Saturday, March 05, 2016

The Religious Views of Albert Einstein

Albert Einstein's religious views have been studied extensively. He said he believed in the "pantheistic" God of Baruch Spinoza, but not in a personal god, a belief he criticized. He also called himself an agnostic, while disassociating himself from the label atheist, preferring, he said, "an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being". Oh my dear Albert Einstein, to label atheism as a psychological problem is a feeble, almost laughable attempt to evade the fundamental questions of veracity and falsity. Is the existence of God true? Which God? There are so many of them! What reasons have we to believe in one God, or 3 persons in 1 God? Or that God is not a Jew, but Cathoic? These are the important issues to which the believers must address themselves if they wish to confront the challenge of atheism. Furthermore, there is gross timidity, nay, mediocrity involved in offering "an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our our being" for believing in a God. The believers who appeal to such nonsense as a necessity for "believing" display a shocking disregard for the pursuit of the truth. The theists who attempts to defeat or to belittle atheism by clinging to his humility accomplishes nothing, aside from revealing his contempt for man's ability to think. To advocate that a belief be accepted without reason is to advocate that a belief be accepted without thought or without verification or reflection. If facts were needed to prove the existence of God, then God must supply them, not man. Thus far, existence is no proof of the existence of God simply because God is already part of existence which was already existing before God arrived into the scene. "The question of what went before the universe began, or who created it, no longer, it turns out, make any sense at all. If there is no God, where did everything come from? “If we can accept that God could exist without being created why could this same logic not apply to the universe itself?” The problem with the First Cause Argument lies in its assumption that an almighty creator exists, something that it is trying to prove. This is known as begging the question. Even a child can ask, like I asked in La Salle high school - “If God created the universe, then who created God?” If the answer is that God is self-existent, then the same answer could certainly be applied to the existence of the universe — that it is self-existent. Besides, which almighty god, among the many existing here, there, and everywhere, are we talking about? In the meantime, if the existence of supernatural beings is unknowable, how then could we have knowledge of the unknowable? Indeed, theology is the effort to explain the unknowable in terms of the not worth knowing. People using the First Cause Argument always make the assumption that their god did the creating. Catholics think God created the universe. Muslims think that Allah created the universe. Hindus think that Brahma did it. The Jews think that Yahweh did it. Most religions have a story of how their god created the universe. The idea of a god as creator of the universe makes for a fantastic tale, but it obviously tells us little about the characteristics of that god. What they are doing is explaining one mystery with a bigger mystery, and that is fallacious logic. Or, explaining the unknown by means of the unknowable. Thus, religion encourages stupidity, belittles one's sense for humanity, and inspires one to have faith in holy absurdity, in order to promote perpetually, the mystery behind human insanity globally! Indeed, in the ultimate analysis, an agnostic was once an atheist who decided to play it safe by turning yellow. Cheers! - - - Poch Suzara, Atheist Mariano Patalinjug To poch suzara Today at 6:29 PM Yonkers, New York 05 March 2016 Dear Poch: Wow! Reading this Essay of yours, which I categorize as a Classic, makes me feel that I am reading Bertrand Russell, or John Stuart Mill, or John Milton, or Samuel Clemens. . . . MAR PATALINJUG

No comments: