thoroughly criticizes the ID movement in its insistence that biological life was designed.
I think part of the problem is that those who support Intelligent Design seem to think biological theories like evolution and cosmological theories like the Big Bang are intimately bound up together, but they are two separate theories. They have nothing to do with each other.
Now, E. Kyro, it is obvious that the intent of Expelled is to try to refute the theory of evolution, correct? It is also obvious that, from your list of scientists, almost all of these scientists that lived during the time the theory of evolution was formulated and the evidence adduced for it accepted evolution. To list off these scientists as "supporters of ID" in some vague sense and then imply that they doubted evolution is absurd and blatant equivocation of the worst sort.
Answer this: do the quotes of most of these scientist imply doubt in EVOLUTION? If not, they are irrelevant to the argument, and I don't see why you are introducing them, except as a ridiculous red herring.
When I read quotes by these and other scientific men that consistently state their belief in an intelligently designed Universe, it would be ludricous to then take word of some poster on a forum stating that ID is false. That would truly make me gullible.
No, what makes you gullible is the fact that you think belief that the universe may have been created by a god is exactly equivalent to doubting evolution. What also makes you gullible is the fact that NONE of these quotes provides any scientific evidence for belief in God, but are merely assertions by famous scientists in a field outside their area of expertise, and hence poor uses of an argument from authority. | |
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 4/28/2008 5:09:35 PM |
I saw this movie two days ago. That's odd, because 4 days ago you said this:
It's a wonderful movie. Go see it. It's a breath of fresh air from all the atheist evolution nonsense. How many movies have you seen that actually cause the audience to break into applause? and 5 days ago you told me this:
Why don't you wait till you've actually seen the movie before you pass judgment upon it? So either you're lying about when you saw it, or you were being hypocritical 4 days ago spouting off judgement about a movie you haven't seen yet.
For those of you interested in an honest review of the movie, check this out:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed/
and this: http://youtube.com/watch?v=ihYq2dGa29M
Which puts it into perspective very nicely. Its rated at 9%. Even Catwoman (2004) which won worst picture, worst actress, worst director, and worst screenplay, scored higher. Not surprisingly, Stein states that the movie regularly gets standing ovations, tears streaming down people's faces, etc. Tears of pain and ovations of joy that the movie is finally over more likely. Equally unsurprising is the nods of approval towards this movie from dishonest and immoral people who actually believe that harboring such lies and hate towards honest scientists is somehow christian-like. | |
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 4/28/2008 5:17:26 PM | Wow... I decided to not give these idiots any of my money and instead watched all the links provided here pro and con.
Ben Stein is a moron! I am convinced he was reading cards during "Win Ben Steins Money" as there is no way someone that knowledgable could be so categorically ignorant of science and it's major contributors!
Darwin knew nothing of the complexities of cells? Stein is an idiot either way... If he is being dishonest, it will come out (as some of his techniques have already shown) and his credibility will be shot... If he's being serious, he has no idea what he's talking about.
There is nothing discriminatory about making folks prove what they call facts... And there's nothing malicious about showing where these studies failed miserably... It would have looked malicious if it could pass for truth without a single shred of proven evidence.
Einstein believed in ID? E. Kyro, are you purposely lying? SETI is looking for proof of ID? They are not! They are looking for intelligence period.
Give your head a shake... If it rattles, I'll buy it off you.
I'll watch it when I can for free. | |
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 4/28/2008 6:10:17 PM | I have no doubt that audiences DID break into spontaneous applause. I have no doubt they were moved, impressed, and convinced.
When you get a bunch of fundamentalist christians together in a room, then tell them you've proven them right, and give them a lame film that justifies their pre-established opinions and tells them everything they want to hear... then yes. They'll like it.
Is there a single person in the "ID science community" (awesome oxymoron) who doesn't by chance happen to believe that the intelligent designer postulated was... perchance... God? Is there a single "evolution skeptic" who doesn't at their core disbelieve evolution not because of the facts or evidence but because it contradicts the Bible?
Because honestly that's the only reason I can see for the skepticism. The evidence is vastly overwhelming unless wilfully ignored. | |
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 4/28/2008 6:28:31 PM |
When I read quotes by these and other scientific men that consistently state their belief in an intelligently designed Universe, it would be ludricous to then take word of some poster on a forum stating that ID is false. That would truly make me gullible.
Well lets see, most of these quotes are from the period where alchemy was considered a viable science, and predate even the understanding of molecules, genetics, and evolution.
Intelligent design as stated is not simply "there is a god" it's that evolution doesn't exist, and there is a god.
Now Charles Darwin was obviously not an "intelligent designer" as put forward as the theory in 1987. The rest simply didn't have the opportunity to understand evolution, no more than they had an opportunity to understand Genetics.
Albert Einstein himself is on the record that the idea of a personal god is absurd.
So congratulations, you've proven that scientists that predate evolution, didn't believe in evolution. They also didn't believe in atomic weapons, or powered flight. | |
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 4/28/2008 9:20:28 PM | Posted by AncientMuse
But the agrument here isn't about who believed what, because it doesn't matter and is a moot point. The argument here is about whether or not science will allow so-called 'scientists' to dedicate their time sitting around attempting to come up with viable science methods in the prooving of ID..... time and energy sucking up government and private monies, government and privately funded science facilities and science staff, equipment, etc etc.
