Einstein Letter on God

[luke warm]

i would like to know how the fact that morality, or a moral sense, being independent in large part of culture and religion destroys what i've said - that morality (the conscience) presupposes God... maybe i misunderstood what your wrote, if so you can correct me... let me paraphrase your words

 

since people in different cultures at different times seem to have, regardless of religious beliefs, an innate moral sense, it destroys the notion that God is needed for that sense

What science does is to remove the mystical claptrap from the existence of morals.

how exactly does science do this?

 

It may not 'destroy' what you have said.. but it renders it irrevelant and unnecessary. The evidence that morality is universal across the human species, independent, in its essence, of ethnic background or religious belief of parents, removes the need to invoke a higher power.

the problem is, you state things as if they are true but offer no reason why they should be... all you've done here is restate an earlier premise... ask yourself this question: if God does exist and if he is responsible for man's conscience, would you still be able to make the same claim? if the answer is yes, and i'm pretty sure it is, then your claim has no logical basis

An explanation of how we, as a species, evolved that moral sense (because various aspects of it bestowed a reproductive edge on our anscestors) again removes the need to invoke a higher power as the source of the morality.

you haven't given an explanation, you've given an opinion... again, if God does exist and if he is responsible for man's conscience, would you still be able to make the same (reproductive edge) claim? of course you would...

Heck, most of our holidays (holy-days) are based on pagan celebrations, not christian beliefs. And the church no longer routinely burns heretics at the stake.

of course i'm sure you'd agree that neither of those things speak to the truth or falsity of christianity's claims

 

You are incorrect, sir! Unless the claims of christianity properly change as a function of time, and cultural attitude, then evidence that christian morality has changed over time does indeed speak to the truth or falsity of its claims.

you are saying that since

1) christian holidays are based on pagan celebrations, and

2) the church no longer burns heretics,

then christianity is false

Were the leaders of the church then horribly mistaken in their view of the principles of the christian church?

i hope this isn't a serious attempt on your part to make a point... there are people who pervert a lot of good things, is that not true? does the fact that this perversion exists mean the good thing is false? pedophiles say they are doing nothing wrong, they are exhibiting love... of course, in a subjective morality sense that might be true... even so, there is such a thing as love and its perversion does not negate the fact of it

No, either we can't trust any old men who claim to KNOW the wishes of god, or god is an intemperate, inconstant force.

these are the only two options?

Either christianity's values and morality endorse burning heretics or they don't.. what do you think, LW... and if you say they don't... why should we atheists believe that YOU know better than the leaders of your faith did for so long?

burning heretics was a perversion of christianity... you can choose to believe i know better than they or not... they said it was right, i say it was wrong... you choose

this is possibly the most arrogant and ridiculous post i've read in a very long time

More arrogant than when Pat Robertson claimed that Katrina was God's punishment for the sinning taking place in New Orleans, or that AIDS is because homosexuality is a sin?

well i did use the word "possibly" ... both statements are arrogant

For me, this last statement of Ken's gets right to the heart of the matter. How can one ever accept an argument like this?

 

1. It would be wonderful if statement A were true.

2. Therefore statement A is true.

who is making such an argument?

[blackshoe]

So for thousands of years there was the need for a higher power as the source of morality.

You confuse existence with need.

[kenberg]

Actually quite a few people make essentially this argument, on the forum and elsewhere.

 

Religion gives comfort. True, at least for some. But in a discussion of whether religious statements are true it is irrelevant.

 

Religion is the basis for a good society. Debatable, but if true it doesn't make religious statements true.

 

 

It is my possibly incorrect understanding that the Jewish religion pretty much avoids this trap. Daniel was thrown in the lion's den and the Lord kept the lions from eating him. I think (I am off my reservation and would appreciate correction) you can be a Jew in good standing while being skeptical of this story.

 

 

Many Christians take this view as well. Phil, a Catholic, said he regards much of the Bible as symbolic. I hope I am not putting words in his mouth. Many folks, very religious, avoid being pinned to overly literal acceptance of religion's factual statements. I can almost always come to a meeting of the minds with these folks.

