In the Words of Albert Einstein
Published on June 6, 2009 By KFC Kickin For Christ In Misc

In doing some research the other day I came upon the following passage written in the private journals of Albert Einstein sometime in the mid 1930's.  From what I've read this was written shortly before many like him left Europe before the onset of the war.  This emigration was known as the "brain drain."  He knew about the impending danger in Germany.  Take a listen to what he had to say back then.  I think you'll find it very informative especially in lieu of where we find ourselves now since he penned these words.  I emphasized a few comments that jumped out to me as I re-wrote his words.

"But even after mateiralism and mechanism have been more or less vanquished, the devastating influence of the twentieth-century secularism will still blight the spiritual experience of milions of unsuspecting souls.

"Modern secularism has been fostered by two world-wide influences.  The Father of secularism was the narrow minded and godless attitude of nineteenth and twentieth-century so called science-atheistic science.  The mother of modern secularism was the totalitarian medieval Christian church.  Secularism had its inception as a rising protest against the almost complete domination of Western civilization by the institutionalized Christian church. 

"In this present day (1930s), the prevailing intellectual and philosophical climate of both European and American life is decidedly secular-humanistic.  For three hundred years Western thinking has been progressively secularized.  Religion has become more and more a nominal influence, largely a ritualistic exercise.  The majority of professed Christians of Western civilization are unwittingly actual secularists.

"It required a great power, a mighty influence, to free the thinking and living of the Western peoples from the withering grasp of a totalitarian ecclessiastical domination.  Secularism did break the bonds of church control, and now in turn it threatens to establish a new and godless type of mastery over the hearts and minds of modern man.  The tryrannical and dictatorial political state is the direct offspring of scientific materialism and philosophic secularism.  Secularism no sooner frees mankind from the domination of the institutionalized church than it sells us into slavish bondage to the totalitarian state.  Secularism frees mankind from ecclesiastical slavery only to betrray us into the tyranny of political and economic slavery.

"Materialism denies God, secularism simply ignores him; at least that was the earlier attitude.  More recently, secularism has assumed a more militant attitude, assuming to take the place of the religion whose totalitarian bondage it onetime resisted.  Twentieth-century secularism tends to affirm that mankind does not need God.  But beware!  This godless philosophy of human society will lead only to unrest, animosity, unhappiness, war, and worldwide diseaster.

"Secularism can never bring peace to mankind.  Nothing can take the place of God in human society.  Nonetheless, we should not be quick to surrender the beneficient gains of the secular revolt from ecclesiastical totalitarianism.  Western civilization today enjoys many liberties and satisfactions as a result of the secular revolt.  The great mistake of secularism was this:  In revolting against the almost total control of life by religious authority and after attaining the liberation from such ecclesiastical tyranny, the secularists went on to institute a revolt against God himself, sometimes tacitly and sometimes openly.

"To the secularistic revolt we owe the amazing creativity of American industrialism and the unprecedented material progress of Western civilization.  And because the secularistic revolt went too far and lost sight of God and true religion, there also followed the unlooked-for harvest of world wars and international unsettledness.

"It is not necessary to sacrifice faith in God in order to enjoy the blessings of the modern secularistic revolt: tolerance, social service, democratic government, and civil liberties.  It was not necessary for the secularists to antagonize true religion in order to promote science and advance education

Without God, without religion, scientific secularism can never co-ordinate its forces, harmonize its divergent and rivalrous interests, races, and nationalisms.  This secularistic human society, notwithstanding its unparalleled materialistic achievement, is slowly disintegrating.  The chief cohesive force resisting this disintegration of antagonism is nationalism.  And nationalism is the chief barrier to world peace.

"The inherent weakness of secularism is that it discards ethics and religion for politics and power.  You simply cannot establish the brotherhood of mankind while ignoring or denying the fatherhood of God.

"Secular social and political optimism is an illusion.  Without God, neither freedom and liberty, nor property and wealth will lead to peace.

