Ye Religion Thread

[DaHanG]

He's had conflicting statements about the existence of a god, and the 'smartest man alive' certainly does not believe it is Jesus/Yahweh.

[QwazyWabbit]

Yawn.

Einstein was Jewish and was considered the smartest man alive in his time. He regarded mathematics as the key to understanding the fundamental design of the universe. His famous phrase, "God does not play dice with the world [universe]" was his counter-argument to Max Planck's quantum mechanics. He said this even though Einstein's own photoelectric effect and photon theory of light depended on it. The quest for the Grand Unification Theory (GUT) is a quest for that same kind of understanding. The theory about the Theory of Everything (TOE) is that it will be both elegant and beautiful in it's symmetry and simplicity. The idea that the universe could be explained and understood and that the laws of physics would exist without a Creator was completely foreign to their minds.

Today we know Einstein's theories of Special and General Relativity are correct and Planck's Quantum Mechanics are also correct and they both apply to every place in the universe as far as we can observe. To say the laws of nature arise out of chaos without a Creator is to say entropy can be reversed and matter arises from nothing, assembles itself into complex structures and then spends the rest of eternity in decay. Can the universe create itself? Is then the universe not God? The mind of man is nowhere near ready to encompass the questions, much less determine the answers.

[|iR|Focalor]

End of story.

[DaHanG]

Einstein [...]. The idea that the universe could be explained and understood and that the laws of physics would exist without a Creator was completely foreign to their minds.

It wasn't completely foreign. Einstein certainly did not believe in a personal god, and was agnostic or atheistic (depending on what particular letter/journal you read at the time) regarding a designer of any kind. His phrase "God does not play dice" was a metaphor about his conviction that the more chaotic implications of quantum theory were not as elegant as he desired. The phrase was not meant to be taken literally. His desire for a more perfect/symmetric concept of the universe is also a reason why rejected the Big Bang theory (an eternal universe is 'better' to him than one with a beginning - this was considered Einstein's blunder I believe, since his theories clearly implied there was a beginning).

[quadz]

Einstein was Jewish and was considered the smartest man alive in his time. He regarded mathematics as the key to understanding the fundamental design of the universe. His famous phrase, "God does not play dice with the world [universe]" was his counter-argument to Max Planck's quantum mechanics. He said this even though Einstein's own photoelectric effect and photon theory of light depended on it.

Yes; however DaHanG's assertion that Einstein did not believe in Jesus/Yahweh would appear to be correct, according to Einstein himself: "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."

From his writings, it is evident Einstein was in awe of Nature.  However, it also appears clear he did not believe in a personal God.

Einstein did also reject a certain kind of fanatical athiesm: “I was barked at by numerous dogs,” Einstein wrote, “who are earning their food guarding ignorance and superstition for the benefit of those who profit from it. Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics and comes from the same source. They are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against the traditional ‘opium for the people’—cannot bear the music of the spheres. The Wonder of nature does not become smaller because one cannot measure it by the standards of human moral and human aims.” [1]

However, from the above alone it is not possible to determine whether Einstein is himself a deist or an athiest.  But he was clearly disinclined toward fanaticism and intolerance.

To say the laws of nature arise out of chaos without a Creator is to say entropy can be reversed and matter arises from nothing, assembles itself into complex structures and then spends the rest of eternity in decay.

This seems to be stated somewhat in the manner of a False Dilemma.  We've already discovered and observed processes and laws by which matter does indeed assemble itself into complex structures.  So we're left pondering the cause of the Big Bang.  Even if entropy were violated, why make the leap to positing something as complex as a Creator?  (A creator who by definition should be complex enough to ponder the question of its own origins?)

As Bertrand Russell said so succinctly, "If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument."

Can the universe create itself? Is then the universe not God?

The semantics here seem murky.  Why not instead ask if the universe is just some kind of weird entropy-violating perpetual motion machine?  Why bring "God" into it by default?  Are there NO other possibilities?


Regards,

quadz


[1] Einstein and Religion by Max Jammer, Princeton University Press, 1999, p. 97

[|iR|Focalor]

The semantics here seem murky.  Why not instead ask if the universe is just some kind of weird entropy-violating perpetual motion machine?  Why bring "God" into it by default?  Are there NO other possibilities?

My thoughts exactly. People seem to be conditioned and hardwired to believe that everything is black and white, good and evil, zeros and ones. While many facets of nature display duality which leads people to adopt philosophies like the yin and yang, there is other acquired evidence which demonstrates that there are usually more than two halves to the balance factor. While I do not believe in spiritual pipe dreams and the like, I cannot explicitly rule them out. In any situation, I apply DOUBT. Doubt is neither belief nor disbelief, but the most realistic and rational starting point to begin from when determining truth. Thinking of everything in terms of "with God" or "without God" is simply narrow-minded, much like taking the scenic route while wearing horse blinders - sure, you're going to see some things, but you'll miss more than you see.

