Albert Einstein was a Scientific Pantheist, but the term really hadn’t been coined in his lifetime. His views express this clearly. Scientific Pantheism is an Agnostic Atheist position, where one uses the word “god” to mean The Universe.
He was not a Strong Atheist (the kind that was well known at the time). But an Agnostic Atheist (like most scientists).
He was NOT a Deist. He believed the universe was eternal, so it could not have been “Created”.
|
Ads Google decided were appropriate for this page -:: Shows "relevant" ads from those who have $ to advertise ::- |
Thanks for your patronage. |
November 28th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
“But an Agnostic Atheist (like most scientists).”
Please show us your data leading you to conclude that most scientists are agnostics rather than atheists.
This study:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002a.html
states that among scientists, disbelief (atheism) vastly overwhelms agnosticism.
Definitions: an atheist is forced to conclude, in the absence of acceptable data to the otherwise, that gods do not exist, just as an aSantist must conclude that Santa Clause does not exist and an aTooth-Fairyist must conclude that the Tooth Fairy does not exist.
An agnostic believes that there is no way to conclude whether or not gods exist.
“He believed the universe was eternal, so it could not have been “Created”.”
At first. Einstein created a “cosmological constant” to explain why an eternal universe hasn’t collapsed under its own gravity. Once Edwin Hubble:
http://www.time.com/time/time100/scientist/profile/hubble.html
demonstrated that the universe is expanding, Einstein said that his cosmological constant was the greatest mistake of his professional life.
December 2nd, 2009 at 7:34 am
@Blizno Thanks for the links and for your valuable contribution to this post.
Based on your other comment and this one I am going to assume that are an Atheist, correct me if I’m wrong please.
The study found here: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002a.html inquired about the belief in a “personal God” and in “human immortality”, both concepts are largely Abrahamic in nature and found in Judeo-Christianity traditions, Judaism, Christianity, Islam perhaps in religions that believe in reincarnation or an afterlife.
A disbelief in a “personal God” does not solely equate with Atheism. To rephrase, if a scientists says they disbelief in a “personal god” that does not mean they are Atheist; it would mean they are likely not Christian, Jew or Muslim, and even this sentence can be debated.
Many of those subscribing to Pantheism & Agnosticism also do not believe in a “personal God”, it is likely that many of them also do not believe in “human immortality” as explained in the Judeo-Christian context.
Pantheists may believe in “human immortality” as the fact that our bodies decompose into Universal elements and rejoin the existing Natural elements, never ceasing to exist; this is based on the principle of conservation of mass/matter.
Regardless, no one can prove nor disprove human immortality, given our current state of knowledge and scientific ability. I, as a Pantheist and an Agnostic, (and not an Atheist), keep my mind open to possibilities. I think that “I see none therefore there is none” is not always the best approach to life or science. I do not always consider absence of evidence to be evidence of absence. Sometimes the rational answer is “I don’t know”. From this “I don’t know” comes the motivation to learn, research and invent.
What I know is that the Pantheistic God, i.e. the Universe or Nature, does exist. Only a few people do claim that the Universe and the Natural world does not exist.
Had the survey specifically asked “are you an Atheist”, “Agnostic”, “Humanist”, “Pantheist”, “Panentheist”, “Catholic”, “Evangelical”, “Sufi”, “Wiccan”, etc.. That would have produced more usable results in regards to this discussion. Otherwise, I suppose we are just speculating.
Thanks
Ethan Z.
December 24th, 2009 at 8:04 pm
Nice to meet you, Ethan. Yes, I am an atheist.
We seem to be running into the usual confusion of definitions of the word.
I found this on Wikipedia and similar things on other sites:
“In early Ancient Greek, the adjective atheos (ἄθεος, from the privative ἀ- + θεός “god”) meant “godless”. The word began to indicate more-intentional, active godlessness in the 5th century BCE, acquiring definitions of “severing relations with the gods” or “denying the gods” instead of the earlier meaning of ἀσεβής (asebēs) or “impious”. Modern translations of classical texts sometimes render atheos as “atheistic”. As an abstract noun, there was also ἀθεότης (atheotēs), “atheism”. Cicero transliterated the Greek word into the Latin atheos.