"The complete secularization of science, education, industry, and society can lead only to disaster.  During the first third of the twentieth century we have killed more human beings than were killed during the whole of the Christian era.  And this is only the beginning of the dire harvest of materialism and secularism; still more terrible destruction is yet to come."

 


Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Jun 06, 2009

We've been discussing quite a bit here on JU about science and religion and how they differ and how they are alike.  This piece written by Einstein kind of puts his perspective into the whole matter. 

In reading what he says about the benefits of secularism but also their downfall I can't help but think of that phrase of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater." 

Re-reading this really made me look at Einstein as not just a genius but also a prophet.  I think it would be good if we took his words to heart and really think and meditate on what he said here. 

Coming from a Christian perspective I agree whole-heartedly here with what he said.  I'd love to hear from the secularists out there.  What do you think? 

 

 

on Jun 06, 2009

Do you have any references that this is from Einstein? I've googled and only found these quotes in two places: relgious oriented websites and this book: (The Urantia Book) http://books.google.com/books?id=-MfMsljJW3gC which repeats the above word for word. I've looked and can't find an attribution to Einstein there either but check it out I could be wrong.

In general, science and religion live together peacefully until they disagree with one another. The current anti-biology phenomenon in some religious circles is an example of this. Another example was the heliocentric model of the solar system, which was a scientific theory that disagreed with traditional bible teachings, i.e. that God created earth at the center of the universe and draped the sky in clouds, etc, etc., and a similar campaign ensued.

Unfortunately for folks like Gallileo, specific religious groups were in power and he was placed under house arrest until his death. Luckily, most religious folk has evolved since then and no longer uses the undesirable tactics of the past to silence dissenting opinions, whether it's a scientist or a rival religious group.

I don't subscribe to any religion because I feel that if something big and sinister is going on, it's outside the scope of our understanding anyway. This makes me doubt virtually any of the historical depictions of religion and higher powers. I mean, ants have no idea what just happened when a car drives by and they never could... they just aren't built to handle it.

I don't think true understanding comes from fantastic stories about gods and goddesses from years ago. It comes from honest hardwork and dedication. You don't build a house by arguing endlessly over what the plans mean, you roll up your sleeves and get it done, brick by brick.

Science provides the tools to do this, in a methodic and testable manner.

Religion does not.

on Jun 07, 2009

I'm also not really sure what the writings on reglion and society from somebody trained in discovering the physical laws of the universe fleeing from an evil regime over 70 years ago has to the current world.

Things have moved on.

on Jun 07, 2009

Basmas
Things have moved on.

So maybe you should ask yourself where they've moved to.

Haven't you ever heard that those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it?

on Jun 07, 2009

I think Einstein makes some very important points. The question is what conclusions do we come to in the face of science? It shouldn't be ignored, or at least I don't think it should. But I don't think the job of scientists is to tell us what is or isn't meaningful.

Now can someone, looking at the conclusions of science, make a case for atheism. God, or Nirvana? Yes, but that is applying something *more* than just data, and that requires each person to make their own decisions.

For example, I have never been able to find anything that would make me believe being gay is either a choice or immoral, and at the same time I have yet to see a "scientific" reasoning that tells me a fetus is not a living person.

on Jun 08, 2009

Do you have any references that this is from Einstein? I've googled and only found these quotes in two places: relgious oriented websites and this book: (The Urantia Book) http://books.google.com/books?id=-MfMsljJW3gC which repeats the above word for word. I've looked and can't find an attribution to Einstein there either but check it out I could be wrong.

I lean more towards books and older articles than using the internet.  I'm just old enough to be leery of the net.  I much prefer to go to old libraries either my own or public to glean information although I do use the net more and more.  This particular quote by Einstein I had tucked inside a book.  It was written in our local newspaper years ago.  It was taken from the private journals of Einstein so that would be the first place to look.  I never heard of the Urantia Book.   

