Test of Faith.Mark
Jesus reminded people about the command to
A. love and protect children
B. kill children who curse their parents
Jesus referred to a mother and her sick child as
A. his precious sheep
B. dogs
Fathers who leave their children for Jesus’ sake will be
A. cursed for abandoning their families
B. rewarded with 100 times more children
Mark 7:10, 24-28, 10:29-30
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
42 comments:
1. There is no command to kill children in Mark 7:10. What you write is EXTREMELY misleading. It's interesting that no one in Christianity understands this verse this way, yet you distort to argue against Christianity.
2. Can you explain to me how Jesus is calling this mother a dog?
3. You got this one right!
4. Why do you take issue with Mark 10:29-30? This is a promise for blessing to those who leave home to advance the gospel. You lead on like scripture teaches that it's a good thing for fathers to leave their children. You're allowing your agenda to dictate your understanding.
5. We've talked about the ending of Mark's gospel before. It was probably added and not a part of Mark's original gospel. However, this is a simple promise of protection.
Does it bother you that you have to borrow from Christianity to argue against it?
If you were right about the above passages, would that prove that Christianity is not true? That God doesn't exist?
1. Jesus does in fact remind people of the command to kill children. What I said was 100% accurate.
And let’s remember that this was Jesus’ own rule. And he does not in any way suggest it is a bad rule in this passage. Christians understand things in the bible how they want to. Christians can’t even agree amongst themselves about much of the bible and that is why there are so many different sects.
2. Jesus refers to the woman as a dog, the woman accepts his demeaning dehumanizing label and because she answers “even the dogs” (non-Jews) eat the children’s (Jews) leftovers, he rewards her by healing her suffering child. What a sorry character! I guess he would have just merrily went on his way ignoring her anguished pleas and the little girl’s pain if this woman had not said the correct answer. Did I really need to explain that to you?
3. I enjoyed you exclamation mark. Glad you can be so excited about the fact that the person you are communicating with will very shortly be enduring such fiendish torturing!
4. Why do I take issue with this? Maybe because it is promoting irresponsibility, promoting abandonment of family and is a ridiculous lie. A hundred houses as reward?
5. This is just plain superstitious stupidity. Whether it was added later or not makes no difference.
I need nothing but reason to argue against Christianity.
I believe these passages show the following:
1. The God of the bible is barbaric to command a child be murdered for cursing a parent.
2. The God of the bible is an arrogant, uncaring, bigot in this passage for first ignoring a woman then referring to her as a dog and then finally throwing her a bone by healing her child only after she pleased her master with the proper response.
3. The God of the bible is a Cruel Jailer of the most twisted kind imaginable.
4. The God of the bible gives advice that destroys families and tells extravagant lies.
5. The God of the bible tells dangerous lies such as it being safe for believers to drink poison and handle snakes.
We have been over the “proving” thing time and again. Since i can no more prove the God of the bible does not exist than you can prove the Allah of the Koran or Santa Claus does not exist I am happy to simply show what a ridiculous, dangerous, violent character he is and appeal to people’s common sense to see he is merely a human projection.
1. Again, there is no command to kill children from Mark 7. You are right that Christians can't agree about some things in the Bible, but no Christians agree that it should be understood in the way you understand it.
2. What do you think is meant by using the term "dogs." Do you think it would be fair for me to call Hitler a dog? Or would that be unjust and unfair?
3. Who said anything about me being excited about hell? My comfort level or your comfort level with something that is true doesn't make it false. Oh how I often wish my comfort of certain things determined truth.
4. So would you likewise say that those who leave their families to serve overseas in an effort to alleviate suffering (all members understanding the greater good) is a bad thing?
5. Again, your opinion or perception of what is and is not superstition doesn't really matter. Christians understand it as a promise of protection.
As to the rest of your post, all you've proven is that God doesn't exist and you hate him.
You continually borrow from Christianity to argue against it. You MUST sit in God's lap to slap him in the face.
No matter how ridiculous you think Christianity says nothing about whether or not it is true.
All you've really done is shown how you don't like Christianity . . .
It would be utterly foolish for me to drink poison . . . what a preposterous and silly notion. I really can't believe you'd suggest such a thing.
