[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 292 KB, 806x746, albert-einstein-09.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5852379 No.5852379 [Reply] [Original]

"Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble."
- Albert Einstein

How does it feel when one of the greatest minds to ever walk this Earth believed in magical invisible entities?

Check and mate, materialists.

>> No.5852382

>>5852379
As a harsh reminder of how much insanity there is yet to overcome even among our greatest.

>> No.5852386

I makes me feel good since it reminds me hat I am still free of such problems.

>> No.5852391

On the other hand, however, every one who is seriously engaged in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. The pursuit of science leads therefore to a religious feeling of a special kind, which differs essentially from the religiosity of more naive people.

>> No.5852389

Einstein's god was the laws of physics. He was pretty much an atheist.

>> No.5852394

>Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science
There's the problem. That doesn't describe the majority of shitheads on /sci/, despite what they lead you (and themselves) to believe.

>> No.5852395

>>5852389
Does it really matter? He was convinced that a superior form of "consciousness", or "being", exists. I for one agree with him.

>> No.5852396

>>5852394
This. /sci/ is essentially a pop-sci board.

>> No.5852399

>>5852395

Spinoza's God.

>> No.5852401

>>5852389

I see what you're saying, and I agree with you. You know, I encountered something very similar the first time I read St. Augustine's work and philosophy because it seems like almost every time someone tries to argue for or against the existence of "god," they define god differently. i.e. For some, god is a manlike consciousness who intended our existence. For others, as I believe you are saying, some see it more as "the hand of determinism," without going any further.

>> No.5852403

>>5852379
what the fuck was he supposed to tell a 8yo girl and her sunday school class? he came as close to saying there is now god as he could have in that time in that situation.

>> No.5852407

>>5852403
>what the fuck was he supposed to tell a 8yo girl and her sunday school class?
The truth, and fuck politics.

>> No.5852410

>>5852403
what the fuck was he supposed to tell a 14yo boy on his /sci/ board? he came as close to saying there is now universal physical laws as he could have in that time in that situation.

>Anyone can make up conspiracy theories.

You know why you'd be a good history professor? You're good at making up bullshit and seeing what you want to see despite the facts (that Einstein wasn't the atheist you wish he was, so you could continue to idolize him).

>> No.5852412

How does it feel to know Einstein was still a naturalist?

>> No.5852423

>>5852410
topkek

>> No.5852973

>>5852412
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_pantheism

>> No.5853068

"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

People who think Einstein was religious in any conventional way do not understand his beliefs, and he was quite aware of this.

>> No.5853073

>>5852379
That's the pedantic way of saying you are an atheist.

>> No.5853078

>>5853073
>when I say it, it's trolling
>when Einstein says it, it's a way of saying you're an atheist

>> No.5853081

>>5852379
How does it feel when when the vast majority of time's greatest minds don't?

Check and mate, OP.

>> No.5853084

>>5853078
No, in both cases panteism is the pedantic way of being an atheist.

>> No.5853090

>>5853081
Smartest ones do. And by smartest I mean mostly highest grade physicists.

"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness."
-Max Planck

>> No.5853091

>>5853084
I think you mean agnostic.

in related news, Einstein hated the title atheist for himself. He thought atheism to be just as presumptuous and thusly naive as a personal God, and statedly, repeatedly, thought "agnostic" to be a suitable term for himself.

>> No.5853092

>>5852389
I think it's just about as silly to romanticize natural laws as something more than it is as it is to believe in any god.

>> No.5853093

>>5853090
Here's another one by Max Planck:

"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter."

>> No.5853096

>>5853092
>how dare you find beauty in nature
I agree.

>> No.5853101

>>5853090
Planck's views were hypocritical. He himself said that one cannot be sure of one's religion, and even viewed all religions favorably. by his own Logic, no one ever has a justifiable reason for believing in a religion, though he believed in Christianity.

>> No.5853105

>>5853093
Why does that mean that? Seems to me to be quite the assumption.

As well, we've discovered plenty of about why atoms vibrate and what holds them together in quantifiable physical terms, and as far as the scientific community can tell, God isn't included, nor did he burst out at them when they got particle accelerators going and started tearing that shit apart

>> No.5853110

>>5853105
The difference between Max Planck and you is that he had an extremely deep understanding of physics and he was able to draw intuitive conclusions based on that knowledge. Same with Einstein.