In general, science and religion live together peacefully until they disagree with one another

I'm a biblicist.  I know that the bible and science go hand in hand.  There is nothing in the biblical account that contradicts science.  While the bible is not a science book, you can find bits of science here and there, especially in the book of Job.  It's not that science and religion don't get along so much as it's scientists and religionists that have the trouble connecting.  It's man's interpretation of the evidence, not the evidence that's the issue. 

Science provides the tools to do this, in a methodic and testable manner.
Religion does not.

Science is all about our physical world while religion deals with the spiritual.  Two different animals.  One should not exclude the other.  We, as humans, are both physical and spiritual creatures.  Quite often one gets ignored for the other.  Both are important. 

I'm also not really sure what the writings on reglion and society from somebody trained in discovering the physical laws of the universe fleeing from an evil regime over 70 years ago has to the current world.

First of all there is nothing new under the sun and like IQ says those who pay no attention to history are doomed to repeat it.  Also, Einstein was proven correct just a few short years later.  We'd do well to listen to the wisdom of yesteryear, instead of being so arrogant we think we know best.  It's good to weigh all things.  I'm afraid in this microwave society we live in today, not much thought and meditation goes into anything anymore. 

I think Einstein makes some very important points. The question is what conclusions do we come to in the face of science? It shouldn't be ignored, or at least I don't think it should. But I don't think the job of scientists is to tell us what is or isn't meaningful.

Me too.  No, science is a good thing and shouldn't be ignored.  There have been many advances to our world thanks to the discoveries these scientists have made over the years.  They have been very instrumental in making our world a better and more comfortable place.  But just as they have helped us tremendously in the physical world, so too do those teachers of the faith help us (just as much if not more) in the spiritual. 

That's what I come away with here thru Einstein's writing.  He's saying both have merit and are important and they can work together.  I believe that. 

but that is applying something *more* than just data, and that requires each person to make their own decisions.

Yes, it all comes down to that doesn't it. 

on Jun 09, 2009

"The complete secularization of science, education, industry, and society can lead only to disaster. During the first third of the twentieth century we have killed more human beings than were killed during the whole of the Christian era. And this is only the beginning of the dire harvest of materialism and secularism; still more terrible destruction is yet to come."

KFC,

As far as defining the downside of secularism, I couldn't agree more. As I read it, I kept thinking, what? Einstein worte this? What? None of this sounds like the Einstein I've read about.  

Do you have any references that this is from Einstein? I've googled and only found these quotes in two places: relgious oriented websites and this book: (The Urantia Book) http://books.google.com/books?id=-MfMsljJW3gC which repeats the above word for word. I've looked and can't find an attribution to Einstein there either but check it out I could be wrong.

This is the same question I was planning to ask KFC. I checked out that site and couldn't find confirmation that Einstein wrote this.

This particular quote by Einstein I had tucked inside a book. It was written in our local newspaper years ago. It was taken from the private journals of Einstein so that would be the first place to look.

So even the newspaper where you found this quote attributed to Einstein didn't cite the source.

on Jun 10, 2009

NoobFukaire


Do you have any references that this is from Einstein?

I think its from the 'World as I see it' but I'm not 100% sure. I own the book but its a decent read and would take some time to find if it does.  In it he does ascribe himself as an agnostic.  As for being a deist, Einstein could not commit to being one.  It appears that he flipped flopped back and forth between the two BUT leaned closer to being an agnostic.

NoobFukaire


Science provides the tools to do this, in a methodic and testable manner.
Religion does not.

Einstein also said 'science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind'.  He also felt that the deeper science looks into space that you start seeing G-D.