Is it a regular practice for you to ask Christians to drink poison to prove the truth claims of Christianity?
Why would it be foolish for you to drink poison? Do think this passage untrue? Do you think Jesus will not do as he promised? Or do you suspect I am right?
For those keeping score at home: Sorry this is a bit out of sequence. It was requested that I remove some personal information and have done so.
Sooner,
1. I cannot help it if a Christian does not see that Jesus has reminded people of the law to kill children when that is clearly what he did. Now whether he intended people to follow that law (his law by the way) is not clear in this particular passage. However, he in no way says NOT to follow his law to kill children and in other passages says people must obey the Law (this one included) and that the Law is to be in effect until the end of time.
2. You seem to be justifying Jesus calling a distraught mother and her suffering child dogs. Hmmmm. And no, I do not think it right to call even Hitler a dog. Call him a criminal, a mass murderer or something else that is accurate, but he was a human not a dog. That is a dehumanizing and unenlightened tactic to justify treating others in inhumane ways.
3. I was making note of your exclamation point. Are you not excited about hell? Why not? Your perfect God took the trouble to create it and specially design the flesh eating worms that never die and stoke the fires that never go out so it must be a good thing. Your God would not do anything bad, right? So chin up! Have faith that hell is for the best-you can be down right giddy about the whole thing!
4. Those who leave families to help others do so without the false promises of being rewarded with 100 mothers or houses for their efforts. And most do so with the hopes of returning to their families and with their families blessing as opposed to abandoning them.
5. O.K. I relent. It is not superstitious garbage that Christians are protected from poison and snakes. How about we meet at your school and I watch you drink a glass of poison to prove me wrong? We can even have all your students pray to Jesus, ask him to deliver you from harm, for Jesus promises all you have to do is ask and it will be given. You won’t do such a thing because you know you will die.
Again, I only need reason to argue against the absurdity of Christianity. And it is impossible for me to hate “God” because it is impossible to hate something that does not exist.
But you are right that all my rambling does not prove Christianity is untrue. I say it isn’t, you say it is. Let’s prove it with that poison, shall we?
It would be foolish because the passage is a promise of protection no a means of testing if God exists or doesn't exist, or if Christianity is true.
No where in the passage is there an indication that you should use the drinking of poison to test God.
So are you suggesting that if a Christian just happens to mistakenly drink poison (not as a test) he will be protected from harm?
IF, If, IF . . . again you resort to questions about hypothetical situations . . . you yourself have told me that is not the best thing to do.
One thing I know for sure is that the passage in Mark 16 in no way communicates that the drinking of poison is a good test determining anything.
We've had this discussion before too, that the longer ending of Mark was added. Educated Christians know this and do not use this passage to substantiate any critical doctrine. You are nitpicking, and the nitpicking only proves that anyone can borrow from Christianity, distort meanings to support his or her own preconceived notions of reality.
How am I “nitpicking”?
Forget “test”! I am just reading the words in the bible that you claim is the Word of God and the words plainly say no harm will come to believers who drink poison or handle snakes.
And what about all the claims Jesus made to give believers whatever they asked for? Shouldn’t your student’s prayers of protection let you drink poison without harm? Or am I “nitpicking” about the many claims Jesus made too?
Whatever is asked must be in accordance with the will of God.
Christians understand this. I know what your objections will be. You will do what you usually do, borrow from Christianity to argue against it.
The interpretation you usually espouse about some of these things are you're own twisted versions and of what he Bible says and are not interpretations held by Christians.
You might actually have a case if all Christians interpreted things as you do.
Homesick - can I ask what is the correct Christian interpreation of of "Honor your father and your mother, and ‘Whoever curses his father or mother must certainly be put to death". Does this mean that if your child says "dammit", you should kill him? Of course, christians do not interpret it that way. That's because it's a ridiculous order. But that IS WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS IN PLAIN LANGUAGE. Do you not see that you take some verses to follow, and ignore others that do not fit your belief system? And then you accuse atheists of taking text out of context or interpreting incorrectly? There is no other way to interpret this verse. A child could understand it because it is so clear. And why do you keep saying that John "borrows from christianity to argue against christianity?" I have no clue what that means. It seems to me that you have a tendency to avoid answering direct questions.