I see, you would prefer our tax dollars to go to research that only 15% of the population believes in, since 85% believe that a god had something to do with our existence. Another instance of the vocal minority dictating what is best for the majority both in the allocation of funds and the education of our children.
They can do whatever the hell they want on other people's monies who wish to fund the research. Why aren't the various churches/members pooling their resources to do exactly that if they're so convinced of ID ? They had no problem funding a creation museum.... why not fund a creation research institute as well ??!
They already do fund Creation Research Institute which you can find @ www.icr.org 
Posted by saintgasoline
Answer this: do the quotes of most of these scientist imply doubt in EVOLUTION? If not, they are irrelevant to the argument, and I don't see why you are introducing them, except as a ridiculous red herring.
The quotes imply that many famous scientists were convinced that God was responsible for the Universe and the life it contains. Even those who accepted EVOLUTION still believed He set it in motion and dictated the laws it would operate under. From that perspective the quotes are relevant to the argument. The tone of your last few posts gives away your lack of objectiveness on the subject and betrays an obsessiveness with Evolution that is exactly the same as that of some creationists.
No, what makes you gullible is the fact that you think belief that the universe may have been created by a god is exactly equivalent to doubting evolution. What also makes you gullible is the fact that NONE of these quotes provides any scientific evidence for belief in God, but are merely assertions by famous scientists in a field outside their area of expertise, and hence poor uses of an argument from authority.
You don't read too good do you? I clearly stated I wasn't using the quotes as an appeal to authority. But since you mention it, I would like to point out that Darwin's field of expertise was theology not biology. So his comments could be regarded as being authoritave.
Posted by stonestongue
Einstein believed in ID? E. Kyro, are you purposely lying?
No, are you?
Copied from your profile:
Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.
-Albert Einstein
Give your head a shake... If it rattles, I'll buy it off you.
Sounds like you got enough rattles already.
Posted by CharlesEdm
Intelligent design as stated is not simply "there is a god" it's that evolution doesn't exist, and there is a god.
Well Charles, maybe it does mean that for you but it doesn't for me. Intelligent Design for me simply means that there is a higher intelligence involved in both the Universe and biological life. The degree of His/Her involvement I am not sure of but I am confident that evolution is not wholly responsible for the diversity of life.
Posted by Whitegold765
Is there a single "evolution skeptic" who doesn't at their core disbelieve evolution not because of the facts or evidence but because it contradicts the Bible?
According to a couple polls I looked at, about 30% of those surveyed believe in a combination of ID and Evolution. From a poll on a Christian website approximately half believe in theistic evolution in varying degrees. That would make for a total of about 55% who subscribe to a belief in a combination of ID and Evolution. 25% in Creationism exclusively and 15% fundy Evolutionists. 5% No opinion or don't know.
Anyway, that's my last post on this thread, lady and gentlemen. | |
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 4/28/2008 9:41:14 PM | The suggestion that Albert Einstein believed in a personal god of any type is just the kind of "quote mining" performed by Ben Stein in his film Expelled and which E. Kyro has rather shamelessly engaged in his last few posts. What did Professor Einstein say about this sort of thing? Let's have a look:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quotes_einstein.html
“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”
Albert Einstein, in a letter March 24, 1954; from Albert Einstein the Human Side, Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, eds., Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981, p. 43.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“When I was a fairly precocious young man I became thoroughly impressed with the futility of the hopes and strivings that chase most men restlessly through life. Moreover, I soon discovered the cruelty of that chase, which in those years was much more carefully covered up by hypocrisy and glittering words than is the case today. By the mere existence of his stomach everyone was condemned to participate in that chase. The stomach might well be satisfied by such participation, but not man insofar as he is a thinking and feeling being.
“As the first way out there was religion, which is implanted into every child by way of the traditional education-machine. Thus I came — though the child of entirely irreligious (Jewish) parents — to a deep religiousness, which, however, reached an abrupt end at the age of twelve. Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true. The consequence was a positively fanatic orgy of freethinking coupled with the impression that youth is intentionally being deceived by the state through lies; it was a crushing impression. Mistrust of every kind of authority grew out of this experience, a skeptical attitude toward the convictions that were alive in any specific social environment-an attitude that has never again left me, even though, later on, it has been tempered by a better insight into the causal connections. It is quite clear to me that the religious paradise of youth, which was thus lost, was a first attempt to free myself from the chains of the ‘merely personal,’ from an existence dominated by wishes, hopes, and primitive feelings. Out yonder there was this huge world, which exists independently of us human beings and which stands before us like a great, eternal riddle, at least partially accessible to our inspection and thinking. The contemplation of this world beckoned as a liberation, and I soon noticed that many a man whom I had learned to esteem and to admire had found inner freedom and security in its pursuit. The mental grasp of this extra-personal world within the frame of our capabilities presented itself to my mind, half consciously, half unconsciously, as a supreme goal. Similarly motivated men of the present and of the past, as well as the insights they had achieved, were the friends who could not be lost. The road to this paradise was not as comfortable and alluring as the road to the religious paradise; but it has shown itself reliable, and I have never regretted having chosen it.”
Albert Einstein, Autobiographical Notes, Chicago, Illinois: Open Court Publishing Company, 1979, pp 3-5.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment.”