NoobFukaire


Unfortunately for folks like Gallileo, specific religious groups were in power and he was placed under house arrest until his death. Luckily, most religious folk has evolved since then and no longer uses the undesirable tactics of the past to silence dissenting opinions, whether it's a scientist or a rival religious group.
I don't subscribe to any religion because I feel that if something big and sinister is going on, it's outside the scope of our understanding anyway. This makes me doubt virtually any of the historical depictions of religion and higher powers. I mean, ants have no idea what just happened when a car drives by and they never could... they just aren't built to handle it.
I don't think true understanding comes from fantastic stories about gods and goddesses from years ago. It comes from honest hardwork and dedication. You don't build a house by arguing endlessly over what the plans mean, you roll up your sleeves and get it done, brick by brick.
Science provides the tools to do this, in a methodic and testable manner.
Religion does not.

Basmas


I'm also not really sure what the writings on reglion and society from somebody trained in discovering the physical laws of the universe fleeing from an evil regime over 70 years ago has to the current world.
Things have moved on.

I feel these two quotes show how people view humanity as being far superior now then say 200 years ago, 500 years, 1000 years, 2000 years, ect ect just because of the technology we have.  All our technology is based off of previous technology and it just piggy backs.

Its almost as if people think that since we are able to 'do' so much and 'explain' so much that this makes us far far superior.  I'm sure if I dropped you about 500 years ago and told you to go get metal out of the ground in Scandinavia I'm sure you wouldn't have a clue on how to go about it.

Most people that bring up comments like Gallileo and how religion/the 'church' have persecuted science/individuals fail to see that its happened in Greek's, Roman's, Barbarian's, Soviet Union, and countless other societies.  SO ITS NOT just mutually exclusive to religous folks who persecute people or science.

Just because a group of 'religious' people do something it does not mean that that represents the WHOLE.  For if you believed that you would be committing a fallacy. Most of the time it takes you to look at their core doctrine to find what they believe.  And gain people will vary from this.

As for the dialoge between science and G-D I think that its good. I also feel they go hand in hand.  Having a philosophical discussion means that both sides are willing to exchange information and evaluate the information.  Then critque the information and make another exchange.  Having these types of discussion is just the exchange of information in such a manner that people can decide which side is more valid.  That does not mean that the two people exchanging information will necessary come to a sole conclusion yet the two should gain a better understanding for what the other side is stating/presenting.

on Jun 10, 2009

Very well said T. P.P.

 

on Jun 10, 2009



Do you have any references that this is from Einstein?

THEPEOPLESPARTY POSTS:

I think its from the 'World as I see it' but I'm not 100% sure. I own the book but its a decent read and would take some time to find if it does. In it he does ascribe himself as an agnostic. As for being a deist, Einstein could not commit to being one. It appears that he flipped flopped back and forth between the two BUT leaned closer to being an agnostic.

Einstein also said 'science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind'. He also felt that the deeper science looks into space that you start seeing G-D.

This reveals that Einstein evidently went through some serious changes in his thinking about the One Lord God. Regarding Einstein, here are comments from KFC's blog HOAXES. Is unquestioned belief in the existence of Almighty God without science blind? Is unquestioned belief that Jesus is God without science blind? The believer of religion doesn't need science to believe he just knows that science will never contradict religion.  

kfc posts:

Albert Einstein says that both go together and they do not need to be exclusive of one another. Science has contributed greatly to mankind and so too has religion. Both have their flaws (due to interpretations) but both have their positives as well. One deals with the physical realm and one with the spiritual.

 

daiwa posts:

If I'm not mistaken, Einstein held that belief in a god was not incompatible with science, but I'm not so sure that he believed organized religion and science 'go together' as you suggest, or that the Bible and science do so.

 

S &JTEARS POSTS

I don't think that Einstein believed in the God that Christians do either. Actually, not really any theological description of God. So you can't really compare Einstein's beliefs in a god, and science, and the Christian beliefs in God, and science, as they are different.

 

Lula posts: I'm with you S&JTears.

KFC # 39

Einstein was a Jew. He didn't believe in a personal God like many Christians do but he did believe in a deity or a creator. He knew there was something out there.

 

S&JTEARS

He may have been a Jew by heritage, but not really through his beliefs. (Does that make sense?) And yes, Einstein referenced God a good many times, so I agree that he believed in a diety of some kind.