Sooner,
You say “Whatever is asked must be in accordance with the will of God. Christians understand this.”
They “understand” this?
How so? It is not biblical. Jesus never says “Ask whatever you want and it will be given to you— BUT WHATEVER YOU ASK MUST BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE WILL OF GOD.”
How silly is that? Talk about holy loop holes! God can’t lose.
They “understand” it because that is how they explain all the broken promises Jesus made, all the countless unanswered prayers. Can’t be God’s fault it must be ours! We aren’t asking for the right things! I am sure the little girl takes comfort knowing it just must not have been in “accordance” with God’s will to make daddy stop sexually abusing her. Good thing the little homeless boy (properly raised in the church of course) “understands” that his unanswered prayers for a bed of his own just aren’t in “accordance” with the will of God.
I like pointing out that atheists must borrow from Christianity to argue against it. The atheist has to sit in God's lap to slap him in the face. The atheist continually says God doesn't exist but affirms how much hates Him!
Just to be sure we are on the same page, could you give me the chapter and verse of the passages you referenced?
Logic says it can't possibly mean ask "anything" you want and it will be given.
James 4:3 sheds some light I think. Scripture must be understood holistically. Not just one verse out of context.
Homesick,
You say “I like pointing out that atheists must borrow from Christianity to argue against it. The atheist has to sit in God's lap to slap him in the face.”
This is EXACTLY the language Janet was pointing out to you that is so confusing. She asked for clarification and you just repeat it. What the hell does that mean? (I can guess what you are getting at—or more precisely, what Frank Turek was getting at who said it first— but what do you mean by it?)
And once again, an atheist cannot possibly “hate” “God”. To use your language that is a “self-refuting” idea. Many do however find the fictional character called Yahweh, LORD or Jesus to be despicable.
“Logic”? You are using logic to interpret the bible? Who’s logic? Your “logic” no doubt. And your “logic” tells you that man was formed from dirt and woman from a rib, that the earth is only a few thousand years old, dead people and donkeys can carry on conversations with humans, disembodied hands can write on walls, people can dance in furnaces without harm, dead people can crawl out of their graves and meet and greet the town folk, people can live inside a fish’s belly for days, etc etc? “Logic”... that’s a good one.
What the biblical narrative says concerning the creation of man is not an issue of logic. If Genesis 1:1 is true, the rest of the Bible is possible. Genesis 1:1 explains why there is something instead of nothing. It explains that God is the uncaused cause.
Can you tell me why there is something instead of nothing?
If Genesis 1:1 is true, then the account of God creating man in the same book is reasonable to believe.
I don't know how to explain the borrowing from Christianity thing any more than I already have. It seems pretty clear to me. It's odd to me that there is no understanding of this tactic yet it will still be used. I just want to continue to point it out.
If there is a supreme being, an uncaused cause, one who possess the power of being, one who can make something out of nothing, isn't it possible that this being could make man from dust?
We know that the big bang was a supernatural and miraculous event. It was banged by a supernatural being (Genesis 1:1). If I can make a reasonable case that the God of the Bible is the first cause of Genesis 1:1, then it is reasonable to believe anything else in scripture.
You may not like this first cause, or this supreme being, but it doesn't mean the he doesn't exist or that he didn't create.
Truth is that which corresponds to reality, not that which I agree with or like.
Good morning Sooner,
Thanks for your thoughts.
You say “... If Genesis 1:1 is true, the rest of the Bible is possible.”
But it is not true. It contradicts logic, contradicts everything science has revealed about reality.
You say “Can you tell me why there is something instead of nothing?”
Nobody can. It is a mystery that may never be solved. Saying “God” is responsible for creating everying is no more intelligible than saying “flibbidyjibbidity” is. And no more logical than talking donkeys and zombies.
You say, “I don't know how to explain the borrowing from Christianity thing any more than I already have.” How about this idea—stop repeating it and EXPLAIN it? And if you can’t, please stop using it as it hinders communication.
You say, “If there is a supreme being,.. one who can make something out of nothing, isn't it possible that this being could make man from dust?”
That’s a mighty big “if”. How about I say ‘If there is an invisible pink unicorn...’