[jdonn]

For me, this last statement of Ken's gets right to the heart of the matter. How can one ever accept an argument like this?

 

1. It would be wonderful if statement A were true.

2. Therefore statement A is true.

who is making such an argument?

As usual, I don't believe you are making any argument in favor of your belief, simply trying to refute all arguments against it. Thus it become difficult to argue against because what can anyone refute from you?

[PassedOut]

For me, this last statement of Ken's gets right to the heart of the matter. How can one ever accept an argument like this?

 

1. It would be wonderful if statement A were true.

2. Therefore statement A is true.

who is making such an argument?

It seems to me that religious leaders who ask folks to take on faith the existence of an afterlife reward for believing and following their doctrines make that argument. And their adherents accept it.

[luke warm]

For me, this last statement of Ken's gets right to the heart of the matter. How can one ever accept an argument like this?

 

1. It would be wonderful if statement A were true.

2. Therefore statement A is true.

who is making such an argument?

As usual, I don't believe you are making any argument in favor of your belief, simply trying to refute all arguments against it. Thus it become difficult to argue against because what can anyone refute from you?

that's very perceptive and almost correct... what i'm doing is showing that the arguments to date devolve into incoherence... i'm saying that such things as morality and logic presuppose christianity... iow, i can account for such things from within my worldview while atheists can't... the atheist can't account for an objective morality, which is why he is forced to say there is no such thing... the materialist can't account for transcendental entities such as logic or love or any number of things... i can

For me, this last statement of Ken's gets right to the heart of the matter. How can one ever accept an argument like this?

 

1. It would be wonderful if statement A were true.

2. Therefore statement A is true.

who is making such an argument?

It seems to me that religious leaders who ask folks to take on faith the existence of an afterlife reward for believing and following their doctrines make that argument. And their adherents accept it.

well "it seems to me" might be fine as an opinion, but you were building a strawman with your argument

[helene_t]

i'm saying that such things as morality and logic presuppose christianity... iow, i can account for such things from within my worldview while atheists can't... the atheist can't account for an objective morality, which is why he is forced to say there is no such thing... the materialist can't account for transcendental entities such as logic or love or any number of things... i can

Come on, the fact that you can't imagine thinking about logic, love and morality as detached from your christian worldview doesn't mean that non-christians cannot relate to those concepts. Of course we can.

[PassedOut]

i'm saying that such things as morality and logic presuppose christianity...

Okay, what is your basis for saying that morality presupposes christianity? That is certainly not self-evident.

 

And surely logic has nothing whatever to do with christianity (and predates christianity by centuries).

[luke warm]

i'm saying that such things as morality and logic presuppose christianity... iow, i can account for such things from within my worldview while atheists can't... the atheist can't account for an objective morality, which is why he is forced to say there is no such thing... the materialist can't account for transcendental entities such as logic or love or any number of things... i can

Come on, the fact that you can't imagine thinking about logic, love and morality as detached from your christian worldview doesn't mean that non-christians cannot relate to those concepts. Of course we can.

you're absolutely right, helene... i'm not saying (some, maybe most) atheists don't believe that transcendental entities exist, i'm saying they can't account for them from within their worldview... i know on a personal level some atheists who even believe such a thing as objective morality exists (for example, they believe that the torture and murder of very small children is immoral across the spectrum of culture or environment), however they can't account for such a thing from within atheism

i'm saying that such things as morality and logic presuppose christianity...

Okay, what is your basis for saying that morality presupposes christianity? That is certainly not self-evident.

 

And surely logic has nothing whatever to do with christianity (and predates christianity by centuries).

i don't know what you believe re: morality, so i'll wait before addressing it... i'll just say that when i speak of it i'm referring to morality in an objective sense... as for logic, i can account for its existence while the atheist can't... i'm *not* saying that the atheist doesn't use logic or doesn't believe it exists... i *am* saying that when he does he has to use my worldview

[TimG]

i'm *not* saying that the atheist doesn't use logic or doesn't believe it exists... i *am* saying that when he does he has to use my worldview

Does that mean that religious non-Christians also use your world view when using logic?