 

kfc posts 45

Yes, that's about right. What's interesting is the Christians like to think he was a Christian and the atheists like to think he was an unbeliever but in fact, he was hovering in the middle. He denied that he was an atheist but he didn't believe in the personal God of the Christians either.

 

Lula posts:

I think way too much praise has been given Albert Einstein. He supposedly discovered the theory of "relativity"...related to measurements in the physical sciences.  KFC, think on this....what is Einstein's theory of "relativity" applied to philosophy and religion....It's cultivated Atheism. Einstein's own writings, as well as others who personally knew him say that it's the principle of relativity applied to philosophy and religion that caused Einstein to deny belief in a personal God, to deny belief in free will, to reject the revealed code of morality to which every person is subject and to be a patron of subversive organizations.

It was the application of Einstein's theory of relativity to philosophy and religion that prompted Cardinal O'Connell to write, "a befogged speculation producing universal doubt about God and His creation, that cloaks the ghastly apparation of atheism." Evidently, a Rabbi in New York cabled Einstein and asked him, "Do you believe in God?"  Einstein's now famous answer was, "I believe in Spinoza's god who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns Himself with fates and actions of human beings."

Check out "Spinoza" and you'll find out that he advocated a pantheistic god, one that emanated from matter. Turns out that for believing this, Spinoza was rightly expelled from the Synagague in Amsersdam in the 17th century.

 Einstein popularized Spinoza's god...and the world has been reaping the whirlwind ever since.  

 

on Jun 10, 2009

You're aware Einstein was a deist at most, and that even then, saying "well, Einstein said THIS" is still an appeal to authority fallacy, right?

As far as superiority over earlier man goes, while I cannot speak for everyone, my colleagues in the medical education field and I (students and professors) are aware that earlier man was not some sort of stupid beast and that our technology is indeed one we obtained by standing on the shoulders of giants. If there is an argument of superiority, it is that we are now in a time and place where the scientific method is fully in use and respected. Carl Sagan made the point early on in his Cosmos series that man knew a fairly accurate measure of the Earths size long, long ago in the third century BC, thanks solely to observations of obelisk shadows and clever use of math; Greeks had known the Earth was round in the 4th century BC - the point being that man has always had cleverness and inventiveness.

What we celebrate is that we have made massive strides in shorter and shorter amounts of time, socially and scientifically, to the point where not only would we not be murdering Hypatia as part of a blood-lust fueled mob as a less savoury moment of history had; we would be browsing her works in the comfort of our home.

on Jun 10, 2009

Nephilim_X
You're aware Einstein was a deist at most, and that even then, saying "well, Einstein said THIS" is still an appeal to authority fallacy, right?


Einstein was an expert on Physics and Astrophysics, so maybe not all sciences. I'm not sure what you're referring to here.  Obviously, his thoughts are not muturally exhaustive.  Then you go on saying that he was a deist at most. Essentially, a deist believes that G-D created the universe and then left it to its own devices.  An agnostic lacks the affirmative knowledge if there is a G-D yet is opened to the possibilities if there is or if there is not.

Nephilim_X


What we celebrate is that we have made massive strides in shorter and shorter amounts of time, socially and scientifically, to the point where not only would we not be murdering Hypatia as part of a blood-lust fueled mob as a less savoury moment of history had; we would be browsing her works in the comfort of our home.

Well Bravo! I'm glad you're preoccupied with man and that man is the sole solver of the problems of the universe.  Making man the measurement of all things hence putting him in the center of everything.  Just means that man can only obtain the knowledge that he himself can discover with no standards outside of himself. 

This is one steep slope.  Which lead us up or down depending on your perspective to the point where moral values are either just an expression of personal taste or the by product of conditioning or evolution.  They're just some "custom, fashion, or feeling".  Which will eventually lead to the factor of which values are right and which values are wrong.