You say, “We know that the big bang was a supernatural and miraculous event.”
We do? “Supernatural”, “miraculous”? Hardly. It was BIG!
You repeat Frank Turek’s horribly forced and crude sounding line that the universe was “banged by a supernatural being” Hope he wore a condom. And you say, “ If I can make a reasonable case that the God of the Bible is the first cause then it is reasonable to believe anything else in scripture.” But you can’t! So talking donkeys and walking on water are not reasonable things to believe!
You say “You may not like this first cause, or this supreme being, but it doesn't mean the he doesn't exist or that he didn't create.”
You are correct! And you may love your “supreme being” with all your heart and mind but that doesn’t mean he actually exists.
You say “Truth is that which corresponds to reality, not that which I agree with or like.” VERY WELL SAID! You and I have never agreed more completely.
"The universe is what it is, not what I choose that it should be. If it is indifferent to human desires, as it seems to be; if human life is a passing episode, hardly noticeable in the vastness of cosmic processes; if there is no superhuman purpose, and no hope of ultimate salvation, it is better to know and acknowledge this truth than to endeavor, in futile self-assertion, to order the universe to be what we find comfortable.
“Toward facts, submission is the only rational attitude, but in the realm of ideals there is nothing to which to submit. The universe is neither hostile nor friendly; it neither favors our ideals nor refutes them. Our individual life is brief, and perhaps the whole life of mankind will be brief if measured on an astronomical scale. But that is no reason for not living it as seems best to us. The things that seem to us good are none the less good for not being eternal, and we should not ask of the universe an external approval of our own ethical standards. "
~Bertrand Russell
Homesick, if you ask how something can come from nothing, and that is why you believe that only God could have created the universe, then who created God? If God is all-powerful and perfect, then surely the "creator" of God would have to be quite the talented guy.
And I would like to say that you keep sitting in Santa Claus' lap and slapping him in the face to refute Christianity. And if you don't know what that means, I just can't "explain" it any better. Can you see how nonsensical that phrase is? I'm sorry, I still don't understand.
And you mentioned "context" again. I asked you before - how do you take the hundreds of verses where God commands the murder of entire tribes, women (although I notice that God would frequently tell people that they shouldn't kill the virgins, just kidnap them and "use" them first)and bashing of babies' heads, and put this into "context"? I've never been able to understand that either. If I take this out of context, could you please put it back in for me?
Pink unicorns, condoms, talking donkies and zombies. Really? This is what you have for me? I asked some pretty serious questions and you make light of them by mentioning these things?
Gen 1:1 can be proven cosmologically and ontologically. It is reasonable to believe that God exists using cosmology and ontology. I grant you respect for your position but you grant none for mine. Instead of dealing with the issues on a cosmological or ontological level you bring up pink unicorns.
You hope and have FAITH that someday science will provide you answers for why there is something instead of nothing. Why is my theory less reasonable than yours?
It is on this point by the way that many academicians are not full blown atheists. Einstein, Hawking, Flew, Jastrow just to name a few. There are MANY others.
"Gen 1:1 can be proven cosmologically and ontologically. It is reasonable to believe that God exists using cosmology and ontology."
How is this done, exactly?
And the reason I used the "Santa" reference is because you keep talking about using christianity to refute it, or slapping god in the face, or other bizarre references that I do not understand. If you would FINALLY just explain what these MEAN, we would not get so frustrated!
As far as faith in science, I only put my faith in things that are shown to exist. Science does exist. And I think the main difference between christians and atheists is: Atheists do not claim to know more than is provable. Christians claim to have answers that nobody can have.
The ontological argument is an argument from being. If you are really interested, I would recommend reading St. Anselm's Proslogium.
Also, any entry level philosophy text will adequately explain both of these arguments. I would not do them justice to try and simplify them here.
Janet, You make great points as always and ask good questions as always and as always they are rarely answered. It’s like talking to a wall.
Sooner,
Why do you include talking donkeys and zombies in your list of things I made light of? These are of course biblical things-godly things.
And there is no less evidence for an invisible pink unicorn Creator than for your invisible Creator so why do you get to talk about your invisible friend but I can’t talk about mine?
