Einstein’s Brain’s Thoughts
This post is basically a collection of quotes I’ve extracted from this article on “Einstein and Faith” in Time magazine. I find them profound and important in today’s debate between atheists and theists. For one of the most brilliant scientific minds (his actual brain is preserved!), he still, as we shall see, had some kind of belief in “God”, and even considered himself “religious” to some degree. Shouldn’t this give us all pause, both atheists and theists alike? Take a fascinating read:
The religious inclination lies in the dim consciousness that dwells in humans that all nature, including the humans in it, is in no way an accidental game, but a work of lawfulness that there is a fundamental cause of all existence.
When Einstein was asked if he was religious, he calmly answered,
Yes, you can call it that… Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible laws and connections there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion. That that extent I am, in fact, religious.
When asked if he believed in God, he replied:
I’m not an atheist. I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the language in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but does not know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws.
He goes on…
To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our minds cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly: this is religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I am a devoutly religious man.
Anyway, I appreciate Einstein’s approach that should be, I think, a lesson to all of us. I think the word is humility… humility towards all that we don’t and can’t know. I am impressed with rationality, but only to a point. There is something beyond what we know, and I think Einstein did his best to articulate that in a humble manner. I respect that.
atheism, einstein, naked, pastor, science, theism Share This
I agree David. It is very easy to live a life waiting on, and trusting in, only what has been proven by science. It can even be an enjoyable life, that life. But, when I look up at the night sky, and realize (understand…I don’t think so) that all those little specks of light are just a miniscule, perhaps immeasurable fraction of what is out there in the universe, I want so badly to…hope?…that one day, if not in this life time, perhaps in the…(fighting urge to say it…fighting…must not say it)…….next life, perhaps I will get to travel the great expanse that our planet earth is floating in.
But, my dear friend David, even the most intelligent have an imagination. Perhaps even a desire for the magical, the wonderful. And as much as I want there to be an afterlife, and as much as I want to go on, in some since of awareness after this short, chubby body of mine gives out, I sure hope the bible does not accurately describe that afterlife. You understand?
One last thought: Since you have relayed to us the musings of Einstein, (Coincidently, today I listened to a Public Radio show about the religious thoughts of Einstein) and you are perhaps sharing this information so us non believers will at least humbly consider that there may be a God, which I applaud. And since the information seems to indicate that Einstein was not a believer specifically in the God of the bible, but perhaps a believer in the possibility of the existence of a supernatural creator, (sentence is getting to long, point is coming) will you likewise encourage Christians to humbly consider that the God they believe in may not be the true God…?…or is that an absurd request?
I think what I am asking is, to be fair, in light of the example found in Einstein, that you find worthy of emulating, do you only want non believers to emulate his example, or do you likewise want Christians to consider exchanging their faith in Christ for Einstein’s type of faith…to be fair? Does that make sense? If we are all encouraged to consider Einstein’s thoughts, then we should all consider adopting his brand of faith, what ever that faith is, if any.
I’ll make a deal with any Christian out there, I’ll doubt my unbelief in the God of the bible if you’ll doubt your belief in the God of the bible.
There, that is what I was trying to say.
Do you mean the God of the Bible, or the God that most Christians claim the God of the Bible to be? If it’s the former, I’ll have to get back to you. If it’s the latter, you’ve got yourself a deal.
Randy and Dorsey: Thanks gentlemen. The brain is primarily and almost exclusively self-interested. Brain science is proving that I think. So our brains and thoughts thereof are limited. They can only take us to a point. I believe there is something (thing?) beyond that point. Christians need to realize this as well as atheists. I think my blog, although it falls far short (I’m still trying to find my voice and what it is it is trying to say)… attempts to challenge believers into realizing that as soon as we think we know what God is, God is gone. God is beyond our rationalizations. I originally set out to challenge the church and its members, but I think we all need to realize this. I’m not trying to convert atheists. Seriously. I’m trying to convert myself. I named myself the nakedpastor because I’m inviting people to watch. Atheists happen to be found in the crowd. I love what my atheist friends are saying because it helps me move beyond my strictures.