One thing I DON'T see: God. People pray and claim to talk to this being that they can't even see. People who believe in imaginary friends and talk to beings that aren't there... in the field of psychology/psychiatry, they refer to these people as mentally ill. Most of the dogma and teachings of these religions contradict reality and human nature. Some of it champions certain types of what I'd call sensory deprivation, which in and of itself helps to fortify a constellation of mental and emotional disorders.

[quadz]

Is this quote from the same source you cited or another?

Oops, no, that's from a 1954 letter Einstein had written.  More info:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/12/peopleinscience.religion
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/17/science/17einsteinw.html?ref=us


Regards,

quadz

[QwazyWabbit]

To say the laws of nature arise out of chaos without a Creator is to say entropy can be reversed and matter arises from nothing, assembles itself into complex structures and then spends the rest of eternity in decay.

This seems to be stated somewhat in the manner of a False Dilemma.  We've already discovered and observed processes and laws by which matter does indeed assemble itself into complex structures.  So we're left pondering the cause of the Big Bang.  Even if entropy were violated, why make the leap to positing something as complex as a Creator?  (A creator who by definition should be complex enough to ponder the question of its own origins?)

As Bertrand Russell said so succinctly, "If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument."

Can the universe create itself? Is then the universe not God?

The semantics here seem murky.  Why not instead ask if the universe is just some kind of weird entropy-violating perpetual motion machine?  Why bring "God" into it by default?  Are there NO other possibilities?


[1] Einstein and Religion by Max Jammer, Princeton University Press, 1999, p. 97

I brought up Einstein to illustrate the folly of setting up Hawking as the smartest guy of his time as an authority on the existence or non-existence of God. No one can "prove" god, it's folly to attempt it. Decartes was another example and the best he could do was the "I think, therefor I am." postulate. Isn't it interesting that in the mythical story of Moses on the mountain receiving the Ten Commandments when he asked God his name the reply was "I am that I am."

False dilemma? I don't think so. The observable universe always runs toward increasing entropy but then again there is a lot of unobserved universe out there. As far as increasing complexity is concerned, these are processes where entropy is decreased in one locality at the expense of an increase of entropy in another. My main point was that the human brain inescapably ascribes a prime mover to every effect. The dilemma is how to escape the trap.

Bertrand Russell was a self-confessed atheist and an excellent writer.

Einstein may never have accepted a personal God but he was still confined by his childhood social programming enough to say "God doesn't play dice..." and to speak in public as a believer in some kind of God. This is what I was trying to illustrate about mankind's inability to escape from the concepts of alpha-omega and a prime mover.

Name something that doesn't have a cause? We can't escape it. We even have to say the "cause" of the universe was the big bang. The end of the universe is the big crunch. Einstein tried and failed to describe an eternal universe. But this all still leaves the question unanswered about the certainty of the fundamental nature of it.

You didn't honestly answer the two questions, but they were largely rhetorical. I wanted to see if anyone would fall into the trap of explaining a self-creating universe or a Pantheism.

A weird entropy-violating perpetual motion machine? Weirdness is "the unexplained", this doesn't satisfy the requirements of the TOE whose goal it is to explain everything. To accept "weirdness" as an explanation is to cop out of the whole discussion.

No other possibilities? I never said there were no other possibilities, I only posed questions.

[quadz]

False dilemma? I don't think so. The observable universe always runs toward increasing entropy but then again there is a lot of unobserved universe out there. As far as increasing complexity is concerned, these are processes where entropy is decreased in one locality at the expense of an increase of entropy in another. My main point was that the human brain inescapably ascribes a prime mover to every effect. The dilemma is how to escape the trap.

By False Dilemma, I meant that when I read, "To say the laws of nature arise out of chaos without a Creator is to say entropy can be reversed and matter arises from nothing", I interpreted your statement as postulating an either/or situation that was unnecessarily limiting the possible choices to two.  That is, it sounded to me as though you were saying, either there is a Creator, OR matter arises from nothing.  To which I would respond, aren't there other possibilities that don't involve a Creator, such as matter/energy always existed?

Einstein may never have accepted a personal God but he was still confined by his childhood social programming enough to say "God doesn't play dice..." and to speak in public as a believer in some kind of God.

Perhaps... although it's not hard to imagine he may have chosen words like God in his public speech as shorthand that would resonate with his audience, instead of trying to describe his intuition in terms of symmetry, simplicity, and elegance in the fundamental laws of nature?

For example, in a 1954 letter, he said, “If something is in me that can be called religious, then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as science can reveal it.”

