He wasn't an atheist. He believed in a god, just not the god. If you know what I mean
i guess he would qualify as agnostic
Edit:
"God does not play dice with the universe"
Albert Einstein
Analytic thinking can decrease religious belief
- Thread starter Apone
- Start date
He wasn't an atheist. He believed in a god, just not the god. If you know what I mean
i guess he would qualify as agnostic
Edit:
"God does not play dice with the universe"
Albert Einstein
No he most certainly did not. He used the word "God" the same way many physicists do, including Hawking. God being the romantic word to describe order in the universe, same thing with Carl Sagan, who said if you want to call the laws of nature God then that's fine, but it doesn't make sense to worship the law of gravity. God does not play dice, refers to his understanding that the universe as well as evolution is NOT random. Its successive improvements in small increments, this is not a random process as its brought on by natural selection. But this does not equate to God. As defined by spiritual or religion.
Yes, one which Einstein spent the rest of his life denouncing and trying to explain the nuance of.
If thats the case then I concede to your superiour wisdom on the matter. He also said that his research is "trying to catch god at his work". If you're saying that he also meant this as a sort of metaphor then that would make sense I guess
Guys c'mon i'm giving you the answer, lol Kepler... was religious he was in the clergy. Although It is my personal belief that had he been born in a more modern time he would have been an atheist... be that as it may many of the brightest minds back then were "religious" in the sense that they were church members etc, but then that was also one of the only ways to pursue science, since the Church controlled most education and had almost all of the money.
This sounds like someone giving concessions upon being pressed, which I'm sure was pretty common back in the day… but even so, if anything, this quote makes him seem to actually despise religion, to the extent that he had to 'clarify' the definition of the word in order to call himself that, and in doing so still refused to identify with a specific religion.
I suppose I could have easily predicted that a thread like this would turn into Christian-bashing but on the other hand, there are other religions, some of which are atheist, and even though I doubt that the study included members of those, I would assume that the same holds true for them.
But I wouldn't automatically discount the value of intuitive thought… a world of pure reason without any visceral connections isn't any 'truer' than one that is largely intuitive… what mostly surprised me is that the two stand in direct opposition to each other-- though I suppose it does give both thought systems a deeper impact as well as greater efficiency if they're kept 'pure' and separate from one another.
I suspect that even an "informed" religious belief can be insufficiently reasoned, since, if a religious belief were sufficiently informed, it might have considered all the possible beliefs out there, including the information that is derived from science and "non-religious" sources.
Some would say that "Faith" is separate from Reason, which seems to suggest that Reason does not necessarily operate in conjunction with Religious Belief ─ which seems to imply that Faith requires an extra "leap" into a conclusion that is not provable through Reason itself.
I would add that reason is a check on religious ideas. It can and is used in conjunction with religious ideas, which are regarded as "absolute truths" by conservative scholars. I have noticed, for example, that religious scholars use logical deduction to make conclusions from religious texts and tenets. Unfortunately, conservative scholars do not tend to challenge their tenets and interpretations sufficiently, even if they explain that opposing beliefs are undesirable, impossible, or ludicrous.
A belief (or "interpretation of belief") that has not withstood widespread, universal scrutiny deserves to be questioned in every way from every angle on every occasion.
Some would say that "Faith" is separate from Reason, which seems to suggest that Reason does not necessarily operate in conjunction with Religious Belief ─ which seems to imply that Faith requires an extra "leap" into a conclusion that is not provable through Reason itself.
I would add that reason is a check on religious ideas. It can and is used in conjunction with religious ideas, which are regarded as "absolute truths" by conservative scholars. I have noticed, for example, that religious scholars use logical deduction to make conclusions from religious texts and tenets. Unfortunately, conservative scholars do not tend to challenge their tenets and interpretations sufficiently, even if they explain that opposing beliefs are undesirable, impossible, or ludicrous.
A belief (or "interpretation of belief") that has not withstood widespread, universal scrutiny deserves to be questioned in every way from every angle on every occasion.
Yes, I just got through reading a biography of Albert Einstein, and according to that, it is true he did not believe in a personal God, but did concede that there was/is much about the universe that he did not understand, and he did not ever claim to be an atheist. An agnostic, yes, atheist, no.
He also went through a deeply, annoyingly (I should think) religious phase as a teenager.
He also went out of his way throughout his life to help and protect those of the Jewish faith, which is the religion he grew up with. He made several comments about how he really liked Jewish people. Granted, he made those comments in Germany in the 1930s when several of his fellow scientists were being harassed for being Jewish, at which point many of the top scientists began to emigrate to the US and helped develop atomic bombs, etc. etc. etc. SO he could have been influenced by the anti-semitic atmosphere and he was upset about his friends being picked on. (And the moral of that story is: don't pick on brilliant scientists, it does not help you win wars.) They even asked him to be president of Israel at one point; he declined. He was always rather rebellious and not one to go along with authoritarianism. Fascinating man, I loved that biography.
And I agree that some atheists are just as bad as the most irrational religious zealots. You can be zealous about atheism, just as much as any religion. Although it does seem to be somewhat more rational than believing in basically Santa Clause.
