Einstein in a letter to Eric B. Gutkind, on January 3, 1954, a year before Einstein passed away, sent as response to Gutkind's book “Choose Life: The Biblical Call to Revolt” (just a quote):

"... I read a great deal in the last days of your book, and thank you very much for sending it to me. What especially struck me about it was this. With regard to the factual attitude to life and to the human community we have a great deal in common.

... The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions"

There you have it. This letter was available on ebay a couple of months ago, and sold $3'000,100. Check it here http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/24/einstein-god-letter-sold-for-just-over-3-million-anonymous-buyer_n_2012282.html?utm_hp_ref=religion

So you agree that you have no answers, really because science has no answers nor will it ever because science cannot prove Logical and Historical truths. Humans are taking what is and trying to explain to other humans their evidence through math and science, both man made systems. You are relying 100% of your beliefs on this system that can't prove human feelings such as love or moral feelings of what is right and wrong, let alone prove that the universe yesterday is the same as the one we experience today. Good luck!

I'm pretty confident that math and science, while man-understood... are not exactly man-made.

I'm 100% relying on empirical evidence. Yes. I'm glad that you 100% rely on feelings.

The universe is very different than it was yesterday, I think our science has proven that. We've also proven that our understanding of days and nights is absolutely meaningless (even on the other side of the world).

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012

I've read that quote before as well. Einstein didn't believe in the Bible, that is very true. I as well don't believe a lot of things in the Bible. Einstein did believe that Jesus Christ is a real person, though a lot of people believe that as well:



btw, got these quotes from here:
http://www.einsteinandreligion.com/einsteinonjesus.html

"Not exactly man-made," lol, I absolutely love it! 100% empirical evidence, also lol! Neither side has "evidence." Science can't prove anything happening in history, but has to accept it as given truth to work. I rely on science for many things in life, and I am very very grateful for the marvelous breakthroughs that I get to enjoy in my lifetime, however I do not rely on it to tell me who or what my Creator is.

Piecing together the universe through math and science is like translating a never ending book in a foreign language. We can get pretty far through translating it, but that just allows us to read what's there, it doesn't tell us who the author is.

So... instead of science, you believe in...?

Science and mathematics are understandings of the universe we live in, not man made objects like a computer or telephone.

While it's fun to philosophize whether an event occurred or not and giving doubt into an event simply because we're not currently at that specific time and place right now, if you disregard every basic scientific and mathematical understanding because there's an improbable chance that our understanding of science and math are flawed, but you'll believe in your personal philosophy which is surely bullshit.

I'm just confused why you give so little credence to advanced mathematics and scientific understanding but so easily can have belief in things that have absolutely no proof -- just seem like good ideas.

And no, science and mathematics are man made. Just man understood. We didn't invent water, we understood what it is composed of.

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012

Science/math and deism (believing in a god, regardless of faith) are not mutually exclusive. Everything has a beginning and a cause, logically there is a Prime Mover. In fact, if science looked at space time and found that space is not expanding and we just "were" and had no evidence of a beginning, I would be more inclined to not believe in a God. Since we have a beginning, there's just as much evidence that someone put the whole thing in motion as to not. Compound that with the infinite design of everything we witness, I am inclined to believe that something greater than us put us here.

Speaking of water, we know what it is composed of, but science still can't agree on why ice is slippery. Yikes! Does that mean I should not believe my instinct that ice is in fact slippery, or should I wait for science to tell me why?

Since there is a beginning of our current universe you assume their is a diety creating it? Simple explanation for an obviously very difficult subject.

I'm positive that the scientific method has proven to people that ice is slippery. Observation is just as much as apart of science. Why is it slippery? Maybe haven't come up with a solid reasoning, but I'm positive we'll be able to get that one eventually.

As opposed to your theory (I'm throwing you a bone calling it a theory) of a diety. You would have faith that ice is slippery without ever experiencing ice, knowing that ice exists or what ice even is.

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012

Yes, there is a beginning of the universe as we know it, and yes, a lot of scientists are more reluctant on believing in the Big Bang Theory. What they still agree on is that the Earth and everything on it weren't created in 6 days.

And yes, we know why ice is slippery, in some forms. When water solidifies to the point of becoming ice, it's friction attributes change also. This is called it's coefficient of friction. Simple physics.

@Sonic, the ice question is difficult because ice is a tangible thing. God is more like love or morality and is much more intangible. It doesn't mean you can't experience it, but it is much harder to bring to show and tell.

@Taz, There's also a running theory that ice has an intrinsic layer of water on its surface. Standing on ice generates no friction, but it is still slippery. The scientific community has not reached consensus. This was just a sideshow comment, I'm sure science will nail this done sometime in the future.