In English, the term atheism was derived from the French athéisme in about 1587.[14] The term atheist (from Fr. athée), in the sense of “one who denies or disbelieves the existence of God”,[15] predates atheism in English, being first attested in about 1571.”
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
I revisited your main page and read that Pantheism states that the universe is God.
I don’t think this definition uses the word “God” properly. A god must be aware or it is not a god.
Saying that the universe is God or each human is God is trite. Those things are not gods. They are worthy of astonished worship, but gods aren’t needed for that. I think the word “god” should be reserved for something aware and supernatural.
I wonder if there’s a way to get a universal definition of atheist so people don’t talk in circles so much.
Thanks for the lively discussion.
December 25th, 2009 at 8:07 pm
Blizno, good to hear from you again.
Pantheism is not Atheistic, nor theistic. Pantheism is an alternative to both theism and to Atheism. It is a different way to looking at things, Pantheism does not beleive in an all powerful thinking transcendent God, but holds the Universe (known and unknown) as Devine.
When a Pantheist uses the word God to refer to the Universe they do so to show their profound sense of awe and reverence towards the Universe. These emotions and sense of respect, appreciation and awe are the same feelings theistic believers have towards their God/gods.
The term “God” to a Pantheist expresses the powerful emotions they feel towards the Universe, this powerful emotion is the same one that theists feel when using the term God. Thus, God here is the adjective, it refers to the feelings that theistic religions attribute to God.
I agree that it is confusing to use the word God due to the wide use of the this word in a theistic manner. However, the choice of word is a personal choice. I think it’s ok to use the word God if the person using it follows it with an explanation of what he/she meant by such word.
Read more here: http://www.pantheismtoday.com/faq/faq-why-do-pantheists-use-the-term-god-to-refer-to-the-universe
I mentioned the “unknown” Universe above. To follow on that thought, I’d like to point out that even though Pantheism does not accept a theistic transcendent, supernatural and anthropomorphic entity as God (similar to Atheism in doing so) this does not equate a denial of other concepts that Atheism denies readily. In other words, by examining the core beliefs that all Pantheists share (you can find these here http://www.pantheismtoday.com/tag/am-i), we find that even though an anthropomorphic god is not accepted as a creator or even to exist, concepts such as the human soul, life force, spirits, telepathy, the Gaia hypothesis, and the existence of extraterrestrials (the ancient gods??) amongst other concepts that science has not proven yet (and thus denied existence by Atheists), are not necessarily denied by (all) Pantheists.
If I lack knowledge to determine whether such things existed or not, I am comfortable knowing that I don’t know, I am comfortable in accepting the limitations of current knowledge/science/technology. In these limitations lay answers to everything. I am sure you agree that our knowledge of the Universe is at best limited and that what was once magic is now known as science. People needed a to have supernatural creator to explain EVERY magical or supernatural thing (miracles, solar eclipses, sickness, etc), luckily now we know better. Pantheism was ahead of its time, it did not need this supernatural God to explain everything unknown, yet every one of these unknown things is not denied to exist, many wait eagerly for science to explain such things. Pantheism is compatible with science and with spirituality together. An article will be written soon on this topic here: http://www.pantheismtoday.com/faq/faq-god-vs-soul-life-force-esp-mysteries Naturally, scientific Pantheism would tend to deny such concepts. More to come on this in future articles.
Pantheism offers a (very old) modern alternative to looking at the Universe, life, science and spirituality that strikes me as very common sensical, non judgmental and compatible with any new knowledge that the human race will aquire in the future (unless that knowledge included a discovery of an actual transcendent supernatural being somewhere in the Universe, lol).
December 31st, 2009 at 7:35 am
@ Blizno
Blizno, you said
“I wonder if there’s a way to get a universal definition of atheist so people don’t talk in circles so much.”