For the godblind among you, dorsey, what’s the difference?
humility is huge…what a great reminder~
David,
It’s an interesting article, but there is notorious conflict over Einstein’s religiousity. In this article, for example, Einstein is quoted as saying he was an atheist. Either way, what we can be sure of is that Einstein did not follow any major religion or believe in a personal god.
Rationalism is all about using the evidence to form our beliefs, and reserving judgement when there isn’t enough evidence to really know. For example, take the origin of life on Earth. Never mind evolution for now, how did it actually begin? Scientist’s are happy to say “we don’t know, and we may never know, but we’re working on it”. What do we get from religion? Absolute, unwavering certainty without any evidence. “God did it, God made us”. I very much agree that we need to be humble and remember that we don’t know everything, but I think atheists and rationalists lead the way here, and religion lags far, far behind.
“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” Another Einstein quote I like.
There have been many scienctific minds who did believe in God, such as Isaac Newton and Francis Bacon. I believe that they could see that the two can work together quite well.
We all have far to go and much to learn about both God and science. I would love to see everyone excited about the possibilities.
@dorsey:
I second Heliobates question. Which god do the “majority” of Bible-believers believe in, in you estimate?
“I used to think that the brain was the most important organ in the body. But, then I realized, look what’s telling me that.” - Steven Wright
There is much we will probably never know as a species, much that is beyond the reach of our grasping technology. I would contend that it is to that end we employ our imaginations; to fill in the gaps.
But, we should never confuse our dreams with reality. I watch sci-fi, horror, and even religious fiction(loved the original Omen) and leave it at that. Once the DVD ceases it’s axial rotation and the tray concedes its radial-planar treasure, all thoughts of demons, monsters, and aliens(for the most part) quickly retreat to the deep, dark recesses of my brain’s primoridal, limbic system.
The main distinction between atheists and believers has less to do with god-belief than epistemology (checking spelling…), that is, what one does when their knowledge and comprehension hit a dead end. Rationalists are resigned to confess that we don’t know, but! WE DO KNOW that whatever lies beyond, it cannot be self-refuting.
I will concede that there may be a sentient creator-god somewhere out there, even though I’m convinced there isn’t one. I cannot know for sure that there ain’t. But, the traits attributed to this being by the Bible, Koran, et. al., are logically impossible in my view.
I’m a newcomer, so I hope you don’t mind my chiming in?
I’m fascinated by this discussion.
I grew up in an evangelical, non-denominational, fundamentalist, Christian cult. I rejected it all at 25.
I’m 30 now. I’ve gone through several stages of change—from questioning the very existence of God to experiencing personal tragedy and experiencing the silent, indescribable Presence of Something holding me up when I was nearly drowning in grief.
I grew up with the radical zealots of Christianity and have since enountered the radical zealots of atheism. I have also met genuinely honest & kind people of both persuasions.
So, I would have to say yes to Randy’s challenge: I accept that I live with doubt. I accept that I don’t know everything, nor do I have many answers.
And yet, I find great peace in choosing to believe that God is, despite (and sometimes in spite) of all I’ve seen and experienced. More than that, I attempt to align myself with the teachings and life of Christ b/c my children see the way I live, and they believe that more than any words I’ll ever say.
I hope it’s OK that I joined the conversation?
Peace.
I like what Ravi Zacharias says….this is from memory, but I think it came out of his book: “Can Man Live Without God?”
He says the greatest tragedy in the world is this: Man has lost the ability to wonder!
When man looses wonder the following thoughts come into play:
1. Man treats life as chemical -
Meaning that life is lived in a testtube. Value of life is not there. That’s why we can abort babies, we can kill, we can enjoy watching death in movies, etc.
2. Man becomes unthankful -
Who are we thankful to? When you look at life - how can you be thankful to something that is impersonal - or something that is not there? If you don’t hold to God who are you thankful to? Why be thankful to something impersonal? Can they be a receipient of graditude?
3. Man becomes bored -
This according to Ravi, is the greatest tragedy. Man has become bored! Look around - we are not satisfied - we grave more, more and more. When we achieve IT - we are satisfied for a short time. Matter of fact Tozer says somewhat the same thing about boredom.