Albert Einstein in a letter to M. Berkowitz, October 25, 1950; Einstein Archive 59-215; from Alice Calaprice, ed., The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2000, p. 216.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. He who knows it not and can no longer wonder, no longer feel amazement, is as good as dead, a snuffed-out candle. It was the experience of mystery — even if mixed with fear — that engendered religion. A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which are only accessible to our reason in their most elementary forms-it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls. Enough for me the mystery of the eternity of life, and the inkling of the marvellous structure of reality, together with the single-hearted endeavour to comprehend a portion, be it never so tiny, of the reason that manifests itself in nature.”
Albert Einstein, The World as I See It, Secaucus, New Jersy: The Citadel Press, 1999, p. 5.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naïve.”
Albert Einstein in a letter to Beatrice Frohlich, December 17, 1952; Einstein Archive 59-797; from Alice Calaprice, ed., The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2000, p. 217.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem—the most important of all human problems.”
Albert Einstein, 1947; from Banesh Hoffmann, Albert Einstein Creator and Rebel, New York: New American Library, 1972, p. 95.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“I am a deeply religious nonbeliever.… This is a somewhat new kind of religion.”
Albert Einstein, in a letter to Hans Muehsam, March 30, 1954; Einstein Archive 38-434; from Alice Calaprice, ed., The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000, p. 218.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.”
Albert Einstein, upon being asked if he believed in God by Rabbi Herbert Goldstein of the Institutional Synagogue, New York, April 24, 1921, published in the New York Times, April 25, 1929; from Einstein: The Life and Times, Ronald W. Clark, New York: World Publishing Co., 1971, p. 413; also cited as a telegram to a Jewish newspaper, 1929, Einstein Archive 33-272, from Alice Calaprice, ed., The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000, p. 204.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it.”
Albert Einstein, letter to a Baptist pastor in 1953; from Albert Einstein the Human Side, Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, eds., Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981, p. 39.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Why do you write to me ‘God should punish the English’? I have no close connection to either one or the other. I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children for their numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held responsible; in my opinion, only His nonexistence could excuse Him.”
Albert Einstein, letter to Edgar Meyer, a Swiss colleague, January 2, 1915; from Alice Calaprice, ed., The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000, p. 201.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“It is quite possible that we can do greater things than Jesus, for what is written in the Bible about him is poetically embellished.”
Albert Einstein; quoted in W. I. Hermanns, "A Talk with Einstein," October 1943, Einstein Archive 55-285; from Alice Calaprice, ed., The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000, p. 215.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own — a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms.”
Albert Einstein, quoted in The New York Times obituary, April 19, 1955; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Thoughts, New York: Ballantine Books, 1996, p. 134. )
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“The most important human endeavor is the striving for morality in our actions. Our inner balance and even our very existence depend on it. Only morality in our actions can give beauty and dignity to life. To make this a living force and bring it to clear consciousness is perhaps the foremost task of education. The foundation of morality should not be made dependent on myth nor tied to any authority lest doubt about the myth or about the legitimacy of the authority imperil the foundation of sound judgment and action.”
Albert Einstein, letter to a minister November 20, 1950; from Albert Einstein the Human Side, Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, eds., Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981, p. 95.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“A God who rewards and punishes is inconceivable to him for the simple reason that a man's actions are determined by necessity, external and internal, so that in God's eyes he cannot be responsible, any more than an inanimate object is responsible for the motions it undergoes. Science has therefore been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death. It is therefore easy to see why the churches have always fought science and persecuted its devotees.”
Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science," in the New York Times Magazine, November 9, 1930, pp. 3-4; from Alice Calaprice, ed., The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2000, pp. 205-206.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“The religious feeling engendered by experiencing the logical comprehensibility of profound interrelations is of a somewhat different sort from the feeling that one usually calls religious. It is more a feeling of awe at the scheme that is manifested in the material universe. It does not lead us to take the step of fashioning a god-like being in our own image-a personage who makes demands of us and who takes an interest in us as individuals. There is in this neither a will nor a goal, nor a must, but only sheer being. For this reason, people of our type see in morality a purely human matter, albeit the most important in the human sphere.”
Albert Einstein, letter to a Rabbi in Chicago; from Albert Einstein the Human Side, Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, eds., Princeton University Press, 1981, pp. 69-70.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism.”
Albert Einstein, replying to a letter in 1954 or 1955; from Albert Einstein the Human Side, Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, eds., Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981, p. 39.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“I do not believe that a man should be restrained in his daily actions by being afraid of punishment after death or that he should do things only because in this way he will be rewarded after he dies. This does not make sense. The proper guidance during the life of a man should be the weight that he puts upon ethics and the amount of consideration that he has for others.”
Albert Einstein; from Peter A. Bucky, The Private Albert Einstein, Kansas City: Andrews & McMeel, 1992, p. 86.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the action of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a supernatural Being.”
Albert Einstein in responce to a child who had written him in 1936 and asked if scientists pray; from Albert Einstein the Human Side, Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, eds., Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981, p. 32.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science. [He was speaking of Quantum Mechanics and the breaking down of determinism.] My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance — but for us, not for God.”
Albert Einstein; from Albert Einstein the Human Side, Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, eds., Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981, p. 66.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“The finest emotion of which we are capable is the mystic emotion. Herein lies the germ of all art and all true science. Anyone to whom this feeling is alien, who is no longer capable of wonderment and lives in a state of fear is a dead man. To know that what is impenatrable for us really exists and manifests itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, whose gross forms alone are intelligible to our poor faculties – this knowledge, this feeling … that is the core of the true religious sentiment. In this sense, and in this sense alone, I rank myself amoung profoundly religious men.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“The idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I am unable to take seriously.”