Eventually leading to the question of who is to judge that Stalin's/Hitler's/Caesaer's values are inferior to those of a saint?

lulapilgrim


kfc posts:

Albert Einstein says that both go together and they do not need to be exclusive of one another. Science has contributed greatly to mankind and so too has religion. Both have their flaws (due to interpretations) but both have their positives as well. One deals with the physical realm and one with the spiritual.
 

daiwa posts:

If I'm not mistaken, Einstein held that belief in a god was not incompatible with science, but I'm not so sure that he believed organized religion and science 'go together' as you suggest, or that the Bible and science do so.
 

S &JTEARS POSTS

I don't think that Einstein believed in the God that Christians do either. Actually, not really any theological description of God. So you can't really compare Einstein's beliefs in a god, and science, and the Christian beliefs in God, and science, as they are different.
 

Lula posts: I'm with you S&JTears.

KFC # 39

Einstein was a Jew. He didn't believe in a personal God like many Christians do but he did believe in a deity or a creator. He knew there was something out there.
 

S&JTEARS

He may have been a Jew by heritage, but not really through his beliefs. (Does that make sense?) And yes, Einstein referenced God a good many times, so I agree that he believed in a diety of some kind.
 

kfc posts 45

Yes, that's about right. What's interesting is the Christians like to think he was a Christian and the atheists like to think he was an unbeliever but in fact, he was hovering in the middle. He denied that he was an atheist but he didn't believe in the personal God of the Christians either.
 

Lula posts:

I think way too much praise has been given Albert Einstein. He supposedly discovered the theory of "relativity"...related to measurements in the physical sciences.  KFC, think on this....what is Einstein's theory of "relativity" applied to philosophy and religion....It's cultivated Atheism. Einstein's own writings, as well as others who personally knew him say that it's the principle of relativity applied to philosophy and religion that caused Einstein to deny belief in a personal God, to deny belief in free will, to reject the revealed code of morality to which every person is subject and to be a patron of subversive organizations.

It was the application of Einstein's theory of relativity to philosophy and religion that prompted Cardinal O'Connell to write, "a befogged speculation producing universal doubt about God and His creation, that cloaks the ghastly apparation of atheism." Evidently, a Rabbi in New York cabled Einstein and asked him, "Do you believe in God?"  Einstein's now famous answer was, "I believe in Spinoza's god who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns Himself with fates and actions of human beings."

Check out "Spinoza" and you'll find out that he advocated a pantheistic god, one that emanated from matter. Turns out that for believing this, Spinoza was rightly expelled from the Synagague in Amsersdam in the 17th century.

 Einstein popularized Spinoza's god...and the world has been reaping the whirlwind ever since.  
 

I've never said that Einstein either ascribed to the Judeo/Christian G-D nor was I even stating that he believed in a personal G-D.  Just because an individual is either an agnostic/deist does not mean they believe in a personal G-D.

Einstein went back and forth on his definition of G-D.  Now that he's dead (I guess he has found out) there is no way to get a definitive answer nor when was live as well.

On a side note, Lulu, are you alright?  You're writtings as of recently have been a hodgepodge and have not flown too well together.

At least to me they have not been easy to follow. Usually, I can follow I may not always agree though.

on Jun 11, 2009

On a side note, Lulu, are you alright? [/quote]

Yes, never better, thanks for asking.

You're writtings as of recently have been a hodgepodge and have not flown too well together.
At least to me they have not been easy to follow. Usually, I can follow I may not always agree though.

Hmmm....sorry to hear that.  It seem to me I've been consistently maintaining focus from my first comment #7 on down through the discussion.

 

KFC,
As far as defining the downside of secularism, I couldn't agree more. As I read it, I kept thinking, what? Einstein wrote this? What? None of this sounds like the Einstein I've read about.

And you didn't help that much saying:

I think its from the 'World as I see it' but I'm not 100% sure. I own the book but its a decent read and would take some time to find if it does. In it he does ascribe himself as an agnostic. As for being a deist, Einstein could not commit to being one. It appears that he flipped flopped back and forth between the two BUT leaned closer to being an agnostic.