Now, this is a short comment to a big dicussion, but I thought I would throw it out there. (Job 38-40) PLEASE READ!
14 “Listen to this, Job;
stop and consider God’s wonders.
15 Do you know how God controls the clouds
and makes his lightning flash?
2 “Who is this that darkens my counsel
with words without knowledge?
3 Brace yourself like a man;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.
4 “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?
Tell me, if you understand.
5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
Who stretched a measuring line across it?
8 “Who shut up the sea behind doors
when it burst forth from the womb,
9 when I made the clouds its garment
and wrapped it in thick darkness,
10 when I fixed limits for it
and set its doors and bars in place,
11 when I said, ‘This far you may come and no farther;
here is where your proud waves halt’?
12 “Have you ever given orders to the morning,
or shown the dawn its place,
16 “Have you journeyed to the springs of the sea
or walked in the recesses of the deep?
17 Have the gates of death been shown to you?
Have you seen the gates of the shadow of death [b] ?
18 Have you comprehended the vast expanses of the earth?
Tell me, if you know all this.
19 “What is the way to the abode of light?
And where does darkness reside?
20 Can you take them to their places?
Do you know the paths to their dwellings?
21 Surely you know, for you were already born!
You have lived so many years!
36 Who endowed the heart [g] with wisdom
or gave understanding to the mind [h] ?
37 Who has the wisdom to count the clouds?
Who can tip over the water jars of the heavens
38 when the dust becomes hard
and the clods of earth stick together?
39 “Do you hunt the prey for the lioness
and satisfy the hunger of the lions
40 when they crouch in their dens
or lie in wait in a thicket?
41 Who provides food for the raven
when its young cry out to God
and wander about for lack of food?
1 “Do you know when the mountain goats give birth?
Do you watch when the doe bears her fawn?
2 Do you count the months till they bear?
Do you know the time they give birth?
3 They crouch down and bring forth their young;
their labor pains are ended.
1 The LORD said to Job:
2 “Will the one who contends with the Almighty correct him?
Let him who accuses God answer him!”
3 Then Job answered the LORD :
4 “I am unworthy—how can I reply to you?
I put my hand over my mouth.
5 I spoke once, but I have no answer—
twice, but I will say no more.”
Man thinks he has all the answers, or needs all the answers. We won’t and we can’t. The dialogue between Job and God is classic, although Job probally sat there with his jaw to the ground realizing the importance of WONDER!
That this list is attributed to atheists, who supposedly lack a sense of wonder shows how much need there is for communication across the fence.
1. In the many, many writings of atheists on-line you will find great concern for human life. The religious don’t have a corner on the market with respect to compassion. Additionally, as a free-agent, so to speak, I am unencumbered by the need to evaluate other people’s beliefs before deciding what level of distance to maintain between myself and them. Oh, and newsflash: there are Pro-life atheists.
Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League
2. I may not be grateful to a particular being, but I cherish life. I feel profoundly fortunate for the advantages conferred upon me by virtue of being part of the generation of humans that are living in the 21st century, first-world. The existential importance of gratitude resides in our assignment of value to life, experiences, and relationships, not thanking a distant being for them.
3. What seems boring to me is the eternal choir of heaven. I find a life of awe and wonder in the face of a vast and marvelous universe to be endlessly enthralling.
Some ofMost of the most materialstic and shallow people I know are Christian. There is enough in this world that my 2nd biggest regret is that there will be so much left un-read, un-learned, and un-discovered when I die.In answer to Ravi Zacharias’s question:
YES! EMPHATICALLY,YES.
The good Rabbi needs to read some populist science books. I’d recommend anything by Carl Zimmer. Heck, Carl Sagan bathed in wonder daily. Skeptics and atheists have no surfeit of wonder, john. Adam at Daylight Atheism practically makes wonder one of his atheist “virtues”.
I read and write poetry. It may amuse you to know that Blake is one of my favourites. I love modern dance, unaccompanied human voices, the sound of my daughter’s laugh and looking at the starscape for hours (try doing that while listening to Loreena McKennitt). I had a “buzz” from Malcolm Gladwell’s Blink and John MacPhee’s Basin and Range made me feel as if the top of my head was lifting off.