Albert Einstein, letter to Hoffman and Dukas, 1946; from Albert Einstein the Human Side, Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, eds., Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge.”
Albert Einstein, Science, Philosophy, and Religion, A 1934 Symposium published by the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941; from Einstein's Out of My Later Years, Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1970, pp. 29-30.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“I cannot believe that God plays dice with the cosmos.”
Albert Einstein on quantum mechanics, published in the London Observer, April 5, 1964; also quoted as "God does not play dice with the world." in Einstein: The Life and Times, Ronald W. Clark, New York: World Publishing Co., 1971, p. 19.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“I cannot accept any concept of God based on the fear of life or the fear of death or blind faith. I cannot prove to you that there is no personal God, but if I were to speak of him I would be a liar.”
Albert Einstein; from Ronald W. Clark, Einstein: The Life and Times, New York: World Publishing Company, 1971, p. 622.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution human fantasy created gods in man's own image, who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate to influence, the phenomenal world. Man sought to alter the disposition of these gods in his own favor by means of magic and prayer. The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old concept of the gods. Its anthropomorphic character is shown, for instance, by the fact that men appeal to the Divine Being in prayers and plead for the fulfillment of their wishes.
“Nobody, certainly, will deny that the idea of the existence of an omnipotent, just, and omnibeneficent personal God is able to accord man solace, help, and guidance; also, by virtue of its simplicity it is accessible to the most undeveloped mind. But, on the other hand, there are decisive weaknesses attached to this idea in itself, which have been painfully felt since the beginning of history. That is, if this being is omnipotent, then every occurrence, including every human action, every human thought, and every human feeling and aspiration is also His work; how is it possible to think of holding men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an almighty Being? In giving out punishment and rewards He would to a certain extent be passing judgment on Himself. How can this be combined with the goodness and righteousness ascribed to Him?
“The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and of science lies in this concept of a personal God. It is the aim of science to establish general rules which determine the reciprocal connection of objects and events in time and space. For these rules, or laws of nature, absolutely general validity is required—not proven. It is mainly a program, and faith in the possibility of its accomplishment in principle is only founded on partial successes. But hardly anyone could be found who would deny these partial successes and ascribe them to human self-deception. The fact that on the basis of such laws we are able to predict the temporal behavior of phenomena in certain domains with great precision and certainty is deeply embedded in the consciousness of the modern man, even though he may have grasped very little of the contents of those laws. He need only consider that planetary courses within the solar system may be calculated in advance with great exactitude on the basis of a limited number of simple laws. In a similar way, though not with the same precision, it is possible to calculate in advance the mode of operation of an electric motor, a transmission system, or of a wireless apparatus, even when dealing with a novel development.
“To be sure, when the number of factors coming into play in a phenomenological complex is too large, scientific method in most cases fails us. One need only think of the weather, in which case prediction even for a few days ahead is impossible. Nevertheless no one doubts that we are confronted with a causal connection whose causal components are in the main known to us. Occurrences in this domain are beyond the reach of exact prediction because of the variety of factors in operation, not because of any lack of order in nature.
“We have penetrated far less deeply into the regularities obtaining within the realm of living things, but deeply enough nevertheless to sense at least the rule of fixed necessity. One need only think of the systematic order in heredity, and in the effect of poisons, as for instance alcohol, on the behavior of organic beings. What is still lacking here is a grasp of connections of profound generality, but not a knowledge of order in itself.
“The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exists as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot.
“But I am persuaded that such behavior on the part of the representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is able to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress. In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests. In their labors they will have to avail themselves of those forces which are capable of cultivating the Good, the True, and the Beautiful in humanity itself. This is, to be sure, a more difficult but an incomparably more worthy task.”
Albert Einstein, Science, Philosophy, and Religion, A 1934 Symposium published by the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941; from Einstein's Out of My Later Years, Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1970, pp. 26-29.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“I cannot then believe in this concept of an anthropomorphic God who has the powers of interfering with these natural laws. As I said before, the most beautiful and most profound religious emotion that we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. And this mysticality is the power of all true science.”
Albert Einstein; from Peter A. Bucky, The Private Albert Einstein, Kansas City: Andrews & McMeel, 1992, p. 86.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“The mystical trend of our time, which shows itself particularly in the rampant growth of the so-called Theosophy and Spiritualism, is for me no more than a symptom of weakness and confusion. Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions, and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seem to me to be empty and devoid of meaning.”
Albert Einstein, in a letter February 5, 1921; from Albert Einstein the Human Side, Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, eds., Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981, p. 40.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Mere unbelief in a personal God is no philosophy at all.”
Albert Einstein, letter to V. T Aaltonen, May 7, 1952, Einstein Archive 59-059; from Alice Calaprice, ed., The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2000, p. 216.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.”
Albert Einstein, to Guy H. Raner Jr., September 28, 1949; from Michael R. Gilmore, "Einstein's God: Just What Did Einstein Believe About God?," Skeptic, 1997, 5(2):64.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts.”
Albert Einstein, Out of My Later Years, Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1970, p. 25.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.”