I've never said that Einstein either ascribed to the Judeo/Christian G-D nor was I even stating that he believed in a personal G-D. Just because an individual is either an agnostic/deist does not mean they believe in a personal G-D.

And no one has said you said that.

As to your saying, "Just because an individual is either an agnostic/deist does not mean they believe in a personal G-D", let's examine that by getting back to KFC's article. She wrote:

kfc posts:

I came upon the following passage written in the private journals of Albert Einstein sometime in the mid 1930's.

Take a listen to what he had to say back then. I think you'll find it very informative especially in lieu of where we find ourselves now since he penned these words. I emphasized a few comments that jumped out to me as I re-wrote his words.

[quote]"The inherent weakness of secularism is that it discards ethics and religion for politics and power. You simply cannot establish the brotherhood of mankind while ignoring or denying the fatherhood of God.

If, and in my mind it's a whopping big if, but if Einstein wrote this, then by this last "quote" of his, it very definitely seems as though he would have had not only a belief in a personal God, but saying "brotherhood of mankind" and "fatherhood of God", implies belief in the Triune Christian Faith.

 

Einstein went back and forth on his definition of G-D. Now that he's dead (I guess he has found out) there is no way to get a definitive answer nor when was live as well.

We do have a definitive answer from Einstein himself....

A New York Rabbi asked Einstein, "Do you believe in God?" Einstein's famous answer was, "I believe in Spinoza's god who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns Himself with fates and actions of human beings."

"I believe in Spinoza's god" tells of something of Einstein, doesn't it?

 

on Jun 14, 2009

Did you seriously just compare a sense of loss over the death of Hypatia at the hands of a christian mob to approving of Hitler?

Seriously I'm not quite getting you here. you're aware that hypatia was a pagan philosopher, and a woman at that, right? and that she was brutally murdered in the name of christianity, right? and that unlike Hitler she- oh, forget it. I have no idea how "hey, it's ok for a woman and/or a non-christian to speak up and they shouldn't be punished for that" equates to "goooo Hitler!" in your mind.

And an appeal to authority fallacy means this: when you basically say "well this person said this, and obviously they are smart, so they must be right".

on Jun 14, 2009

First, Einstein is AN EXPERT on astrophysics and physics.  Thank you for your weak definition of appeal to authority but I know what it means.  I was alluding to the fact of how you were just saying a fallacy when there was NO fallacy committed FOR Einstein is an expert in those areas.  I'm not just saying that because 'he's all that' he's a renowned physists.  For ad verecundiam to be true

A. the authority is NOT AN EXPERT IN SAID FIELD (oh wait Einstein is)

B. the authority was joking, drunk, or in some other way not being serious (Einstein wasn't those at the time)

C. the authority in question is anonymous (Nope doesn't fit Einstein)

I did not commit Ad verecundiam.  Nice try.

Nephilim_X

As far as superiority over earlier man goes, while I cannot speak for everyone, my colleagues in the medical education field and I (students and professors) are aware that earlier man was not some sort of stupid beast and that our technology is indeed one we obtained by standing on the shoulders of giants. If there is an argument of superiority, it is that we are now in a time and place where the scientific method is fully in use and respected. Carl Sagan made the point early on in his Cosmos series that man knew a fairly accurate measure of the Earths size long, long ago in the third century BC, thanks solely to observations of obelisk shadows and clever use of math; Greeks had known the Earth was round in the 4th century BC - the point being that man has always had cleverness and inventiveness.

What we celebrate is that we have made massive strides in shorter and shorter amounts of time, socially and scientifically, to the point where not only would we not be murdering Hypatia as part of a blood-lust fueled mob as a less savoury moment of history had; we would be browsing her works in the comfort of our home.

Nephilim_X
Did you seriously just compare a sense of loss over the death of Hypatia at the hands of a christian mob to approving of Hitler?

