101 replies to this topic

[ToadBrother]

Einstein was not an atheist....he was a deist.

And a very weak one at that. His views shouldn't be much comfort to theists. He certainly rejected all the trappings of organized religion and a personal god.

[Sir Bandelot]

And a very weak one at that. His views shouldn't be much comfort to theists. He certainly rejected all the trappings of organized religion and a personal god.

Seems to me that like most of us, his beliefs changed over time. But that's normal, it's called wisdom. I think in the end he disliked people who thought they knew the answers, people who held fixed beliefs. He saw that as arrogance. In the end he may have realized, everything that we perceive is only coming from our limited senses. Our brains are not capable of understanding the whole picture. That's why Socrates said, we know nothing.

But through evolution and the preservation of knowledge, we come to realize what seemed utterly impossible to us yesterday. That's the way it's been in the past, so many times over, and that's the way it will continue. The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we CAN imagine. Anyone who's into science knows this to be true.

[DogOnPorch]

Seems to me that like most of us, his beliefs changed over time. But that's normal, it's called wisdom. I think in the end he disliked people who thought they knew the answers, people who held fixed beliefs. He saw that as arrogance. In the end he may have realized, everything that we perceive is only coming from our limited senses. Our brains are not capable of understanding the whole picture. That's why Socrates said, we know nothing.

But through evolution and the preservation of knowledge, we come to realize what seemed utterly impossible to us yesterday. That's the way it's been in the past, so many times over, and that's the way it will continue. The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we CAN imagine. Anyone who's into science knows this to be true.

In a mere 100 years or so, cosmology and astronomy (and associated engineering fields) have taken us from barely knowing our Solar System back to to the very nuclear soup that was the Big Bang. You will be proven very wrong in the future. I will also hazard that future humans will merge/evolve with computers so that our puny monkey brains will be supplemented many fold more times than we already are (typing away on the interface keyboard...how quaint, as Scotty said).

[Bonam]

I will also hazard that future humans will merge/evolve with computers so that our puny monkey brains will be supplemented many fold more times than we already are (typing away on the interface keyboard...how quaint, as Scotty said).

Indeed. Been reading some Kurzweil lately?

[DogOnPorch]

Indeed. Been reading some Kurzweil lately?

You turned me on to the whole singularity idea.


The title of the book I want to write is : Where Is My Silver Spacesuit??

I figure I SHOULD be sharing exotic Moon drinks with dabo girls sporting blue skin while taking atmospheric readings on my tricorder. I don't know about you...


Heck...this was over 40 years ago.



Human's first trip beyond Earth...the United States in particular...nobody else has managed.

Edited by DogOnPorch, 25 August 2010 - 04:22 AM.

[betsy]

And a very weak one at that. His views shouldn't be much comfort to theists. He certainly rejected all the trappings of organized religion and a personal god.

I doubt if theists with true faith seek spiritual comfort from scientists.

It is just interesting to note that views of some famous scientists were not conclusive with the findings they hoped and wished to find. The fact that they wavered - like Darwin -, some even to the point of conversion really say a lot.

As I said in the other thread "Rejoice....," if you set out to prove your belief, if you're honest, you must be prepared to disprove it. The honesty is the hard part.

Edited by betsy, 28 August 2010 - 03:10 PM.

[TrueMetis]

I doubt if theists with true faith seek spiritual comfort from scientists.

It is just interesting to note that views of some famous scientists were not conclusive with the findings they hoped and wished to find. The fact that they wavered - like Darwin -, some even to the point of conversion really say a lot.

You've got it backwards scientists, Darwin included, find the evidence first then figure out what it means not the other way around. And I'm not sure what you think it means that 150 years ago a scientist might have wavered (I never seen any proof this is true) do you think no research has been done in the last 150 years? If Newton before he died said gravity was a crock of shite would it change anything? Obviously not.

[Bonam]

You turned me on to the whole singularity idea.

Nice

I figure I SHOULD be sharing exotic Moon drinks with dabo girls sporting blue skin while taking atmospheric readings on my tricorder. I don't know about you...

Haha, I am looking forward to those days also.

Heck...this was over 40 years ago.



Human's first trip beyond Earth...the United States in particular...nobody else has managed.

Indeed. Sadly space exploration has taken somewhat of a back seat since then. The state of NASA these days is a shame.

Edited by Bonam, 28 August 2010 - 05:39 PM.

[betsy]

double posting.

Edited by betsy, 28 August 2010 - 06:14 PM.

[betsy]

You've got it backwards scientists, Darwin included, find the evidence first then figure out what it means not the other way around. And I'm not sure what you think it means that 150 years ago a scientist might have wavered (I never seen any proof this is true) do you think no research has been done in the last 150 years? If Newton before he died said gravity was a crock of shite would it change anything? Obviously not.