Albert Einstein, according to the testimony of Prince Hubertus of Lowenstein; as quoted by Ronald W. Clark, Einstein: The Life and Times, New York: World Publishing Company, 1971, p. 425.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist. Your counter-arguments seem to me very correct and could hardly be better formulated. It is always misleading to use anthropomorphical concepts in dealing with things outside the human sphere—childish analogies. We have to admire in humility the beautiful harmony of the structure of this world as far—as we can grasp it. And that is all.”
Albert Einstein, to Guy H. Raner Jr., July 2, 1945, responding to a rumor that a Jesuit priest had caused Einstein to convert from atheism; from Michael R. Gilmore, "Einstein's God: Just What Did Einstein Believe About God?," Skeptic, 1997, 5(2):62.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“I am convinced that some political and social activities and practices of the Catholic organizations are detrimental and even dangerous for the community as a whole, here and everywhere. I mention here only the fight against birth control at a time when overpopulation in various countries has become a serious threat to the health of people and a grave obstacle to any attempt to organize peace on this planet.”
Albert Einstein in a letter, 1954; from Paul Blanshard, American Freedom and Catholic Power, Greenwood Pub., 1984, p. 10.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“It is quite clear to me that the religious paradise of youth, which [I] lost, was a first attempt to free myself from the chains of the ‘merely personal,’ from an existence which is dominated by wishes, hopes, and primitive feelings.”
Albert Einstein; from Gerald Holton, Einstein: History, and Other Passions, Woodbury, NY: Perseus Press, 1996, p. 172.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“His [Einstein] was not a life of prayer and worship. Yet he lived by a deep faith — a faith not capabIe of rational foundation — that there are laws of Nature to be discovered. His lifelong pursuit was to discover them. His realism and his optimism are illuminated by his remark: ‘Subtle is the Lord, but malicious He is not’ (‘Raffiniert ist der Herrgott aber boshaft ist er nicht.’). When asked by a colleague what he meant by that, he replied: ‘Nature hides her secret because of her essential loftiness, but not by means of ruse’ (‘Die Natur verbirgt ihr Geheimnis durch die Erhabenheit ihres Wesens, aber nicht durch List.’)”
Abraham Pais, Subtle Is the Lord: The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein, Oxford University Press, New York, 1982.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“However, Einstein's God was not the God of most other men. When he wrote of religion, as he often did in middle and later life, he tended to adopt the belief of Alice's Red Queen that "words mean what you want them to mean," and to clothe with different names what to more ordinary mortals — and to most Jews — looked like a variant of simple agnosticism. Replying in 1929 to a cabled inquiry from Rabbi Goldstein of New York, he said that he believed "in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exist, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and actions of men." And it is claimed that years later, asked by Ben-Gurion whether he believed in God, "even he, with his great formula about energy and mass, agreed that there must be something behind the energy." No doubt. But much of Einstein's writing gives the impression of belief in a God even more intangible and impersonal than a celestial machine minder, running the universe with indisputable authority and expert touch. Instead, Einstein's God appears as the physical world itself, with its infinitely marvelous structure operating at atomic level with the beauty of a craftsman's wristwatch, and at stellar level with the majesty of a massive cyclotron. This was belief enough. It grew early and rooted deep. Only later was it dignified by the title of cosmic religion, a phrase which gave plausible respectability to the views of a man who did not believe in a life after death and who felt that if virtue paid off in the earthly one, then this was the result of cause and effect rather than celestial reward. Einstein's God thus stood for an orderly system obeying rules which could be discovered by those who at the courage, imagination, and persistence to go on searching for them. It was to this past which he began to turn his mind soon after the age of twelve. The rest of his life everything else was to seem almost trivial by comparison.”
Ronald W. Clark, Einstein: The Life and Times, New York: World Publishing, 1971, pp. 19-20.
Taking a look at these quotes by and about the man, especially the bolded ones, it seems apparent that while he might have taken a notion to admiration for a certain order, he made no move to imply or believe in a designer or orderer and absolutely eschewed an anthropomorphized God of any type. This is certainly the case if you take these above quotes into context with the others we have already seen...which is why it is a good reason to examine context and show sources of where quotes have been obtained from so they can be checked for accuracy.
As to the great list of red-herrings listed from the age before Darwin, they are of course completely irrelevant. The one's after, I daresay I wonder if they too bear closer examination? If so, I wonder what we shall find? | |
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 4/28/2008 10:46:21 PM | I see, you would prefer our tax dollars to go to research that only 15% of the population believes in, since 85% believe that a god had something to do with our existence. Another instance of the vocal minority dictating what is best for the majority both in the allocation of funds and the education of our children.
You seemed to be confused about the purpose of education. Primary and secondary schools are supposed to educate students in the fields that they teach in order to provide them with the opportunity to advance in the field of their chosing, work, or go on to university.
The popularity of a theory has nothing to do with that. You can't be a succesful geneticist if you don't believe in genes. You can't be a succesful astronomer if you believe in the heliocentric model of the universe. You simply can't be on the for front of the scientific field if you don't understand evolution, because it is an important element of so many fields.
They already do fund Creation Research Institute which you can find @ www.icr.org
Yes they do, and it's a joke.
The quotes imply that many famous scientists were convinced that God was responsible for the Universe and the life it contains. Even those who accepted EVOLUTION still believed He set it in motion and dictated the laws it would operate under. From that perspective the quotes are relevant to the argument. The tone of your last few posts gives away your lack of objectiveness on the subject and betrays an obsessiveness with Evolution that is exactly the same as that of some creationists.