 

I'm not following the all the arguments (from either side), but I am particularly confused by the idea that logic is dependent upon Christianity. Back in 7th grade when I was first introduced to logic in math class, I learned that true implies false is false. Was my teacher actually teaching me religion? And, was this bit of logic non-existent before Christ? (Or, before Judaism came to be practiced?)

[jdonn]

As usual, I don't believe you are making any argument in favor of your belief, simply trying to refute all arguments against it. Thus it become difficult to argue against because what can anyone refute from you?

that's very perceptive and almost correct... what i'm doing is showing that the arguments to date devolve into incoherence... i'm saying that such things as morality and logic presuppose christianity... iow, i can account for such things from within my worldview while atheists can't... the atheist can't account for an objective morality, which is why he is forced to say there is no such thing... the materialist can't account for transcendental entities such as logic or love or any number of things... i can

Does your argument amount to "I have an explanation for things and you don't so therefore my explanation is correct and yours isn't"?

 

I don't see how your entire argument couldn't be used by me to make the following claim: There is an invisible 3 pound elephant floating above all of our heads, and every time he lays a crap he evolves our views of love and morality. It is you who chose not to see or feel him because your worldview can't account for his existance.

 

I don't see why objective morality would have to be accounted for, nor why it should be the case that it can be accounted for. Enlighten?

[onoway]

I am at a loss to see how anyone can suggest that there is an innate morality in humans, any more than in baboons or wolves,for example. In fact perhaps less, if you consider that humans are generally believed to have consciousness which other animals supposedly lack.

[PassedOut]

i don't know what you believe re: morality, so i'll wait before addressing it... i'll just say that when i speak of it i'm referring to morality in an objective sense... as for logic, i can account for its existence while the atheist can't... i'm *not* saying that the atheist doesn't use logic or doesn't believe it exists... i *am* saying that when he does he has to use my worldview

Ok, I'll bite. I accept the normal definition that morality is the process of distinguishing between vices and virtues. How does that presuppose christianity?

 

Logic is the formal study of arguments. A simple example is:

 

If p, then q

Not q

Therefore not p

 

This has nothing to do with the christian world view. Neither Euclid nor Aristotle were christians. Nor was Bertrand Russell.

[blackshoe]

i know on a personal level some atheists who even believe such a thing as objective morality exists (for example, they believe that the torture and murder of very small children is immoral across the spectrum of culture or environment), however they can't account for such a thing from within atheism.

Then they've never read Ayn Rand.

[han]

Neither Euclid nor Aristotle were christians.

You are mistaken. In fact most of the important work of Aristotle was done after he met Jezus Christ.

[luke warm]

a lot of replies, i'll try not to leave out any germane thoughts

i'm *not* saying that the atheist doesn't use logic or doesn't believe it exists... i *am* saying that when he does he has to use my worldview

Does that mean that religious non-Christians also use your world view when using logic?

i've tried to be plain about it... it doesn't mean that others beside christians disbelieve in transcendental entities... i'm saying that only by presupposing the christian God can such entities be accounted for

I'm not following the all the arguments (from either side), but I am particularly confused by the idea that logic is dependent upon Christianity.  Back in 7th grade when I was first introduced to logic in math class, I learned that true implies false is false.  Was my teacher actually teaching me religion?  And, was this bit of logic non-existent before Christ?  (Or, before Judaism came to be practiced?)

no and no (and i think i'll address your 2nd question later in this post)

As usual, I don't believe you are making any argument in favor of your belief, simply trying to refute all arguments against it. Thus it become difficult to argue against because what can anyone refute from you?

that's very perceptive and almost correct... what i'm doing is showing that the arguments to date devolve into incoherence... i'm saying that such things as morality and logic presuppose christianity... iow, i can account for such things from within my worldview while atheists can't... the atheist can't account for an objective morality, which is why he is forced to say there is no such thing... the materialist can't account for transcendental entities such as logic or love or any number of things... i can

Does your argument amount to "I have an explanation for things and you don't so therefore my explanation is correct and yours isn't"?

not exactly... are you familiar with disjunctive syllogisms?