I also like candle light dinners and long walks on the beach. Just kidding.
I suspect, like many apologists, the Rabbi is substituting rhetoric for responsibility. He’s talking about American middle-class ennui and blaming it on secularism. Odd, since MCA is almost uniformly Christian.
He could do with a stroll through the biology department, or the physics department, or especially, the astrophysics department. Wonder out the wazoo. No God required.
One of the most specious of the apologetic arguments, john. Get outside the narrow J-C-W-V. Joseph Campbell’s four-volume The Masks of God is a good place to start.
Can we - yes - but do we want to ?
My question is not can man live without God, it’s does man live without God.
Polly, heliobates, I would love to sit silently at your table during lunch and listen to the two of you express your thoughts to each other.
“Yes”. Demonstrably “yes”. In your country, a “somewhere between 8 and 12% yes”
Assuming the goalposts of “God” and “live” don’t get moved during the discussion, of course.
My question heliobates goes beyond statistics and logic though. It’s based on the premise that if God does in fact exist, and as such is impervious to authentication, who can say for example what the source is for acts of sacrificial heroism. So again, does man actually live without God, or specifically the orchestrations of God.
If there is no God, of course the answer is “no”. If I on the other hand choose to accept that my mind is limited in the way Einstein described, then for me the possibilities are limitless and I have to ask myself the kind of question I did above.
All in my opinion of course.
Heidi: thanks for explaining yourself. I suspect I’m incapable of that kind of conversation, particularly given my deep and abiding suspicion of the anthropic principle and Cartesian dualism. Our starting coordinates may be so different that we might never know that we’re discussing the same territory.
David: I think I’ll have to blog about this myself. I agree that you’re on to something when you say
I respect it too. And I need to think about it some more.
So very very true, I totally get and respect that.
Oh, I’m afraid you missed the entire point of what we’re saying.
I didn’t mean mere survival in a dreary, nihilist world. I meant really live, as in yes, I want to live, and I love life even though there’s no god behind it all. Of course, there’s really no alternative for those who don’t believe.
If R. Zacharias really meant what John conveyed about atheists, then he laid the faults of a culture of consumerism at the doorstep of atheism, rang the bell, and took-off. This is just a misguided attempt to slander unbelief. He provided a convenient scape-goat (in accordance with Levitical law
) for people to continue their crass consumerism while looking down their noses at “heathens” who spend their Sundays (or Saturdays) shopping, working, or enjoying recreational activities.
On the other hand, he did say “we” not “they.” So, John, are you sure that quote wasn’t meant for those within the fold?
Randy, I appreciate your kind words.
Actually, I think this is better. I don’t know about you, but I write way better than I speak.
Hey….the quotes of Ravi are for mankind in general. I have no ill will towards atheists. Not at all! I’m not hammering, I’m giving some thoughts of interest. Listen Christian or atheist - the question remains the same.
It would be nice to hear some thoughts on the scripture given from Job.
Polly,
Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying.
john: I’m probably completely unequipped to experience the “spirtual wonder” of the story of Job.
Every time I read the story, I see a moral agent torturing one of his creations to make a point to one of his other creations–a point so obscure that he has to turn up in person to explain it to Job. At this point, a light bulb then goes on for Job and he’s suddenly okay with losing everything and everyone he cared about, being afflicted with disease and generally having his life suck, when God had the power to do otherwise.
I’m reminded of the parody of “Footsteps” from The God Who Wasn’t There soundtrack (MC Hawking):
I do get the “wonder part, john. What I don’t get is why the story of Job is supposed to inspire it. Am I supposed to see divine torture as some kind of metaphor?
These are honest questions, not an attempt to bait you. Sorry I’m so obtuse
Looks like someone forgot to close a tag
And I fogot to edit out that last bad word.
Oops. Sorry.
heliobates….very inspiring song!
Life sucks at times. Would it be better for us to be saved from crappy situations and circumstances? Hmmmm…it would be nice.