The majority of those scientists once again predate evolutionary theory. Kepler died in 1630 Darwin was born in 1809
As for obsessiveness, my suggestion would be not to quit your day job if you're considering becoming a psychologist. Just because I have some knowledge in a field you obviously are willfully ignorant of, doesn't make me obsessive, far from it.
Well Charles, maybe it does mean that for you but it doesn't for me. Intelligent Design for me simply means that there is a higher intelligence involved in both the Universe and biological life. The degree of His/Her involvement I am not sure of but I am confident that evolution is not wholly responsible for the diversity of life.
Well thats not what intelligence design is.
http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php#questionsAboutIntelligentDesign
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
So one can believe in a god, if they believe that evolution through natural selection is the means by which life changed and evolved, they're not an IDer.
According to a couple polls I looked at, about 30% of those surveyed believe in a combination of ID and Evolution. From a poll on a Christian website approximately half believe in theistic evolution in varying degrees. That would make for a total of about 55% who subscribe to a belief in a combination of ID and Evolution. 25% in Creationism exclusively and 15% fundy Evolutionists. 5% No opinion or don't know.
Heh you show a shocking ignorance of what fundamentalism means. Fundamentalism indicates that there is no room for interpretation from the original books. I challenge you to find anyone who thinks that the current theory of evolution has not changed in any manner since the 1800's especially considering the fact that genes and mollecules weren't even understood to exist at that point.
Glad to see you're getting your sources from such an unbiased source. Tell me what are the statistics on research scientists in the genetics field on their views on evolution? Layman opinion doesn't indicate truth, if you had any education in the scientific fields at all you'd know that appealing to popular opinion doesn't reflect well on your position at all.
Finally.
It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere.... Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
-- Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science," New York Times Magazine, 9 November 1930 | |
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 4/28/2008 10:50:12 PM | On Darwin being a believer in ID...that's partly true, but a huge mischaracterization. As a younger man, he very much believed in ID, as spelled out in William Paley's Natural Theology. But he changed his mind a wee bit. :)
Painting Darwin as an ID believer is like saying Richard Dawkins is a "Santa-Clausian" because he once believed in Old Saint Nick. | |
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 4/28/2008 11:30:08 PM |
This is one of the finest films ever made. Run, don't walk, to the nearest theater and take several friends with you.
That thud you just heard was my jaw dropping to the floor.
OK, let's cast aside ideology, beliefs, etc. and look at the movie as merely a documentary. Look at all those cut-ins interspersed throughout the film. How can you consider the cut-ins as anything but pure propaganda? Stein interviews a guy -- guy says "they fired me for my beliefs!" then you get a flash of a shadow image of a handcuffed man that looks for all the world being lead towards the gallows or the firing squad, with a priest in front reading the Last Rites.
Stein asks people like Dawkins a question, hears the answer, then you get a mini-cartoon depicting Dawkins a fool. A person tells Stein "I was only expressing my opinion" and the next cut-in is imagery similar to East German Stasi secret police pistol-whipping someone.
Where are the cut-ins for the people who don't agree with Stein? To best understand what I'm talking about, you need to watch the movie with the sound off. There, you will see when Stein talks, next you get positive emotional imagery. When the opposing view talks, next you get Nazi/Stasi/Gulag imagery. It's not always, but turn the audio off and it's blatantly clear the movie steers viewers to only one conclusion.
Stein's revisionism of the holocaust is purely revolting. This is a poor movie by any objective standards, regardless of subject matter. | |
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 4/29/2008 1:46:28 AM |
This is an issue of JOB PERFORMANCE and SCIENTIFIC CREDIBILITY. Only a complete idiot would think a university should keep on a mathematician who insists two and two make five in his research and his teaching.
Amen brother. Amen
This is one of the finest films ever made. Run, don't walk, to the nearest theater and take several friends with you.
That thud you just heard was my jaw dropping to the floor.
That MUST have been uttered by someone with points in the film. Buy not from this salesman.
since 85% believe that a god had something to do with our existence.
There are probably millions out there who think Paris Hilton is a role model. Your point is??
"Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time to reform.
Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)"
Sorry E.Kyro. Give it up. You lost. Badly. | |
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 4/29/2008 2:20:40 AM | E Kyro:
I see, you would prefer our tax dollars to go to research that only 15% of the population believes in, since 85% believe that a god had something to do with our existence. Another instance of the vocal minority dictating what is best for the majority both in the allocation of funds and the education of our children.
I couldn't resist some kind of response to this. You seem to be saying that what people are taught should come down to some kind of popularity contest, and that if 85% of the nation believe in some utterly spurious nonsense with no scientific basis, that it should be adopted as an accepted educational standard. That is a STUPID argument. Beyond stupid in fact. Perverted would be a better description. A perversion of reason.
I qualify that slightly by speculating that the 85% that you refer to are probably believers in God rather than fans of ID. Some of these people could be well enough educated to reconcile modern science with their beliefs. You do them no favours by tarring them all with the same fundamentalist brush.
There's a graph in a recent New Scientist charting what percentage of adults around the world believe that humans developed from earlier species of animals. It should be a fairly good guide of American national literacy in evolutionary thought. It is a limited survey taking in only eighteen countries but it is notable that the US comes second to last, just above Turkey in the scale for acceptance of reality.