I don't see how your entire argument couldn't be used by me to make the following claim: There is an invisible 3 pound elephant floating above all of our heads, and every time he lays a crap he evolves our views of love and morality. It is you who chose not to see or feel him because your worldview can't account for his existance.

a long while back (i don't remember when or i'd try to search for it) we had a thread on epistemology... on belief as it applies to knowledge... if i can find it i'll post a link, but for now i'll just say that a belief in your invisible 3 pound full-of-crap elephant is unjustified and unwarranted, from a sound, functioning mind...

I don't see why objective morality would have to be accounted for, nor why it should be the case that it can be accounted for. Enlighten?

aside from a debate, it doesn't... if one was debating, for example, the existence of the christian God it's a different story

i don't know what you believe re: morality, so i'll wait before addressing it... i'll just say that when i speak of it i'm referring to morality in an objective sense... as for logic, i can account for its existence while the atheist can't... i'm *not* saying that the atheist doesn't use logic or doesn't believe it exists... i *am* saying that when he does he has to use my worldview

Ok, I'll bite. I accept the normal definition that morality is the process of distinguishing between vices and virtues. How does that presuppose christianity?

i think you might be missing my point else i'm not making it very well... to answer the question, what you need to do is put into words how you personally, as an atheist (if you are, i don't recall, and if you believe it exists) can account for objective morality

Logic is the formal study of arguments. A simple example is:

 

If p, then q

Not q             

Therefore not p

 

This has nothing to do with the christian world view. Neither Euclid nor Aristotle were christians. Nor was Bertrand Russell.

i've already admitted that others besides christians use logic, after all only a moron would say it doesn't exist... i'm saying that the christian God must be presupposed in order to *account* for it

 

tim asked about logic before Christ... first of all, there was no "before Christ"... that aside, logic is an attribute of God and is present in his creation.. it exists because he exists, we (humans) use logic because we were created in his image - created with all his attributes, logic being one of those...

 

in a long ago post on this subject, a lot of those believing in evolution here said that logic exists because man exists, that before man evolved there was no such thing as logic... they were saying, in essence, that the primordial bog from which something emerged was located both where it was and in another place in the same way at the same time - iow, the law of non-contradiction did not exist until man deemed it to exist... those making that case could not or would not see its absurdity

[helene_t]

I think that many people who profess to hold religious beliefs do so for social reasons, not because those beliefs are genuinely held. In many cases you can plainly see that people act in ways that would be out of the question if they genuinely believed what they profess.

I am not disputing this, merely curious.

 

I know some people who go to church entirely for social reasons but they don't profess to believe in religious dogmas. I also know some people who profess to believe in something they call "God" or whatever but that usually serves little social function. Of course there are people who go to church and believe in some religion which may or may not be related to the church but it occurs to me that the two things are largely independent.

 

Maybe I misunderstood how it works (if someone professed to believe what the priest says I might not be aware that the belief serves a social function only even if that were the case), but I wonder religion is something entirely different in the US than it is over here.

[PassedOut]

Logic is the formal study of arguments. A simple example is:

 

If p, then q

Not q

Therefore not p

 

This has nothing to do with the christian world view. Neither Euclid nor Aristotle were christians. Nor was Bertrand Russell.

i've already admitted that others besides christians use logic, after all only a moron would say it doesn't exist... i'm saying that the christian God must be presupposed in order to *account* for it

I understand that you are saying that, but on what basis?

 

Suppose someone insisted that not the "christian god" but the "symbolic logic god" had to be presupposed in order to account for logic. Wouldn't that make even more sense?

 

Or why couldn't one say that we happen to find ourselves in a specific universe where these particular logic rules work?