Thought - In order to have a nice garden - you need some fertilizer. Shit is a good fertilizer. It helps with growth. Life comes with shitty fertilizer moments, yet it makes us into the people we are. I would not be where I am today without a little manure in my life.
Curious of your “moral agent” comment.
PS - What word was that?
heliobates was probably referring to “fuck” but then maybe he meant “hell”….but I like ‘em both on certain occasions…..like when you smash your toe on the leg of that stupid idiotic chair that you sit on at the computer but refuse to get rid of.
I’m not familiar with that word…..
Oh go on…..
re: TAGS
SORRY! MY FAULT! Darn things sometimes get away from me. Like those pesky parentheses in math.
John - OK my misunderstanding, I re-read your post several times just to make sure, but I couldn’t interpret it any other way. Oh well, I’ll rack it up to persecution complex - something I think both sides tend to suffer from, on occasion
I’ve read Job many times. It starts off great, gets dull from repetition of the same stupid arguments from his lousy comforters, and then gets interesting again when god shows up. I’m going to digress a little…
As a believer, whenever I’d watch the nature channel, happen upon a garden or a flowerbed colored in retina piercing electric yellow, violet, or red, I’d spontaneously praise the god I believed made them. When I studied the structures of interlocking amino acid chains that make up enzymes and other bio-molecules, I marveled at god’s handiwork. And when I read verses like this, like many psalms, I still lament my ignorance of ancient Hebrew/Aramaic. I would love to get the full flavor from the original - doubtless, much beauty has been lost in translation.
However, as much as I appreciated the prose, EVEN as a believer I was left extremely dissatisfied with the argument being made. It’s very reminiscent of Romans 9:21 (another passage that troubled me as a believer) wherein Paul refers to an obvious injustice committed by god and then dodges the ethical dilemma completely by emphasizing god’s sovereignty. To me, it just seems that god is saying,
“Hey, I don’t answer to you. I can do what I want. I’m God for me’s sake!”
All those awesome things don’t make god right, they just make him powerful. So, It all boils down to the old answer that we cannot understand god because he’s way beyond us. Believers accept this, de rigueur. If you’ve already accepted that there is in fact a god, you’re kind of forced to. If there were a god, I would expect him to be able to EXPLAIN his treatment of Job and Pharaoh, rather than despotic appeals to sovereignty.
It just seems like a book written by humans who were unable to elucidate the ethical underpinnings of their deity viz-a-viz calamity and other natural “evils”, rather than an adamant maintenance of divine dignity on the part of an omniscient god.
Let’s distinguish between “shit happens” and “oh that shit? That was me!”
The BOJ isn’t a story about God saying “look, I set these rules up and everyone has to follow them. Sorry, but that’s the way it is.” It’s a story about a supposedly omnipotent being deliberately deciding to mess with one of his most fervent believers and when called on it, says “Fahgeddabowdit. I’m God. I can do anything, see?”
What I mean by moral agent is that the biblical God has the ability to do otherwise in any situation.* He chooses to screw with Job to make a point to another one of his creations, but he didn’t have to. And he explains himself by saying “Cuz I’m God”.
As Polly says, it don’t make him right: it makes him God. And you derive your moral authority from a being who behaves this way.
Forgive me if there is a more nuanced way of looking at the story. I do agree that some things are beyond our understanding. Apparently the beauty of the Job story is beyond mine.
* Implicit is the assumption of libertarian/contra-causal free will. I don’t subscribe to that.
Not a cocky question, but a honest one heliobates: If God is my moral agent, who is yours?
Hey john: Moral agency is what ethicists refer to when they’re talking about a person’s ability to make moral decisions.
To answer your question, I am my moral agent, and you are yours. Believers tell me that God is the source of morality, at least in the Judeo-Christian view. That’s why I referred to God as a moral agent—one who is aware of moral consequences and has the power to act on that knowledge.
Darn HTML tags!
Wow….big responsibility to be your own moral agent.
So, if your your own MA - others must be too. Which makes me think that morality is subjective. What do you do when someone crosses your morality standard and they dont think it is wrong? Who becomes a judge of right and wrong?