When I watch the you tube video's of Mr Stein being interviewed about the "Expelled" movie on news programmes it leads me to believe that part of the reason for America's backwardness is the utter imbecility of its news broadcasters.
To take one example, after a dreary interlude in which the pair bemoan the vagiaries of the fluctuating dollar, we witness a jaunty, sycophantic, criticism free display by some middle aged grinning buffoon with a combover (Pat Robertson), as Stein goes thru his standard "Darwin doesn't explain gravity thermodynamics or physics", "mud on a puddle routine".
Throughout, Robertson appears to be totally uninformed about the subject of the intrerview and merely murmurs agreement with Stein whilst grinning stupidly.
I'm telling you, this would not pass as journalism in England. The Bill O'Reillys' and Pat Robertons of this world would be signing on at the dole office. Stein wouldn't last five minutes under the withering intellectual glare of our interviewers in the UK. I'm thinking of guys like Jeremy Paxman, Andrew Marr and Stephen Sackur. I'm sure you can find some of their stuff on u tube and see what I mean. These American guys are clowns in comparison.
It makes me wonder if the US airwaves run any kind of serious TV or Radio science Programmes where this kind of outrageous rubbish is challenged as it should be.
I have enjoyed your contribution to the debate E Kyro, if only because your flawed and twisted reasoning has elicited some thoroughly well thought out, entertaining and argument winning responses from many of the other posters. Lady and gents, respect to you. | |
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 4/29/2008 2:42:03 AM |
I couldn't resist some kind of response to this. You seem to be saying that what people are taught should come down to some kind of popularity contest, and that if 85% of the nation believe in some utterly spurious nonsense with no scientific basis, that it should be adopted as an accepted educational standard. That is a STUPID argument. Beyond stupid in fact. Perverted would be a better description. A perversion of reason.
We casting pearls before swine here aren't we  | |
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 4/29/2008 4:12:34 AM | We are indeed.
Also, would it be inappropriate to point out that if the Creationist churches that push this bogus agenda are so concerned about taxpayer's money maybe they should consider... paying tax? | |
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 4/29/2008 5:21:04 AM |
What the hell does a bunch of quotes from various scientists have to do with anything ? I think they are instructive when some people posit the absolute "science=atheism". Clearly, these scientists were not atheists.
None of these scientists sat around all day fantasizing about ID. They practised actual for real science and utilized the scientific method. I agree. They also examined their world with the assumption that it was well-ordered and logical because it was created by God. I think their belief in God brought them to the logical conclusion that God created order in the Universe and that that Order was such that it could be studied. "Old" Science was built on the assumption that the Universe was designed and logical. Without that assumption many discoveries we now take for granted would not have been made. In other words, the belief in God and God's design and logic and order gave rise to the science.
but it's also duly noted by the rest of us that we too can cherry pick some quotes from the exact same scientists that you mention that bend to our favour. I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here. That Newton, Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler, Kelvin, Boyle, Ray, Pasteur, etc. were Atheists? I think I'd like to see those quotes. they would be most instructive. And the best way to refute the obvious conclusion to be drawn from the quotes that Kyro produced. So far, it seems that the mantra "real scientist = Atheist" is flawed. I'm eager to see if that is the case or not. | |
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 4/29/2008 8:22:24 AM | Message #113
Kyro
1. You said (among other things)
"His rants about ID being silly and a waste of time is interesting when you consider that[bold] Intelligent Design was believed to be a fact[/bold] by a [bold]great majority of[/bold] the Founding Fathers of Modern Science. Men like:........." and then listing some 21 founding fathers and 27 Nobel Laureates The creme de la creme in the scientific field and all strongly acknowledging an Intelligent Designer in one way, shape or form according to recorded statements or writings. http://nobelists.net/ emboldened parts of preceding quote my (Chelloveck's) emphasis. you then go on to say in message # 120 The theory of Intelligent Design has been around in one form or another since man first started to wonder about the origins of himself and his environment. To think that it is a recent phenomenon I can only attribute to a form of tunnel vision.
I posted the link where I found the information in regards to the thoughts of various scientists in history. You seem to give the impression that the the Teleological argument for the existence of god...a philosophical speculation dating from ancient times is the same thing as the corpus of contemporary Intelligent Design literature and doctrine which has only been extant since the 1980's, and also giving the impression that many of the quoted science founding fathers/nobel laureates considered Intelligent Design (as a body of theory) to be a fact. The most that you can argue is that some of Science's "founding fathers" favoured a teleologicaly speculative view of the world....none could have asserted ID as it is now touted, as a fact.... I say this simply by virtue of the fact that most of the scientists listed were dead before the genesis of the present pseudo scientific ID movement, and could not have made any comment on the movement's claims of "scientific" legitimacy. 2. I think you make a greater claim than can be justified, when you say that ".... Intelligent Design was believed by the great majority of founding fathers of modern science. 21 scientists spanning Copernicus (15th century) to Francis Collins (21st century) would represent only a minute proportion of the total population of "Founding Fathers" of (significant contributors to) modern science. I note that Marie Curie didn't make the cut...was that because, although a Nobel Laureate, Curie was an avowed anti clericalist atheist later in her life, or because she would have to have been described as a founding mother of science??? I am sure that one wouldn't have to research too far or too arduously to find other remarkable omissions that would contradict support for ID as a corpus of theory, but then again, that would not suit your purpose. Your claim is rather more an example of very amateurish sophistry, than giving any genuine validity to your argument. As to the claims made by the film "Expelled:No Intelligence Required".......even Adam Savage and Jamie Hyneman would have to say "MYTH BUSTED!" | |
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 4/29/2008 8:28:22 AM | ^^^^^^
Damn...I hate it when my formatting stuffs up....I think that it ought to be evident which parts of the above are quotations from Kyro's posts and which parts represent my own commentary. | |
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 4/29/2008 8:47:24 AM |
I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here. That Newton, Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler, Kelvin, Boyle, Ray, Pasteur, etc. were Atheists? I think I'd like to see those quotes. they would be most instructive. And the best way to refute the obvious conclusion to be drawn from the quotes that Kyro produced. So far, it seems that the mantra "real scientist = Atheist" is flawed. I'm eager to see if that is the case or not.