Seriously I'm not quite getting you here. you're aware that hypatia was a pagan philosopher, and a woman at that, right? and that she was brutally murdered in the name of christianity, right? and that unlike Hitler she- oh, forget it. I have no idea how "hey, it's ok for a woman and/or a non-christian to speak up and they shouldn't be punished for that" equates to "goooo Hitler!" in your mind.

And an appeal to authority fallacy means this: when you basically say "well this person said this, and obviously they are smart, so they must be right".

First many Christian/Jews were killed by pagans as well think about all the works we could have read by them. Wait I don't want to forget the pagan versus pagan violence think of that.

The crocks of your agrument is that we have no need for religion. Science can explain it all and will explain it all. Hence if those dumb (my added emphasis) Christian  didn't go killing Hypatia I could be reading her works right now (that's also banking on that her works would survive considering we're missing a fair amount of Shakespears writing which was ONLY 400ish years ago compared to when she lived in 300-400 ad. I guess you like those odds of her work surviving so BLASTS THOSE MOONCALF CHRISTIANS!)

My rebuttal: "Well Bravo! I'm glad you're preoccupied with man and that man is the sole solver of the problems of the universe.  Making man the measurement of all things hence putting him in the center of everything.  Just means that man can only obtain the knowledge that he himself can discover with no standards outside of himself. "

For essentially you have placed man as the authority with your statement here: "If there is an argument of superiority, it is that we are now in a time and place where the scientific method is fully in use and respected"

There are certain places where the scientific method is not applicable. Since its based on observation(On side note observation use the 5 senses and measuring instruments can be faulty.) and the results of the experiment.  This is both a strength and a weakness: Strength because it means that no faulty human ideas can interfere with the cold hard facts. Weakness: virtually impossible to design an experiment that accounts for all possible variables, and the resulting conclusions holds for everyone, everywhere, at any time. If we look at mass conservation and the classical theories of motions it seemed like that those experiments were correct BUT then we found out that they were correct FOR ONLY situations involving velocities way less than that of light. This is why you can only disprove scientific theories as stated with the classical theories of motions all the experiments seemed to be correct yet something else was interferring with the experiment.  Please refer to Karl Popper, who wrote some excellent materials pertaining to all this back in the 50s (no surprise here I'm sure we lost some of his materials but at a much lower rate than Shakespeare).

Finally not everything can be subjected to the scientific method.  An example is geometry (aka Mathematical Theory), much of science relies on cogitation (or in other words being able to think things through ones own brain) which is a foundation of science and not observation in order to prove something.  If you think about it basing geometrical law on measurement or observation is NO GOOD!

I have not even started on morals.  The scientific method can not really work well with morals.  My point was and is that once you place man in the middle of everything who dictates what is acceptable and what is unacceptable: Eventually leading to the question of who is to judge that Stalin's/Hitler's/Caesar's values are inferior to those of a saint?

I can say that Hitler (you failed to mention Stalin and Caesar) that all the things that they did were acceptable and appropriate along with the killing of Hypatia who to say that I'm wrong now, for with your very own statement we can celebrate all the strides.....yes all the strides with all those people who were elminated and since the scientific theory can't prove or disprove that these actions that were taken are acceptable or unacceptable. 

Here's my rebuttal (not to the above statement but putting man in the center):

"Well Bravo! I'm glad you're preoccupied with man and that man is the sole solver of the problems of the universe.  Making man the measurement of all things hence putting him in the center of everything.  Just means that man can only obtain the knowledge that he himself can discover with no standards outside of himself. 

This is one steep slope.  Which lead us up or down depending on your perspective to the point where moral values are either just an expression of personal taste or the by product of conditioning or evolution.  They're just some "custom, fashion, or feeling".  Which will eventually lead to the factor of which values are right and which values are wrong.

Eventually leading to the question of who is to judge that Stalin's/Hitler's/Caesaer's values are inferior to those of a saint?"

Cutting out G-D isn't always conveniant.

 

 

 

 

2 Pages1 2