Insight in into Einstein's beliefs in God and the Jewish people

[Devastatin Dave]

The wisdom of any man, even the smartest ever born on the Earth, doesn't mean much. If God exists, then the wisdom of the wisest man on Earth is foolishness to God. Utlimately, all & any statements about there being no God from the mouth of any man, is merely unfounded speculation. It cannot be proven. Therefore it is unimportant what any man thinks. God or the lack of God is what it is, speculation about it from the smartest man on Earth has no bearing on whether God exists or not.

If the letter described in the article is true, though, then Einstein does indeed lose a lot of credibility. What makes his lack of belief in God - which is simply a guess - any "less childish" than belief in God? There isn't any reasonable answer to that. Therefore, Einstein making a definitive, derogatory statement about the belief in God is based on nothing other than his own personal emotions, not logic or science. As such, Einstein's remark was itself childish.

It should also be noted that Jesus said it is good to accept him and God as children accept him. So while Einstein meant his "childish" comments as a slur against belief in God, in fact a "childish belief in God" may indeed be the best possible thing for human beings to have.

So far, the best and most thoughtful post within this thread. Thank you Nav.

[Tribesman]

So far, the best and most thoughtful post within this thread.

Don't be silly Dave apart from it being largely nonsense for it to be the best and most thoughtful it would discuss the actual topic . I mean seriously .....

Therefore, Einstein making a definitive, derogatory statement about the belief in God is based on nothing other than his own personal emotions, not logic or science. As such, Einstein's remark was itself childish.

Here have a clue , you asked .... I would like to hear how he came to his conclusions and whether he used scientific reasoning for this. ...so what was the letter , what was he discussing and with who was he discussing it ?
If by some chance he was discussing someones views on Biblical attitudes to life and he was applying his input along the line of factual attitudes to life then it would suggest that he is using scientific reasoning in a philosophical dicussion .

[Devastatin Dave]

Don't be silly Dave apart from it being largely nonsense for it to be the best and most thoughtful it would discuss the actual topic . I mean seriously .....

Here have a clue , you asked .... I would like to hear how he came to his conclusions and whether he used scientific reasoning for this. ...so what was the letter , what was he discussing and with who was he discussing it ?
If by some chance he was discussing someones views on Biblical attitudes to life and he was applying his input along the line of factual attitudes to life then it would suggest that he is using scientific reasoning in a philosophical dicussion .

Wow, your post really added to the conversation. Ah, the Tribsey Troll at his finest.

[Papewaio]

Actually I though Navaros answer was a very good rebuttal from a religious perspective.

I'll break it down into its paragraphs and add my comments below each.

The wisdom of any man, even the smartest ever born on the Earth, doesn't mean much. If God exists, then the wisdom of the wisest man on Earth is foolishness to God. Utlimately, all & any statements about there being no God from the mouth of any man, is merely unfounded speculation. It cannot be proven. Therefore it is unimportant what any man thinks. God or the lack of God is what it is, speculation about it from the smartest man on Earth has no bearing on whether God exists or not.

No matter how smart one is or how many people agree with you it does not make a statement true. Most science is written in the third person to try and remove personal authourity from an individual report. God cannot be proven or disproven. However one can't prove which religion is right or not either, or if indeed any on Earth is correct at all. So why not treat them with equal weight and not raise one above the other. Which is what Einstein was talking about too.

If the letter described in the article is true, though, then Einstein does indeed lose a lot of credibility. What makes his lack of belief in God - which is simply a guess - any "less childish" than belief in God? There isn't any reasonable answer to that. Therefore, Einstein making a definitive, derogatory statement about the belief in God is based on nothing other than his own personal emotions, not logic or science. As such, Einstein's remark was itself childish.

Correct some of his remarks might have gotten him a warning point in the Backroom. But as a private message we normally don't police that. Also what he states is

the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish

So he complements the stories as honourable but their format as primitive (like virtually all religions) and the stories as pretty childish (most religions present there stories in easy to understand primary school level ideas). So it would be rather difficult hypothetically speaking to give him a warning point or two.

It should also be noted that Jesus said it is good to accept him and God as children accept him. So while Einstein meant his "childish" comments as a slur against belief in God, in fact a "childish belief in God" may indeed be the best possible thing for human beings to have.

Nice riposte and turning of the cheek.

[Tribesman]

Wow, your post really added to the conversation.

Yeah well Dave it might help if you had the faintest idea what the subject matter actually is .If by some chance he was discussing someones views on Biblical attitudes to life and he was applying his input along the line of factual attitudes to life then it would suggest that he is using scientific reasoning in a philosophical dicussion .

Actually I though Navaros answer was a very good rebuttal from a religious perspective.

Apart from the fact that it doesn't rebut the statement made in the letter .
The main failing in navs response is nicely illustrated here.....

Therefore, Einstein making a definitive, derogatory statement about the belief in God is based on nothing other than his own personal emotions, not logic or science.

...as he managed to get it completely backwards , it was Gutkind whose philosphy was based on personal emotion not logic or science , though Einstein agreed with some of his thoughts as even though they were based on what could be described as a personal emotional attatchment to myths they could be supported by facts and logic .

[Ice]

This bumps Einstein up a level or two in my book, although he was already very high up before I clicked on this thread.

[Whacker]

This bumps Einstein up a level or two in my book, although he was already very high up before I clicked on this thread.

Couldn't have said it better than my boy Ice just did.

[Husar]

This bumps Einstein up a level or two in my book, although he was already very high up before I clicked on this thread.

Religious discrimination...

[Samurai Waki]

Einstein was a great man, but he also stole shrinky-drinks from god.

[Tribesman]

Religious discrimination...

Is it ?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Is it ?

Preferencing someone because of a belief they hold, Tribes.

Isn't it interesting how the religious are now less keen on the man and the atheists more so?

Why does it matter.

[Tribesman]

Preferencing someone because of a belief they hold, Tribes.

What you mean like preference because someone thinks they are gods chosen people yet can provide no factual proof to support it , thats the neo-mystical philosophers with the religeous discrimination not Einstein .

[Husar]

What you mean like preference because someone thinks they are gods chosen people yet can provide no factual proof to support it , thats the neo-mystical philosophers with the religeous discrimination not Einstein .

What Ice did was religious discrimination, that's why I quoted him, noone said that about Einstein.

[Slyspy]

Religious discrimination...

You'll find it hard not to discriminate when it comes to belief in the metaphysical, especially when religion comes into it.

Which faith do you follow?

[atheotes]

Religious discrimination...

I guess you just tend to like people more when their views are similar to yours... Simply liking someone more than another would itself be discrimination? theoretically maybe but too strong a word to use....

[Ice]

Religious discrimination...

If thinking the Jews are no better than other religious sects and that most religion is a bunch of childish superstitions, than yes I guess I'm discriminating.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Religious discrimination...

Nothing wrong with discrimination as long as it doesn't stem from prejudice or bias.

[Tribesman]

Well personally I would say a real scientist would be best not speculating on something he can't apply his particular skillset to. Frankly I think Einstein's comments look like a man out of his depth and are not really any better than Pub Philosophy.

Sorry , that makes no sense .
Gutkind sent his philosophies to Einstein for his appraisal . Both have made comments in favour of the same earlier philosophers along similar lines in both the Judaic and Christian schools (and ancients though I havn't seen any of Einsteins on the eastern) .
The questions posed and the answers given are as old as religeous and scientific philosophy and all the blends of the two are .
How on earth could you possibly say that it is speculation on something that he cannot apply his skillset to . It is a debate that philosophers scientists and theologians have been pulling their beards out over for thousands of years .