Belief in God is"childish superstition", Jews are not the chosen people Options

[guest of a friend]

So said Albert Einstein:

Albert Einstein described belief in God as "childish superstition" and said Jews were not the chosen people, in a letter to be sold in London this week, an auctioneer said Tuesday.

The father of relativity, whose previously known views on religion have been more ambivalent and fuelled much discussion, made the comments in response to a philosopher in 1954.

As a Jew himself, Einstein said he had a great affinity with Jewish people but said they "have no different quality for me than all other people".

"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.

"No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this," he wrote in the letter written on January 3, 1954 to the philosopher Eric Gutkind, cited by The Guardian newspaper.

The German-language letter is being sold Thursday by Bloomsbury Auctions in Mayfair after being in a private collection for more than 50 years, said the auction house's managing director Rupert Powell.

In it, the renowned scientist, who declined an invitation to become Israel's second president, rejected the idea that the Jews are God's chosen people.

"For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions," he said.

"And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people."

And he added: "As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them."

Previously the great scientist's comments on religion -- such as "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" -- have been the subject of much debate, used notably to back up arguments in favour of faith.

Powell said the letter being sold this week gave a clear reflection of Einstein's real thoughts on the subject. "He's fairly unequivocal as to what he's saying. There's no beating about the bush," he told AFP.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=08...;show_article=1

[Danny Vermin]

Regardless of the fact that it's only his opinion, all of the world's collected and documented scientific evidence about our origins points to his opinion being closer to correct and accurate, than any type of evidence that any of the worlds organized religions can produce to prove that God actually exists.

It's Sentimentality vs. Scientific Fact.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I just happen to hold the opinion that sentimentality and superstition does more harm than good, and the existence of "god" is as Einstein put it, "childish" and silly.

This post has been edited by Danny Vermin: May 13 2008, 11:10 AM

[JodyThePig]

Regardless of the fact that it's only his opinion, all of the world's collected and documented scientific evidence about our origins points to his opinion being closer to correct and accurate, than any type of evidence that any of the worlds organized religions can produce to prove that God actually exists.

Yeah, it's certainly easier to prove the validity of natural fact than the possibility of the supernatural through the scientific method.

But that's largely because the scientific method is solely applicable to natural phenomena.

Whether you take that to mean that, therefore, natural phenomena are all that truly exist is up to you, but that assumption would be something like assuming that since you only have a hammer in your toolbox, the world must ultimately be composed of nails.

(A loving God would forgive me my poor analogies, but I don't believe in God. Bummer.)

[Danny Vermin]

Yeah, it's certainly easier to prove the validity of natural fact than the possibility of the supernatural through the scientific method.

But that's largely because the scientific method is solely applicable to natural phenomena.

Whether you take that to mean that, therefore, natural phenomena are all that truly exist is up to you, but that assumption would be something like assuming that since you only have a hammer in your toolbox, the world must ultimately be composed of nails.

(A loving God would forgive me my poor analogies, but I don't believe in God. Bummer.)

that really is a terrible analogy, and completely non-applicable in this case, considering the lengths pains people have gone to through scientific analysis, to try to investigate and prove or disprove the existence of the supernatural or occult.

No better than making the analogy that "Because I believe in god, people must also believe that I am god, because you can't prove I'm not."

Specious, and foolhardy.

[JodyThePig]

that really is a terrible analogy, and completely non-applicable in this case, considering the lengths pains people have gone to through scientific analysis, to try to investigate and prove or disprove the existence of the supernatural or occult.

Besides the sad state of my analogizing skills, you're missing the point: by definition, scientific analysis is incapable of analyzing anything outside the realm of natural phenomena.

This says nothing about whether a supernatural order does or could exist. "Proof" is a scientific concept.

[Danny Vermin]

Besides the sad state of my analogizing skills, you're missing the point: by definition, scientific analysis is incapable of analyzing anything outside the realm of natural phenomena.

This says nothing about whether a supernatural order does or could exist. "Proof" is a scientific concept.

Proof, is documented, demonstrable fact. It's not a concept. the term "concept" indicates that it is in some way, lacking demonstration. It is not.

The term "supernatural", at it's base definition, is a polite term for "something we'd like to believe is true, that we made up off the top of our heads, because it sounds kinda cool, and makes us feel less depressed about the stark reality that life has it's limits."

[JodyThePig]

Proof, is documented, demonstrable fact. It's not a concept. the term "concept" indicates that it is in some way, lacking demonstration. It is not.

The term "supernatural", at it's base definition, is a polite term for "something we'd like to believe is true, that we made up off the top of our heads, because it sounds kinda cool, and makes us feel less depressed about the stark reality that life has it's limits."

In effect, you appear to be making this argument:

Proof is documented, demonstrable fact > Documented, demonstrable fact is only obtainable in the physical order > The physical order is therefore all that exists.

And if proof weren't a concept you wouldn't be able to speak of proof.

[Danny Vermin]

In effect, you appear to be making this argument:

Proof is documented, demonstrable fact > Documented, demonstrable fact is only obtainable in the physical order > The physical order is therefore all that exists.

And if proof weren't a concept you wouldn't be able to speak of proof.

whereas you seem to be making the argument that

Suspect Semantics > Logic.

[JodyThePig]

whereas you seem to be making the argument that

Suspect Semantics > Logic.

You don't see how empiricism would be a poor tool for investigating (supposed) nonphysical properties?

For real and for true?

[Danny Vermin]

You don't see how empiricism would be a poor tool for investigating (supposed) nonphysical properties?

For real and for true?

I'm simply not interested in citing fairy tales as motivation for my choices in adult life.

Wake me when something interesting happens supernaturally.