Of course the condom reference was to make the point of how crude your phrasing was about banging the universe. If you are going to use other people’s lines at least use good ones.
Einstein called your ideas about a personal god “childish” so I probably wouldn’t use him to support your arguments. And may I ask what the definition is of a “full blown atheist”?
I'm a bit frustrated with circular arguments and unanswered questions. So instead of responding right now, I will proffer my opinion on the condom issue.
Clearly, no birth control was used in the big bang because - ta da - there are 6 billion people on earth. That's worse than the octo-mom.
Thanks-I think we all needed a little laugh!
Not sure if octo-mom or the doctor who impregnated her is more irresponsible. But of course Yahweh has to be happy-she is certainly doing her part to go forth and multiply!
I like using Einstein . . .
Was he an atheist?
I will not borrow people's lines if you promise to do the same. I just finished reading Harris, and can tell you like to borrow from him quite a bit.
What would you recommend next? Dawkins or Hitchens?
Seems you skipped my question about defining “full blown atheist” and moved on.
As to your question about Einstein being an atheist...I can answer, yes he was an atheist, but I would suggest you do the reading yourself so you will have a much better understanding of his thoughts on the matter...
Sooner,
I didn’t say not to borrow lines but to at least use good ones if you do so.
I understand what you said, but my point is there were only a few good lines in Harris, and I haven't seen you use one of them.
I am not sure that full blown atheist is the best phrase to use. I guess what I meant to say is that some atheists think that not believing in God is the only thing to the system of belief known as atheism. They might profess to be an atheist, but then start to realize some of the other things that go along with atheism. You're right though, full blown atheist is not the best label.
Einstein was not an atheist. He wanted very much wanted to be an atheist, but the science let him to agnosticism.
Here is a quote from Albert, " . . . to know how God created the world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know his thoughts, the rest are details."
When he got to the place in his research and understood that the universe had a beginning, he described his discovery as "philosophically repugnant." Repugnant, because of the implications that something supernatural had to cause the universe.
There are a number on non -Christian scientists who have had similar views and statements.
Sooner,
Glad you did some reading about Einstein. He is one of my heros. We are ALL agnostics in that none of us know anything with 100% certainty. However, as I have explained before, based on the lack of evidence it is reasonable to be an atheist or a-santaist when it comes to Santa Claus. Your God is the same as Santa to me and it is plain silly for us to consider ourselves merely agnostic when it comes to the reality of Santa’s existence. Right?
Einstein thought of the Christian God or any personal God of being the same way as adults think of Santa Claus. So do you think he was really not an atheist? His “God” was reality, nature. He had a profound reverence for reality, I would guess a far greater reverence than most believers have for the Christian god (which he would consider an idol).
A few of his thoughts:
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? [Albert Einstein, Out of My Later Years (New York: Philosophical Library, 1950), p. 27.]
If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed. [Albert Einstein]
I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil. [Albert Einstein, as quoted in a memoir by Life editory William Miller in Life, May 2, 1955]
It has not done so up to now. [Einstein's reply to a reporter's question if religion will promote peace]
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]
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 influence, the phenomenal world... The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old conception 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... 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 vase power in the hands of priests. [Albert Einstein, reported in Science, Philosophy and Religion: A Symposium, edited by L. Bryson and L. Finkelstein. Quoted in: 2000 Years of Disbelief. by James Haught]
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: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, and published by Princeton University Press.]
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]
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 admiratation 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, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press, p.66]
...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.... 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, address at the Princeton Theological Seminary, May 19, 1939, published in Out of My Later Years, New York: Philosophical Library, 1950.]
The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. Whoever does not know it and can no longer wonder, no longer marvel, is as good as dead, and his eyes are dimmed. It was the experience of mystery-- even if mixed with fear -- that engendered religion. A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, our perceptions of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which only in their most primitive forms are accessible to our minds -- it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute true religiosity; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. [Albert Einstein,The World as I See It]
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, letter of 5 February 1921]
I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature. [Albert Einstein,The World as I See It]
A human being is part of a whole, called by us the Universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separated from the rest--a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circles of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. [Albert Einstein]
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, 1954, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press]
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]
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, 1936, responding to a child who wrote and asked if scientists pray. Source: Albert Einstein: The Human Side, Edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffmann]
I cannot believe that God plays dice with the cosmos. [Albert Einstein, published after his death in 1955 in the London Observer, 5 April 1964, on his problems with quantum mechanics and not, as popularly misinterpreted, an expression of religious belief.]