In response to your question, I believe a universal definition does exist. I put together an article that I think defines Atheism pretty accurately. You can find it here: http://www.pantheismtoday.com/faq/faq-whats-the-definition-of-atheism
I also wrote up a definition of God in the Abrahamic religions that you can find here: http://www.pantheismtoday.com/faq/faq-define-the-abrahamic-god
February 20th, 2010 at 12:43 pm
I think that we’re very close to agreeing with each other. The problem only seems to be in the clear definitions of terms that we’re using.
Your second link is to the God of the Abrahamic religions (YHWY, the god of the Jews).
This quote to me is key: “God has a will and a personality.”
This is very close to my definition of a god. All gods, in my opinion, must have wills. They must have intention. They must be intelligent, at least at the level of animals such as the Monkey-god(s) of some religions. Even an enormous turtle supporting colossal elephants on its shell and those elephants supporting the flat disk of Earth on their backs must have some degree of intelligence and intention. They all intend to support Earth’s flat disk on their backs. If they didn’t possess that intention, they’d wander off and the flat Earth would collapse.
This is why I cannot accept the definition of gods as the natural forces and processes of the universe. I detect not the slightest whit of intention in the universe. As far as my puny human senses, enormously amplified by our telescopes and distant exploratory robots, can tell, there is nothing in the universe that has the least appearance of intelligence or intention.
February 21st, 2010 at 6:00 am
@ Blizno,
Thanks for your comment. I clearly see where you are coming from.
You said “As far as my puny human senses, enormously amplified by our telescopes and distant exploratory robots, can tell, there is nothing in the universe that has the least appearance of intelligence or intention.”
I like how you mentioned “puny human senses”. Our telescopes, robots or other detection methods, our perception and our interpretation of data, as humans, of the currently known Universe, does not show the appearance of intelligence or intention.. Given our puny human senses and tools, perception and interpretation, and how much we still don’t know about the universe in comparison to what’s out there, given this, can we say for a fact that there is no intelligence or intention anywhere in the known or unknown universe? I don’t think we can, we can however say what you said, “as far as I know”, or how I would say it, “I don’t know” that there is not a purpose or intention or intelligence.
If you and I were red blood cells floating in a human body, we may see ourselves existing in an unintentional universe. We know that we exist but we don’t see the large picture, the hidden bigger universe we are a part of. We as red blood cells have intention, we know we can do certain things like transport gases in the blood, we see other living things all around us, we can even go exploring new regions. We know how we came to life (we were born in the bone marrow), but who created/designed us (cause)? we don’t know, why were we made (purpose) and what role do we play in the human body? We don’t even know we are in a human body, so we don’t know our bigger role.
I will discuss intention, cause, purpose. Let me explain my view on the definition of God: The Universe is what I call God. Read is meant by Universe here http://www.pantheismtoday.com/definitions/the-pantheist-universe
I agree that the traditional view of God that humans have had, be it the monkey god or the Abrahamic God, even the Flying Spaghetti Monster God ,are all anthropomorphic (have human characters). These gods in many cases are also eternal (existed for ever, infinitely old) and have purpose for creation or their actions.
In my latest article “The Scientific Pantheist Universe vs. Classical Pantheist Universe” found here http://www.pantheismtoday.com/beliefs/the-scientific-pantheist-universe-vs-classical-pantheist-universe I discuss how humans have a need to know the cause and purpose of everything and how we always resorted to a supernatural god to explain the purpose for and the cause of the universe because we cannot comprehend something existing for no purpose or existing for ever.
Do we really know if the universe has a purpose, or if it has a cause? My answer is ‘I dont know’. I can argue that the Universe (i.e. my god) existed for ever (just as does the Abrahamic god) however, I cannot say that there is a purpose for the Universes’ existence.
Traits, such as purpose, are human traits. I do not view my god (the Universe, Omniverse and everything in it) as an anthropomorphic god. Find the definition of Omniverse here http://www.pantheismtoday.com/faq/whats-an-omniverse
I disagree that the definition of a god has to include that a god is an anthropomorphic one (one to have intention, emotion, cause, intelligence, a face etc). Maybe in the Abrahamic religions ‘he’ was, and in many other religions s/he was that but, the definition of my god is ‘my’ definition, thus I can decide ‘how I define’ my God/Devine/Source/Universe.