It is sort of a limited article on the study… but I don't think that intuitive thought refers only to faith. There are other intuitive concepts that reason can't address-- the first one that pops to mind is awe, which to me seems completely outside of reason and yet undeniably integral to the human experience… it's something that's plentiful in your childhood and that a lot of people lose touch with later in life-- I've actually been struggling to reconnect with my sense of awe by traveling… but no matter what you do, it's just not there unless you're willing to let go.
If you ask me, the only time you actually run into trouble is when you try to articulate or explain the intuitive leaps that your mind makes… sometimes things just are what they are and they lose their impact if you try to connect them to something else… so with that in mind I guess it would make sense that reason would detract from, dilute and confuse those experiences-- and I wouldn't say that reason never plays a role in people drawing ridiculous unfounded connections between miraculous events that simply are, and their own belief systems, sometimes for better but mostly for the worse.
To be honest, I don't think I know enough about the difference between intuitive and analytic thought… I'm not sure that drawing connections between religious concepts/figures/rules and miraculous events doesn't require a bare minimum of critical judgment in order to 'connect the dots'… I mean, you do sort of have to discern between Bible passages or the personalities of your deities, and your conclusion does sort of follow from those sorts of connections. But maybe I'm looking at it all the wrong way?
I'm actually kind of disappointed that more believers don't participate in these kinds of threads… if I were religious I would think these types of discussions a perfect opportunity to re-evaluate my faith and think about why I believe what I do.
Last edited:
atheism is a mental deviance 
http://csjarchive.cogsci.rpi.edu/proceedings/2011/papers/0782/paper0782.pdf
http://csjarchive.cogsci.rpi.edu/proceedings/2011/papers/0782/paper0782.pdf
Given that what most people who identify themselves as practicing/holding a religion are only holding superstitions, or sentimental assumptions, this finding does not surprise me.
To those who have made a false inferential leap to assuming religion is negatively correlated with intelligence, it is perhaps worth remembering that intelligence most properly refers to processing ability and facility. The subject matter of religion, which is common to philosophical metaphysics, is generally better grasped by a keen intellect. Indeed, the philosophically articulate consideration of the existence of God is only really possible to those who have completed studies in both the physical sciences and in philosophy. It is no coincidence that virtually all of the great philosophers - ancient to modern - have held some religious belief.
To those who have made a false inferential leap to assuming religion is negatively correlated with intelligence, it is perhaps worth remembering that intelligence most properly refers to processing ability and facility. The subject matter of religion, which is common to philosophical metaphysics, is generally better grasped by a keen intellect. Indeed, the philosophically articulate consideration of the existence of God is only really possible to those who have completed studies in both the physical sciences and in philosophy. It is no coincidence that virtually all of the great philosophers - ancient to modern - have held some religious belief.
atheism is a mental deviance
http://csjarchive.cogsci.rpi.edu/proceedings/2011/papers/0782/paper0782.pdf
The idea that atheism might appeal to autistics is pretty far removed from the idea that atheism is a mental deviance.
I'd probably be more inclined to believe Flavus' 'most people are too stupid to even approach an understanding of what God is' theory.
I also wish that more people would actually think about the two types of thought and the relationship between irreligiousness/religiousness. I think it's safe to say that believing in God doesn't make you stupid, just more inclined towards intuitive thought… and in light of that article on autism, I suppose that your social inclinations have a bearing as well.
The real interest of this for me isn't that it means that irreligious people are smarter-- it's that there are two conflicting thought processes, not that either leads to a more accurate representation of reality. It seems a little bit related to the whole left brain/right brain conspiracy that [MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION] used to talk about before she left the forum to live on a hippie commune and stockpile weapons and food in preparation for the inevitable collapse of society… I mean, even something like the effect that this could have on propaganda is worth considering.
I think you are giving way too much credit, as though people who are irreligious are somehow rational non-intuitive and religious people are equally as bright, but just right brained, that's absurd. 99% of the people who follow religion are NOT Plato, they are NOT philosophers, they are people who simply cannot break away from tradition. I have no proof for that aside from my intuitive understanding of human nature, but I am guessing its pretty close.
There is little doubt that the more analytical folks becomes the less inclined they are to hold beliefs that do not stand up to rigorous analysis.
This is the basis of anti-scientific prejudices we see popping up all over the world. People with deeply held religious convictions are threatened by the tendency of rational thinkers discarding religious ideas.
So the negative effects of this tendency is two fold. One, the rational thinkers who discard religious ideas are depriving themselves of a non rational way to deal with human life's inherent irrationalities. Two, deeply religious people are cutting themselves off from the obvious benefits of rationality.
This is the basis of anti-scientific prejudices we see popping up all over the world. People with deeply held religious convictions are threatened by the tendency of rational thinkers discarding religious ideas.
So the negative effects of this tendency is two fold. One, the rational thinkers who discard religious ideas are depriving themselves of a non rational way to deal with human life's inherent irrationalities. Two, deeply religious people are cutting themselves off from the obvious benefits of rationality.
Hell no, those arguments were more fun, I championed the Cause that Sega Genesis was far better than Super Nintendo! AND I WAS RIGHT DAMNIT!
