Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Religion
In reply to the discussion: Why You Might Have to Choose Between Science and Faith [View all]spin
(17,493 posts)122. Scientists have often been wrong. ...
For example:
Nuclear Power
There is not the slightest indication that [nuclear energy] will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will.
- Albert Einstein, 1932.
Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.
- Lord Kelvin (1824-1907)
British mathematician and physicist
...no possible combination of known substances, known forms of machinery, and known forms of force, can be united in a practical machine by which man shall fly long distances through the air...
- Simon Newcomb (1835-1909), astronomer,
head of the U.S. Naval Observatory
Interestingly while Einstein was sometimes wrong, he had an opinion on religion which I find interesting and largely agree with.
Agnosticism, Deism and atheism
Einstein rejected the label atheist. Einstein stated: "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."[1] According to Prince Hubertus, Einstein said, "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."[19]
Einstein had previously explored the belief that man could not understand the nature of God. In an interview published in 1930 in G. S. Viereck's book Glimpses of the Great, Einstein, in response to a question about whether or not he believed in God, explained:
Your question [about God] is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's Pantheism. I admire even more his contributions to modern thought. Spinoza is the greatest of modern philosophers, because he is the first philosopher who deals with the soul and the body as one, not as two separate things....emphasis added[div]
***snip***
According to biographer Walter Isaacson, Einstein was more inclined to denigrate disbelievers than the faithful.[22] Einstein said in correspondence, "[T]he fanatical atheists...are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures whoin their grudge against the traditional 'opium of the people'cannot bear the music of the spheres."[22][23] Although he did not believe in a personal God, he indicated that he would never seek to combat such belief because "such a belief seems to me preferable to the lack of any transcendental outlook."[24]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_Einstein
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
248 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Darwin eventually discarded religion because it is incompatible with science. nt
Deep13
Feb 2014
#78
His auto-biography makes it clear that he was a complete skeptic at the end of his life.
Deep13
Feb 2014
#85
Lots of pressure from family and Catholic Church, to "accept" God in the last breath; and be "saved"
Brettongarcia
Feb 2014
#199
The human brain is a pattern recognition machine among a great many other things
Fumesucker
Feb 2014
#3
An argument from ignorance as in "We don't know the answer to that at this time"?
cbayer
Feb 2014
#87
so your claim is that there is serious investigation going with respect to theory of consciousness
Warren Stupidity
Feb 2014
#105
Check out Julian Jaynes's _The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind_. nt
tblue37
Feb 2014
#30
I see no major problem in believing in a creator and also believing in evolution. ...
spin
Feb 2014
#8
In the meantime, thanks for your evolutionary idea: religion as materially functional(at times).
Brettongarcia
Feb 2014
#136
My son in law who is agnostic feels religion is the Santa Claus story for adults. ...
spin
Feb 2014
#141
The most fervently religious nations are not the most peaceful or ordered ones
Fumesucker
Feb 2014
#20
Throughout our history, the United States has had a strong religious foundation. ...
spin
Feb 2014
#51
Name one naturalistic theory that has been supplanted by a supernatural explanation...
Act_of_Reparation
Feb 2014
#131
That's a fair challenge and impossible to do as a supernatural event can't be explained by
spin
Feb 2014
#139
Of course not. Your question was how did scientists figure out that they were wrong? ...
spin
Feb 2014
#146
ah you seem to think science is another religiuon that accepts things "as gospel".
Warren Stupidity
Feb 2014
#186
"building cathedrals" really - no science there, just a minor adjunct to cathedral building.
Warren Stupidity
Feb 2014
#161
A cursory search on PBS shows at least 2 NOVA's and such devoted to cathedral building
Heddi
Feb 2014
#162
Once Christians accept evolution, they have a big question: why did Jesus die and get resurrected?
muriel_volestrangler
Feb 2014
#27
He meant entomology. Clearly the study of insects flows naturally from a discussion of theology.
rug
Feb 2014
#65
Beachwood has a good point that everyone is avoiding: what about all the science religion negates?
Brettongarcia
Feb 2014
#133
Besides literal interpretation like creationism, what science doe religion negate?
cbayer
Feb 2014
#135
Most physical "miracles" conflict with science. Liberals therefore often read them as metaphors.
Brettongarcia
Feb 2014
#197
You are unable to hold both concepts in your brain and don't believe in a god or
cbayer
Feb 2014
#50
The problem, as I see it, is that we teach our children faith before we teach them science
Beachwood
Feb 2014
#32
I think that when one speaks of something as concrete and definitive as weight,
cbayer
Feb 2014
#124
Wait, it seems that your reasoning is the black or white, reductive thinking here.
cbayer
Feb 2014
#108
Again, your entire argument hinges upon your equivocation of the word "faith."
trotsky
Feb 2014
#112
Faith comes into marriage because you are getting married with the belief that it will work.
Fortinbras Armstrong
Feb 2014
#210
The only way my comment is "nonsense" is if you were to get married
Fortinbras Armstrong
Feb 2014
#228
They may change a lot, they may change a bit, they might not change much at all.
trotsky
Feb 2014
#235
"If you go into a marriage with the faith that your partner won't change, you're a fool."
Fortinbras Armstrong
Feb 2014
#236
Many have thought Science and Religion are incompatible, but both useful. So: compartmentalize
Brettongarcia
Feb 2014
#116
Did people misunderstand the Bible - and the natural science buried beneath "solstice"?
Brettongarcia
Feb 2014
#198
Religion is the pretension of knowledge, not the pursuit of it, it provides easy answers, but not...
Humanist_Activist
Feb 2014
#202
What religion only asks questions, and doesn't provide answers? I can think of none that don't...
Humanist_Activist
Feb 2014
#206
"The claims of religion are untestable by their very nature..." This, right here, is my point...
Humanist_Activist
Feb 2014
#208
Why do you want to change the meaning of words to become meaningless?
Humanist_Activist
Feb 2014
#221
Uhm, those aren't knowledge, you may have knowledge of them, they exist, but they aren't...
Humanist_Activist
Feb 2014
#223
Your definitions of God are all over the place, some of them make me a theist, which is just silly.
Humanist_Activist
Feb 2014
#225
A definition of knowledge which flies in the face of centuries of epistemological research?
Act_of_Reparation
Feb 2014
#231
Is reality subjective in your world? I ask because you are basically arguing that words...
Humanist_Activist
Feb 2014
#233
Bullshit, straight up, unadulterated bullshit. You and him make belief equal knowledge...
Humanist_Activist
Feb 2014
#241
Translation: Humanist-Activist disagrees with me, but doesn't have a meaningful argument
Fortinbras Armstrong
Feb 2014
#242
Actually I have been asking for an example of knowledge gleaned from belief or faith...
Humanist_Activist
Feb 2014
#245
The claims of Religious "knowledge" DO seem FAR less certain than Science
Brettongarcia
Feb 2014
#212
Okasha: Time after time you've asked for facts. And I've furnished them - while you have not
Brettongarcia
Feb 2014
#219
Learn to see generic similarities and larger patterns: Moses touches/grabs a snake is not related?
Brettongarcia
Feb 2014
#234
When studying culture, Social Scientists look for larger patterns; major phenomena
Brettongarcia
Mar 2014
#248
What I am is someone who types very quickly and recklessly, but I am none of things
cbayer
Feb 2014
#220
"Facts" explicitly and by name, figure in both definitions of knowledge listed above.
Brettongarcia
Feb 2014
#218