 

I understand that you believe that a god is responsible for many things (and, of course, I disagree), but how in any case can you limit your claim about logic to the "christian god" specifically.

 

As you know, there are many definitions of the "christian god," and that definition was changed by the Roman church during the dark ages. That, I believe, was the main reason for the split with Orthodox christians, who still adhere to the original definition.

[han]

What exactly does one do when one accounts for logic?

 

And how does it feel?

[hrothgar]

i've tried to be plain about it... it doesn't mean that others beside christians disbelieve in transcendental entities... i'm saying that only by presupposing the christian God can such entities be accounted for

Am I the only one that finds it amusing that transcendental is a synonym for irrational?

 

Then again, given the quality of the logical arguments being advanced, its probably quite apropos

[kenberg]

Some discussions advance, others don't. Here the gap is just too wide. I'm out.

[matmat]

i've already admitted that others besides christians use logic, after all only a moron would say it doesn't exist... i'm saying that the christian God must be presupposed in order to *account* for it

account for logic?

sorry. that's bullsh!t

[jdonn]

Does your argument amount to "I have an explanation for things and you don't so therefore my explanation is correct and yours isn't"?

not exactly... are you familiar with disjunctive syllogisms?

Yes. And? I'm not sure how you are trying to apply it, and anyway I don't see trying to disprove every other theory as an effective way to prove your theory. In fact I think the fact that you admit you have to presuppose the existence of god to even come up with the belief is a much better disproof.

 

I don't see how your entire argument couldn't be used by me to make the following claim: There is an invisible 3 pound elephant floating above all of our heads, and every time he lays a crap he evolves our views of love and morality. It is you who chose not to see or feel him because your worldview can't account for his existance.

a long while back (i don't remember when or i'd try to search for it) we had a thread on epistemology... on belief as it applies to knowledge... if i can find it i'll post a link, but for now i'll just say that a belief in your invisible 3 pound full-of-crap elephant is unjustified and unwarranted, from a sound, functioning mind...

What would you say if, shockingly, I claimed the same thing about the existence of your god, or any for that matter? Or is that an offensive thing to say simply because you actually believe it whereas I was simply making up an example?

 

i've already admitted that others besides christians use logic, after all only a moron would say it doesn't exist... i'm saying that the christian God must be presupposed in order to *account* for it

I disagree with matmat that this comment is bullshit. On the contrary, it's completely meaningless.

[luke warm]

What exactly does one do when one accounts for logic?

 

And how does it feel?

a statement of reasons, causes, etc., to give an explanation for... it feels fine

I understand that you believe that a god is responsible for many things (and, of course, I disagree), but how in any case can you limit your claim about logic to the "christian god" specifically.

that's a good question... i once had a debate on "is God necessary for morality?" in which my opponent objected to my limiting myself to the christian God... i thought that was peculiar on his part since it allowed him to focus on just one among many... the answer is, because that's the only God i believe in

As you know, there are many definitions of the "christian god," and that definition was changed by the Roman church during the dark ages. That, I believe, was the main reason for the split with Orthodox christians, who still adhere to the original definition.

i don't adhere to some of those definitions, assuming i even know which ones you speak of... i can only use my own

i've tried to be plain about it... it doesn't mean that others beside christians disbelieve in transcendental entities... i'm saying that only by presupposing the christian God can such entities be accounted for

Am I the only one that finds it amusing that transcendental is a synonym for irrational?

here is the definition

1. transcendent, surpassing, or superior.

2. being beyond ordinary or common experience, thought, or belief; supernatural.

3. abstract or metaphysical.

4. idealistic, lofty, or extravagant.

5. Philosophy.

a. beyond the contingent and accidental in human experience, but not beyond all human knowledge. Compare transcendent (def. 4b).

b. pertaining to certain theories, etc., explaining what is objective as the contribution of the mind.

c. Kantianism. of, pertaining to, based upon, or concerned with a priori elements in experience, which condition human knowledge.