This is what I was trying to illustrate about mankind's inability to escape from the concepts of alpha-omega and a prime mover.

Name something that doesn't have a cause? We can't escape it. We even have to say the "cause" of the universe was the big bang.

I don't apprehend the notion that it is difficult to escape from the concept of a first cause.  Frankly it is somewhat easier for me to imagine the possibility that matter/energy always existed, than to imagine that some God always existed, who then one day decided to 'create' matter/energy.

The latter solves nothing, and is more complicated than the former, so ... why bother? (I wonder.)

For example, I accept all of the following possibilities:

  1. matter/energy always existed
  2. matter/energy appeared out of nothingness one day
  3. god always existed, and later created matter/energy
  4. god appeared out of nothingness one day, and later created matter/energy
     _{(not that we can't imagine additional variations, but four are sufficient for my example)}

However, even though I accept each of these possibilities, it is clear to me that if one is merely concerned with the question of a first cause, then 3 and 4 add nothing of value.  In terms of the question of a first cause, 3 and 4 are identical to 1 and 2.  Possibilities 3 and 4 simply add one level of regression and a whole lot of complexity--without providing any more "answer" to the question of first cause than 1 and 2.

You didn't honestly answer the two questions, but they were largely rhetorical. I wanted to see if anyone would fall into the trap of explaining a self-creating universe or a Pantheism.

Well - i certainly had no intention of dishonestly answering your questions? 

A weird entropy-violating perpetual motion machine? Weirdness is "the unexplained", this doesn't satisfy the requirements of the TOE whose goal it is to explain everything. To accept "weirdness" as an explanation is to cop out of the whole discussion.

Quantum mechanics (for example) is weird.  Its weirdness doesn't stop us from seeking its explanation.  By weird I merely mean strange and interesting.

What I'm trying to avoid is the default reasoning of "we don't know X, therefore God."  For example, "we don't know what triggered the Big Bang, therefore a Creator."  Instead, it seems there are a whole myriad of interesting possibilities without invoking a deus ex machina.

Here are some fun pre-big-bang ideas:

http://discovermagazine.com/2004/feb/cover
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/apr/25-3-theories-that-might-blow-up-the-big-bang

Whether or not any of these ideas turns out to be very accurate, it shows how much more interesting the possibilities can be when we don't go, "I don't know, therefore God."


Regards,

quadz

[reaper]

Name something that doesn't have a cause? We can't escape it. We even have to say the "cause" of the universe was the big bang. The end of the universe is the big crunch. Einstein tried and failed to describe an eternal universe. But this all still leaves the question unanswered about the certainty of the fundamental nature of it.

the universe itself, it just is, energy just always should exist.  there would be a reason why it should just always exist, sure, so I guess in a way you could consider that reason a cause.

to some people this idea sits better than a god creating the universe externally, because to them it's a much simplier explanation to just cut out god, and for some reason the energy just always exists.  I'm okay with that, I just think there's a huge gap is knowledge, and we are just saying, it appears simpler that the universe exists without a god, but without a good explanation, or any at all as far as i'm concerened.

[deft]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=aHIwUJHAT7A

[deft]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504&feature=related

Checkmate!

[[BTF]5antana]

Religion has and probably always confused me, so imma give this a shot regardless..

I say it's confusing to mix God and science, because there are so many contradictions. I say science is a religion in its own right, it is just slightly easier to prove things, but it has so many questions left unanswered. And while I'm here, regardless of what you believe, we all "die" and either go in the ground, get cremated or frozen, depending on your final wish.

 

[quadz]

science is a religion in its own right, it is just slightly easier to prove things, but it has so many questions left unanswered

I would counter that calling science "a religion" has the effect of diluting the term religion to near-meaninglessness.

Instead of using the term "religion" to describe science, could you instead enumerate more specifically whatever traits you feel science has in common with religion?

You mentioned unanswered questions, but this is not a factor that to me points toward religiosity.  (For example, science should have more unanswered questions than religion, as the nature of science is to probe for new discoveries at the very fringes of human understanding.  Unanswered questions are the very springboard for scientific inquiry.  I don't see how that makes it religious... to me, more the opposite...)


Regards,

[[BTF]5antana]

you use too many big words and deep thoughts quadz  but I'll try to justify that mess of a post that I made.

I think that science has some features of a religion (loyal following for a specific purpose, subgroups branching off into specific areas, a basic set of rules that they must follow[scientific method lol] and can require a lifetime commitment.) It is missing some things though:
-worshiping a higher power
-lack of a central base of faith
-sharp disagreements between its followers [disproving theories, overuse of logic, etc..]

Once again, I'm not big on religion, so my posts may be inaccurate or wrong, go easy on me