>> No.5853112
File: 118 KB, 800x549, maxplanck.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5853112

>>5853093

>> No.5853128

>>5853110
It's a good thing we're discussing religion then. That also doesn't make him infallible, since what we're talking about here is logic, the understanding of which is either present in a person or not. Even einstein published something showing that 2=1 before some random college student showed where he divided by zero, which obviously embarrassed him brutally.

as well, my points remain untouched.

Instead of telling me how smart these people were why don't you explain to me why they were right?

>> No.5853132

>>5853110
see
>>5853068

>> No.5853138

>>5853128
>Instead of telling me how smart these people were why don't you explain to me why they were right?
There's no way to be sure. A leap of faith is required. A leap which they made and one which I am personally willing to make.

>> No.5853144

>>5852391
>The pursuit of science leads therefore to a religious feeling of a special kind, which differs essentially from the religiosity of more naive people.

Of course you are soooooo much better than them.
You are our special little snowflake!

>> No.5853149

>particle soup cannot form an algorithm
but particles can form amino acids on their own
>an algorithm cannot become self preserving
But you can believe in biogenesis
>A self preserving entity can not gain consciousness
But muh evolution
>not realizing existing outside of space-time would, by many definitions, make you a god if you could interact with it. (omnipotence)

>not realizing a god is more probable
>the irony of a god being able to exist by entropic evolution in the manner of a boltzmann brain
>all over eternity (or an instant in which everything would be %100 probable with the absence of time, if absent) when probability increases
>Any other explanation for lowered entropy in the universe
>a singularity forming a universe is completely probable...but this is IMPOSSIBLE, science would say otherwise
Congratulations, you are now agnostic master race.

But this is just a repost for a militant athiest on /pol/
>proofread plz

>> No.5853151

>>5853138
that's exactly why one shouldn't believe in a deity. Why would I believe in something that might not be true? When I take a leap of faith, its to test the merit of the faith, not an assumption that the faith is well placed. Why would I believe in something that you specifically have to not thing to believe in?

>> No.5853156

>>5852407
You will always fail at everything.

>> No.5853154

>>5853151
What one should or should not do is up to him or her. What you really shouldn't do is impose your world-views onto others. You are free to believe anything you wish to believe, but there's a reason why these people (namely Einstein and Planck) came to this conclusions. I happen to agree with them, if you don't - well, it's your trip, enjoy it.

>> No.5853161

I do not care if Einstein believed in God (which he did not). The best scientist in the world could believe and it would not make the slightest difference. The important factor is WHY they believe. If this "great" scientist can present the evidence, then I have no problem believing (which I do not). I will not believe in a deity of any sort merely because someone of a high intellect does.

>> No.5853164

>>5853161
>he wants evidence for something unverifiable

>> No.5853165

>>5853154
then why are you here.

>> No.5853166

>>5853165
I'm not imposing anything onto anyone. I'm in it for the debate.

>> No.5853167

>>5853164
>they want respect for unverifiable beliefs

>> No.5853169
File: 11 KB, 273x185, dawkins.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5853169

>> No.5853168

>How's it feel to know that /sci/ is complaining about something they can't even prove and the fact that some of the greatest minds had beliefs that they couldn't prove.

Go back to khanacademy or read Quantum Philosophy like I'm doing.

>> No.5853172

>>5853161
yesyes but if the best scientist believes then you're probably wrong for not believing because he knows more science and is intelligenter than you.

>> No.5853173

>>5853169
I lol'd way too hard

>> No.5853176

>>5853169
I bet you lynch fascists in the streets cause they deserve it.

>> No.5853242

>>5853149
compare the "algorithm" to the singularity

>> No.5853347

Albert Einstein lived through a time when six million Jews were killed for being Jewish. He did not feel all that comfortable talking about his religion.

>> No.5853349

>christians
>nothing else to feel good about
>must uphold safety-blanket beliefs
>no matter how immoral the ways
So how does it feel to be the reason why your religion is lower than shit-tier?

>> No.5853843

>>5853349
Oh sure, pick on the "turn the other cheek" group. What next, smash butterflies or drown kitty cats? Real brave, dude.
Why don't you mess with a Muslim?

>> No.5853858

>>5852396
but they hate pop-sci

>> No.5853875

>>5853858
They think they do, but that is really the extent of the scientific knowledge of people here.
There are very few /sci/ users who actually study these kinds of things on any respectable level.

Disclaimer: Bachelor level does not qualify. Come back when you have at least completed your Master's.