 

i use the word in the sense of #3, abstract or metaphysical... so feel free to substitute abstract if it makes you feel better

 

these are the only synonyms i could find

 

1. abstract, hypothetic, hypothetical, ideal, theoretic, theoretical, transcendent, extramundane, extrasensory, metaphysical, miraculous, preternatural, superhuman, supernatural, superphysical, supersensible, unearthly

2. Of, coming from, or relating to forces or beings that exist outside the natural world:

 

so while you might not be the only one who finds it amusing, others might prefer other synonyms

Then again, given the quality of the logical arguments being advanced, its probably quite apropos

most of us have seen what you consider to be logical arguments, richard... if yours don't resort to ad hominem remarks, strawman arguments, and other fallacies i've just figured you weren't really trying

Some discussions advance, others don't. Here the gap is just too wide. Connecting the existence of  logical thought to the existence of God is way past where I can even navigate.

i don't believe it is, ken... all you have to do is rationally account for abstracts such as logic or morality from within your worldview

 

in any case, it would probably be better if 2 or 3 of you pooled your thoughts on this, via PMs, and posted fewer times... it's difficult answering everyone, and i'm sure most people don't care to wade through posts such as this

Does your argument amount to "I have an explanation for things and you don't so therefore my explanation is correct and yours isn't"?

not exactly... are you familiar with disjunctive syllogisms?

Yes. And? I'm not sure how you are trying to apply it, and anyway I don't see trying to disprove every other theory as an effective way to prove your theory. In fact I think the fact that you admit you have to presuppose the existence of god to even come up with the belief is a much better disproof.

it isn't a matter of an explanation being correct or incorrect, it's a matter of one being possible vs. impossible... if by disjunctive syllogism i can show, and this is just an example, that the existence of 3 pound invisible full-of-crap elephant is not impossible while the existence of God is impossible, it means the elephant belief is rational while the God one isn't...

I don't see how your entire argument couldn't be used by me to make the following claim: There is an invisible 3 pound elephant floating above all of our heads, and every time he lays a crap he evolves our views of love and morality. It is you who chose not to see or feel him because your worldview can't account for his existance.

a long while back (i don't remember when or i'd try to search for it) we had a thread on epistemology... on belief as it applies to knowledge... if i can find it i'll post a link, but for now i'll just say that a belief in your invisible 3 pound full-of-crap elephant is unjustified and unwarranted, from a sound, functioning mind...

What would you say if, shockingly, I claimed the same thing about the existence of your god, or any for that matter? Or is that an offensive thing to say simply because you actually believe it whereas I was simply making up an example?

you can claim what you want to claim... making rational argumentation is a different thing

i've already admitted that others besides christians use logic, after all only a moron would say it doesn't exist... i'm saying that the christian God must be presupposed in order to *account* for it

I disagree with matmat that this comment is bullshit. On the contrary, it's completely meaningless.

if you don't understand it that's one thing... to dismiss it as meaningless seems to me to admit to an inability to discuss it intellectually

[Winstonm]

First, we have to define terms:

 

transcendental

Adjective

1. above or beyond what is expected or normal

2. Philosophy based on intuition or innate belief rather than experience

3. supernatural or mystical

 

And what Jimmy said:

 

what i'm doing is showing that the arguments to date devolve into incoherence... i'm saying that such things as morality and logic presuppose christianity... iow, i can account for such things from within my worldview while atheists can't... the atheist can't account for an objective morality, which is why he is forced to say there is no such thing... the materialist can't account for transcendental entities such as logic or love or any number of things... i can

 

First off, you seem to be misusing, and thus coming to a false conclusion about, the term transcendental entities. You say love is such a mystical entity - I argue that it is no such thing and it is easily explained. Physical (or sexual) "love" is simply chemical reaction. Brotherly love is a conscious decision. Neither is spiritual, mystical, or transcendental.

 

Both forms are lumped together as "love" and love is only transcendental because your worldview requires it to be so; try putting the shoe on the other foot and explaining to yourself how your transcendental entities could be explained by an atheist worldview.