Yes indeed. However, his beliefs in Jesus didn't contribute to our society, it was his scientific views of our universe the ones who did, and helped us to understand it, and develop and grow as humans.

Most of the scientists have had some beliefs. Newton for example, was deeply religious, but had his own interpretations of the bible. One of my favorite modern scientist, Dr. Neil Degrasse Tyson, refuse vehemently to be called an atheist:



The point to me is not base my beliefs on what others think, even those with an intelligence way above mine, but to apply critical thinking in everything I read or study, and look for the evidence. By doing that, I just can't share the views of Einsten on Jesus.

Historically, there's nothing on him from his time, the gospels doesn't concur with what we have from the time. He might have existed as one person, or a group of persons. He said some very good things for his time and background, but I just can't agree with his main teaching: My way or the highway. What the hell is that? That's not free will at all, that's an imposition the way I see it, and just don't swallow it.

And in this is what chrisitianity is based on. They make you feel guilty, they tell you that your unworthy since the moment of your conception, and all your life they tell you you're a sinner, hell awaits you, etc.

Contrary to what 12evanf says, I don't need a "why" or a "reason". I think that we're here because this universe permits that in some places, life can arise and evolve. And we are fortunate for that.

And now lets get ready for the game and kick some redskins butt.

Go Seahawks!

Hallelujah!

MexHawk, well said. You and I actually share a similar thinking process.

As I said before, I'm not very religious, as I rarely go to church, but do hold some beliefs in Catholicism.

I majored in Physics, so I'm very "science" minded. My primary physics instructor in college (whom worked for NASA during the summers) talked about his views one day in class. He said that while he held a total belief in science, he also went to church every Sunday (he was also Catholic). He said that science couldn't explain everything, and that it didn't hurt science if one held religious beliefs.

I tend to agree with him.

Personally, I believe in the Angelic-structure part of the Catholic faith. I don't believe any other Christian religion believes in arch-Angels, or that structure, but someone can correct me if I'm wrong. The reason I believe in this? It's quite simple. I always found that part fascinating, and honestly, I hope it's true.

The question we're debating is whether science can prove/disprove everything. If it can't, then your axiomatic denial of anything supernatural becomes an open question. If you're not willing to debate that, then we're pretty much going in circles.

_________________
GO HAWKS!!!

Visit my Seahawks blog at 17power.blogspot.com!

Follow me on Twitter at @17power

I'm not denying a deity. I'm saying the likelihood is the same as a unicorn flying out my ass (hey, there's always a chance). I'm confident though that all major religions are absolute bullshit.

Your argument is that science can't prove the non-existence of a deity, which is backwards. Why don't you use the scientific method (or common sense) to prove that a deity does exist.

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012

It's been my experience that pretty much all debates/discussions about religion vs. science go in circles.

_________________
Talent can get you to the playoffs.
It takes character to win when you get there.

This about sums up how I feel about Christianity.

_________________
Feel free to contact me if you need legal assistance. I have a great lawyer that helped me with an ex who violated my privacy and kept harassing me on MySpace and Facebook. He's very good. And there is legal precedent. - linuxpro

He is hold back the legion of boom - skater18000

One thing has been overlooked with this argument: time. Sure science cannot prove/disprove everything. But as Neil DeGrasse Tyson so eloquently put it:

“God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance.”

How much more do we know about this world than we did just 500 years ago? 500 years is less than an eyeblink in time, and yet we have learned so much truth--truth that is verifiable and valid. How much more will we know in another 500 years? How about 5000? 50,000? In so many ways, science unlocks the mysteries of the universe. And it will continue to do so, long after we are gone.

Allowing one's mind to wander into the supernatural just because science cannot disprove in this minute that the supernatural option exists? I just don't understand that mindset. As Sonic has illustrated, the idea of unicorns flying out of his ass has 100% as much validity as leprechauns, wizards, mermaids...or god. All of them are on equal footing when it comes right down to it, because all of them have the same amount of verifiable proof: absolutely zero.

_________________
There is no honor amongst thieves and bandwagon jumpers.

More to the point, while we understand why ice is slippery, what is interesting is that water is the only liquid - as far as I know, anyway - to expand in its solid state. This is completely opposite of all other chemical compounds or materials. And the fact that all others contract, and yet water expands, is very vital to life on earth. And that leads to at least a tip of the hat to the notion that it is not by coincidence.

_________________
I blog, I tweet. When I'm not writing or goofing around on Seahawks.NET.

What? Seriously?

Actually, water becomes less dense at and near freezing because Hydrogen likes to form a network of bonds... thanks to the decreasing thermal energy that would normally shake these bonds out of position.

And no, water is NOT the only compound that becomes less dense when it becomes a solid.. in fact sometimes water DOES NOT becomes less dense (HDA).

I can confidently say that we adapted to water more than water was made for us.

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012