Pantheism is not theism nor is it atheism; it’s a slightly different way to look at God/Universe/Nature. Confusion with terminology is typical.
Scientific pantheists say the universe has no purpose, no intention, as well as no cause.
Having said that, some pantheists still may view the Universe as an anthropomorphic god and attribute reason, purpose, and intention or even other human characteristics to it. I simply do not know enough, and have no right, to tell them not to do so or how to define their own Devine. Just as I have no right to tell others how they should define their God, I also have the right to my own definition/concept of my Devine / God.
What we need as humans is to celebrate our commonalities not differences and keep an open mind, to accept that sometimes we just don’t know. To accept others’ as they are, to respect their experiences. This is also how pantheism is different than many organized “religions”. [Whether pantheism is a religion or not is another topic of discussion. We can get into detail what a religion is and some may say that pantheism is not a religion.]
In “The Pantheist God” http://www.pantheismtoday.com/definitions/the-pantheist-god I defined the pantheist god simply as the Universe. It is that simple…. In order to clarify further I defined the pantheist god in a ‘negative’ aspect (as in what it is not). You will see that it is not supernatural, conductor, creator, did not exist before the universe, exists outside the universe, etc.. Even these definitions may be debated. Some may feel a personal connection to the Universe. Again, I step back and respect their definition of their God.
Speaking for myself, in Pantheism, one is comfortable with the broad and simplest definitions. I accept ‘not knowing’ I also accept the ‘divinity’ in every human being.
We can agree on the basic concepts we embrace and learn from each other. It is a better approach than a group bickering and defining themselves into smaller and smaller groups.
If you look at “Am I a Pantheist” http://www.pantheismtoday.com/tag/am-i You will find that: As long as you view the whole Universe (Omniverse, all of life, Nature) as God or the Devine, as long as you don’t believe in a supernatural eternal god who created the universe and now is the conductor of life (i.e. the Abrahamic God), and as long as life and the universe give you awe and you feel either emotions or a spiritual connection towards them you are a Pantheist — regardless whether you think this god has intention, purpose, intelligence, emotions or wether or not you can communicate to this god.
Ultimately, we need to not be consumed by thinking and defining things to minute details, we must live life, go out there and experience, experience life, experience silence, meditation, nature, the love of others, and experience other people’s experiences.
March 28th, 2010 at 1:11 pm
I`m sure Einstein was the atheist or agnostic but didn`t like to explain it because being politically left he didn`t want to alienate his American and Israeli admirers believers.
Verbosity of the deist phylosophy is ridiculouse today because linguists have shown the emptiness of metaphysical concepts like matter,god …
August 6th, 2010 at 6:15 pm
Ethan @ #7:
“I disagree that the definition of a god has to include that a god is an anthropomorphic one (one to have intention, emotion, cause, intelligence, a face etc).”
You seem to have put some words into my mouth that I did not speak. I said that a god must have intention and awareness in order to be a god. I said nothing about emotion, intelligence nor faces. I even spoke of a gigantic space-turtle, which nobody could claim is intelligent. Once again we’re wrestling over a very basic definition. I cannot accept calling something that is overwhelmingly wonderful and astonishing a god if I do not see any hint of intelligence or intention in it.
I agree that the universe is unimaginably wonderful and we minuscule humans have peered at only a tiny corner of it, but we’ve found not the slightest evidence of gods of any kind.
Our disagreement is only in our definition of gods.
November 6th, 2011 at 2:58 pm
Well… That certainly is interesting, especially because he said that he wasn’t a pantheist (also casts doubt on the “the term hadn’t been coined in his time” part as well).
(The following is from Einstein and Religion by Max Jammer, Princeton University Press)
“I’m not an atheist, and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations.” -Albert Einstien