However or whatever scientists do to arrive at conclusions does not alter the fact that some scientists wavered (and that includes Darwin).....and some are still wavering as we speak.

I mentioned Darwin because his correspondence with Asa Gray showed the conflict in him.
The following is taken from an old thread titled, "DARWIN," in this forum.


"Finally, in December, Darwin sent up the white flag, conceding that "f anything is designed, certainly Man must be; one's 'inner consciousness' (though a false guide) tells one so; yet I cannot admit that man's rudimentary mammae ... & pug-nose were designed .... I am in thick mud;--the orthodox would say in fetid abominable mud."[/1]16
From this point on, the topic is not as central in their correspondence.
Following the publication of Darwin's book on orchids, however, he asked Gray to look at the last chapter, since Darwin believed that it bore on the design question. Gray's response was found in both his review of the book and in a letter to Darwin. In his review, he praised Darwin for having "brought back teleological considerations into botany." He concluded:
We faithfully believe that both natural science and natural theology will richly gain, and equally gain, whether we view each varied form as original, or whether we come to conclude, with Mr. Darwin, that they are derived:--the grand and most important inference of design in nature being drawn from the same data, subject to similar difficulties, and enforced by nearly the same considerations, in the one case as in the other.17
Gray may have believed that Darwin "brought back teleological considerations into botany," and Darwin may have swung that way in his book on orchids, but by 1867 Darwin had definitely swung back to the other side."

http://www.asa3.org/...F9-01Miles.html

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=14060&st=0


And an excerpt from his letter:

"what is perhaps his most revealing response, a letter in 1879 to John Fordyce, an author of works on scepticism, Darwin writes:

"My judgment often fluctuates…. Whether a man deserves to be called a theist depends on the definition of the term … In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. — I think that generally (and more and more so as I grow older), but not always, — that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind."

http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/what-did-darwin-believe-article

Edited by betsy, 30 August 2010 - 08:05 AM.

[TrueMetis]

However or whatever scientists do to arrive at conclusions does not alter the fact that some scientists wavered (and that includes Darwin).....and some are still wavering as we speak.

Again that means absolutely nothing.

I mentioned Darwin because his correspondence with Asa Gray showed the conflict in him.
The following is taken from an old thread titled, "DARWIN," in this forum.



Gray may have believed that Darwin "brought back teleological considerations into botany," and Darwin may have swung that way in his book on orchids, but by 1867 Darwin had definitely swung back to the other side."

You should read you sources more carefully. But again I have to mention that even if Darwin himself said evolution was entirely false that doesn't make it true. You want to know what Darwin really thought try reading On the Origin of Species.

http://www.asa3.org/...F9-01Miles.html

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=14060&st=0

First link doesn't work, second is a thread where you got your ass kicked.

[ToadBrother]

I doubt if theists with true faith seek spiritual comfort from scientists.

And yet so many seem to determined to go against Einstein's explicit statements in an attempt to make him into something he wasn't.

It is just interesting to note that views of some famous scientists were not conclusive with the findings they hoped and wished to find. The fact that they wavered - like Darwin -, some even to the point of conversion really say a lot.

The story of Darwin's supposed "wavering" was a fraud. It was made up by the god-fearing Lady Hope. So much for the moral highground belonging to the theists.

As I said in the other thread "Rejoice....," if you set out to prove your belief, if you're honest, you must be prepared to disprove it. The honesty is the hard part.

I'm not setting out to prove anything.

[betsy]

The story of Darwin's supposed "wavering" was a fraud. It was made up by the god-fearing Lady Hope. So much for the moral highground belonging to the theists.

I am not talking about his alleged conversion near the time of his death. So the reference to Lady Hope is irrelevant.

I am talking about his waverings. Darwin himself - in that letter which he wrote Fordyce - clearly stated his own admittance regarding what he called his FLUCTUATIONS !

His long correspondence with ASA GRAY also clearly shows his spiritual torment!

Speaking as a believer in God, what fascinates (is that the right word?) me about scientists is the awful position they must find themselves in when they find science inevitably pointing to the existence of "Design"...or "Intelligent Design".....their sort of acknowledgement of a God.

I am not setting out to prove anything either. As a believer I don't need any. I was just referring to scientists and people who set out to do their own investigative work to prove their belief.

Edited by betsy, 29 August 2010 - 04:11 AM.

[betsy]

Sorry. Double posting.

Edited by betsy, 29 August 2010 - 04:08 AM.

[TrueMetis]

Speaking as a believer in God, what fascinates (is that the right word?) me about scientists is the awful position they must find themselves in when they find science inevitably pointing to the existence of "Design"...or "Intelligent Design".....their sort of acknowledgement of a God.

This is only true if you are deluded enough to think 1) That there is actually evidence supporting creationism and 2) There aren't any religious scientists, there are plenty of them most of them think of evolution as the work of a god.

Edited by TrueMetis, 29 August 2010 - 03:30 AM.