The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer become 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 convinced that such behavior on the part of representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is 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 Symposium, published by the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941]
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, obituary in New York Times, 19 April 1955]
The minority, the ruling class at present, has the schools and press, usually the Church as well, under its thumb. This enables it to organize and sway the emotions of the masses, and make its tool of them. [Albert Einstein, letter to Sigmund Freud, 30 July 1932]
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, letter, 1954]
You will hardly find one among the profounder sort of scientific minds without a religious feeling of his own. But it is different from the religiosity of the naive man. For the latter, God is a being from whose care one hopes to benefit and whose punishment one fears; a sublimation of a feeling similar to that of a child for its father, a being to whom one stands, so to speak, in a personal relation, however deeply it may be tinged with awe.
But the scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation... There is nothing divine about morality; it is a purely human affair. His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection... It is beyond question closely akin to that which has possessed the religious geniuses of all ages. [Albert Einstein, Mein Weltbild, Amsterdam: Querido Verlag, 1934]
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. [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. Article by Michael R. Gilmore in Skeptic magazine, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1997]
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., Sept. 28, 1949, from article by Michael R. Gilmore in Skeptic magazine, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1997]
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]
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]
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, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press, pp 69-70]
[My] deep religiosity... found an abrupt ending at the age of twelve, through the reading of popular scientific books. [Albert Einstein, as quoted in Einstein, History, and Other Passions, p. 172]
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, as quoted in Einstein, History, and Other Passions, p. 172]
The idea of a Being who interferes with the sequence of events in the world is absolutely impossible.[Albert Einstein]
The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. The religion which based on experience, which refuses dogmatic. If there's any religion that would cope the scientific needs it will be Buddhism.... [Albert Einstein]
The man who is thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of the law of causation cannot for a moment entertain the idea of a being who interferes in the course of events... He has no use for the religion of fear and equally little for social or moral religion. [Albert Einstein, Ideas and Opinions]
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, in a letter to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein]
I am not sure why you went to all the trouble to post all those quotes. You said Einstien was and atheist, I said he was not. Much of what you posted has nothing to do atheist or not an atheist discussion.
My only point is that Einstein was not an atheist (I'm still not sure what you point was). Are you agreeing with me on that point now, that Einstein believed in a supernatural being?
You said, "We are ALL agnostics in that none of us know anything with 100% certainty."
Are you now saying that you are an agnostic and no longer an atheist?
If you read the quotes, it is very clear that Einstein did not believe in God; least of all the christian god. He emphasized this at every possible opportunity.
Sooner,
To suggest that I am now an agnostic from what I wrote is either an example of poor comprehension or taking an idea out of context. Why don’t you reread it:
“ We are ALL agnostics in that none of us know anything with 100% certainty. However, as I have explained before, based on the lack of evidence it is reasonable to be an atheist or a-santaist when it comes to Santa Claus. Your God is the same as Santa to me and it is plain silly for us to consider ourselves merely agnostic when it comes to the reality of Santa’s existence. Right?”
So did you just not read this carefully or deliberately take the first sentence out of context?
And if you truly believe Einstein believed in a “supernatural being” after reading those quotes it is pointless to try to converse at all about anything.
John,
I am confused. You said, "We are ALL agnostics in that none of us know anything with 100% certainty." Yet atheism affirms that God does not exist. So which is it, do you know or do you not know? I'm just asking questions based on what you gave me to work with.
By the way, when you say, "We are ALL agnostics in that none of us know anything with 100% certainty." Do you know that statement is true 100% with certainty?
You seem to be affirming with 100% certainty that we can't know anything with 100% certainty.
Janet,
I never said Einstein believed in the Christian God.
He believed that something supernatural was the first cause of the cosmos.
Here is a quote from Einstein, " . . . to know how God created the world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know his thoughts, the rest are details."
I give up.
Post a Comment