Thought - Was Hitler his own moral agent? He was! He did what he thought to be right. Maybe one would say that morality is based on community consensus. If that be the case….many followed Hitler.
I know this is only an illustration, but I am trying to follow your thoughts - and think of the dominoe effect of everyone being their own moral agent.
…and think of the dominoe effect of everyone being their own moral agent.
But that is exactly the way all societies have been since there has been societies. Rules (laws) are put in place to govern society, and people then decide if they want to follow the rules or not. Most decide to follow, to some degree, most of the rules.
Very similar to with Christianity– Christians decide which biblical rules they will follow. They ignore many Old Testament rules, thankful that their minister (denomination) has decided that they are no longer under those rules (animal sacrifice, dietary, punishment, etc) but others cling to many OT rules (tithing, dress, Sabbath, etc). So, the fact that Christians can’t agree on what moral codes to follow is if anything, evidence that they are their own moral agents, each and every one.
So, it would appear that your dominoe analogy is actually working against you.
I don’t think I ignored it, or that it is working against me…..my question has still not been answered. You answered by saying - “see - your wrong”.
That may be true for me - as you say, but what about the one that holds themselves as a moral agent?
I would only add that it’s usually at the periphery of an issue that consensus on morality breaks down. That is to say, only when equally weighted values or principles are put at odds by a given scenario.
What Hitler did was clearly wrong, we all know and agree. That some people disagree/d just means that not everyone will agree with what’s right; doesn’t make right any less right. The standard then:
what benefits humanity = good,
what detracts from human welfare = bad
When conflicts arise, e.g. short term vs. long term benefit; the good of the few vs. the good of the many; the relative importance of certain “goods”, i.e. which ones we sacrifice in striving for others, etc. we humans, whether theists or atheists, are still burdened with the task of figuring it out.
Whether you’re a Chrisitan reasoning from scriptural principles in order to apply them to an unforseen circumstance or a secular ethicist figuring out a coherent philosophy, there WILL BE debate about what’s right and wrong. As a non-believer, I’m OK with that. Like anything else that impacts human life, I believe WE are the ones who have the responsibility to figure it all out. We make mistakes, we grow, we learn.
When I look at the morality of the Old Testament conquest of Canaan, I see, not a nascent morality, but an aberrant one. I do not trust major sections of the Bible to be my moral guide, and I believe I stand on solid ground in rejecting those sections. If believers are honest they will admit that they, themselves, neglect, or tacitly reject, much of the teaching of the NT and virtually ALL of the OT, save those commandments that have been common to every civillization in recorded history.
The above is my moral standard. I believe morality can be logically demonstrated to be preferrable through reasoning and even through economics, to be superior to immorality. While on an individual level, the moral thing to do will not always be personally optimal, e.g. stealing and getting away scot-free, the efficacy of the principles at large in society should convince most citizens to cooperate. And that’s what we see!
Contrary to the implicit presumption in many theist arguments, society is already composed of individuals “doing what they think is best” and NOT by the power of some invisible, benevolent force. We cooperate because most of us recognize that it’s for the best. There’s also the added pressure of prison for those who need more convincing; the odds are high that lots of immoral things will be done TO you in there!
Having mentioned the negatives of the Bible I will say that my personal morality is largely summed up by the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you’d have them do unto you. To the extent I fail to live up to this, I am a moral failure. To the extent I live up to it, I am a moral success. No god will ever convince a person who doesn’t care about morality already, that he should behave differently. When he’s ready to change, he may “find” god, but the change really came from within, first, IMhumbleO.
In ethical theory, anyone with the capacity to make moral decisions is a moral agent.
Morality is subjective in the sense that intrinsic meaning does not exist. However we can agree to an objective standard of morality, in fact every human society in history has done exactly that.
I’ll steer you towards Alonzo Fyfe’s blog The Atheist Ethicist, toward the work of Peter Singer, towards Socrates, Solon of Athens… if you’re really interested. This is eventually going to be a “high level” conversation, not “Morality and Ethics 101″, and we should pursue it somewhere other than David’s blog.
Give me a day or so to kick a post up, and I’ll invite you over to my blog, if you’d like.