RO, you're not trying to put words in my mouth are you ? Point out where I said science = atheism. Point out where I said I can proove these men were atheists. I believe these are just assumptions on your part based on the fact that you might be reading a little too deeply between the/my lines.
Cherry picking quotes can make anyone sound like anything you want them to, certainly you're aware of this as much as I am. We atheists can just as easily cherry pick quotes from a number of these fellas to show that they themselves perhaps questioned the idea of a god ... that's what cherry picking can accomplish. If we cherry picked a number of other quotes from some of them, we could easily give the impression that they were at best, agnostic. Wouldn't mean that they actually were, but we could still accomplish it. This is not necessary to mention but I will anyways : Einstein and Huxley were agnostics and anyone can easily prove it. But e.kyro quote-mined a couple of quotes from these guys and deceptively tried to make them look like they believed in a magical creator. Funny how cherry picking can accomplish this, no ?
E.kyro's attempt to prove that these guys were religious is totally futile anyways. It doesn't friggin matter if they were religious or not ! Their science fields were still actual science fields and had absolutely nothing to do with whether or not they were religious !
Science does not = atheism. It doesn't need to. So long as science is practised in such a way that there is evidential proofs to a hypotheses in order for the rest of the science community to physically pick it apart and attempt to negate, thus either agreeing or disagreeing with a theory based on their test results as an entire group. A physicist can still be a physicist so long as he doesn't try to bring his religious beliefs into the equation. Faith cannot be physically proven, tested, seen, sniffed, or touched and that's why it is not considered science. ID is a religious belief and it fails the science method ten fold. It's so bloody obvious that it doesn't qualify as science.
But here's my point..... it doesn't matter what faith system a scientist follows, if any, because all of e.kyro's quotes came from men who gave serious contributions to science via the science method, whether they held to a faith or not. Their contributions had absolutely nothing to do with their religious beliefs. And you can't tell me that they did. Newton did not dream up the theory of gravity by just simply reading a 2000 year old text and call it done. It would have been challenged by other scientists and tossed to the waste bin. He had to physically observe it, test it, formulate it, and summarize his evidential conclusions. Then other scientists physically ran their own tests in order to varify whether or not his theory was bogus.
There is no 'mantra' that science = atheism. This is your own invention, RO. Nobody has ever stated that a scientist must be an atheist in order to be taken seriously. So long as a scientists doesn't try to bring his/her religious beliefs into the lab, nobody gives a damn.
And THAT is the true nature of science. Ben Stein's attempt to demonize the science community in order to further his agenda to get ID into the science labs is blatantly mendacious. His god should be ashamed of him. | |
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 4/29/2008 9:02:50 AM | E. Kyro, perhaps the saddest thing I've discovered in this debate with you is that you have no clue what Intelligent Design actually is, seeming to have confused it with a generalized belief in God. It is ironic that I, a hardcore atheist and ardent supporter of evolution, would know more about the ID movement's purpose, position, and goals than you do!
The quotes imply that many famous scientists were convinced that God was responsible for the Universe and the life it contains. Even those who accepted EVOLUTION still believed He set it in motion and dictated the laws it would operate under.
And the quotes are IRRELEVANT, as I've said earlier, because we were originally debating the truth of evolution. ID is a term that refers to criticisms of evolutionary theory and posits God as necessary for driving biological change. Someone who believes God created the universe and set the evolutionary process in motion (but didn't interfere with it) is not a supporter of ID. I defy you to quote someone from the ID movement who has this position. I can show you plenty of scientists who believe in evolution who would adamantly deny they support ID and yet who believe in such a God as described above. You are engaging in the silliest sort of equivocation to prove your point. Your argument for ID (in the sense of it being a criticism of evolution and a "scientific" theory) has failed miserably, and you seem to be trying to save it by claiming it is equivalent to belief in God, when it isn't.
But since you mention it, I would like to point out that Darwin's field of expertise was theology not biology. So his comments could be regarded as being authoritave.
First of all, to say Darwin was not an expert in biology is ignorance of the greatest sort. But moving on. Yes, originally Darwin was a trained theologian. So he's an expert there, as you say. Here are some quotes from him which show what this "expert" felt on the subject of God:
"Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted for a single second that my conclusion was correct. I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so, the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother, and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished."
"I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created parasitic wasps with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars..."
"I am a strong advocate for free thought on all subjects, yet it appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against christianity & theism produce hardly any effect on the public; & freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men's minds, which follow[s] from the advance of science." | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
