Religious views of Albert Einstein - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other" there are "strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies" as aspirations for truth derive from the religious sphere.

Religious views of Albert Einstein - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: Einstein used many labels to describe his religious views, including "agnostic" "religious nonbeliever" and a "pantheistic" believer in "Spinoza's God."

In a 1930 New York Times article, Einstein distinguished three human impulses which develop religious belief:  fear, social morality, and a cosmic religious feeling. A primitive understanding of causality causes fear, and the fearful invent supernatural beings analogous to themselves. The desire for love and support create a social and moral need for a supreme being; both these styles have an anthropomorphic concept of God. The third style, which Einstein deemed most mature, originates in a deep sense of awe and mystery. He said, the individual feels "the sublimity and marvelous order which reveal themselves in nature ... and he wants to experience the universe as a single significant whole." 

Einstein saw science as an antagonist of the first two styles of religious belief, but as a partner in the third. He maintained, "even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other" there are "strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies" as aspirations for truth derive from the religious sphere. For Einstein, "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." He continued:

a person who is religiously enlightened appears to me to be one who has, to the best of his ability, liberated himself from the fetters of his selfish desires and is preoccupied with thoughts, feelings and aspirations to which he clings because of their super-personal value. It seems to me that what is important is the force of this superpersonal content ... regardless of whether any attempt is made to unite this content with a Divine Being, for otherwise it would not be possible to count Buddha and Spinoza as religious personalities. Accordingly a religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance of those super-personal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation ... In this sense religion is the age-old endeavor of mankind to become clearly and completely conscious of these values and goals and constantly to strengthen and extend their effect. If one conceives of religion and science according to these definitions then a conflict between them appears impossible. For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be...

An understanding of causality was fundamental to Einstein's ethical beliefs. In Einstein's view, "the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science," for religion can always take refuge in areas that science can not yet explain. 

It was Einstein's belief that in the "struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope" and cultivate the "Good, the True, and the Beautiful in humanity itself."

***

SAND NIGGER IN THE WHITE HOUSE 

WITH 

A CAMEL HABIT!

"Do You Know What A Sand Nigger Is?"
~(?)~

"Oh he's a Muslim."
~(?)~
"You Lie!"
~(Methodist(?)Christians(?)Playing(?)Bridge)~

"Elitist!"
~(Methodist(?)Chorus)~

THEY DON'T CARE 

HOW 

EDUCATED A BLACK MAN IS; STILL A NIGGER.

"I do believe you are living a decadent lifestyle."
~(Methodist)~

THEY DON'T CARE HOW EDUCATED A HOMOSEXUAL IS EITHER; 
STILL A FAGGOT.

"Why you know Jesus better than I do?"
~(Methodist)~

THAT'S RIGHT MOTHER.  I DO.  I REALLY, REALLY DO.  AND YOU'RE THE REASON WHY I'M NOW W.A.S.P. AGAIN.   

WITH DAD BEING BORN AND RAISED METHODIST.  WITH ME BEING BORN AND RAISED METHODIST. THAT MEANS MOTHER DIDN'T EVEN BECOME A PROTESTANT UNTIL MARRYING DAD.  THEN DAD REMAINS A METHODIST HAVING TAKEN HIS NEW WIFE AND THREE CHILDREN MINUS  ONE TO HIS CHILDHOOD CHURCH JUST ONCE JUST NETWORKING FOR HIS BUSINESS.  AT LEAST HE BROGHT THEM FOUR NEW METHODISTS MAKING IT OKAY WITH THEM FOR HIM TO STAY HOME WITHOUT ASKING QUESTIONS.

WITH  G. ROBERT GARY, SR. THD AND HIS WIFE JANET BOTH BEING METHODISTS ASSOCIATED WITH EMORY UNIVERSITY'S CANDLER SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY, THEY SHOULD BE HAVING NO EXCUSE FEELING THEIR CONVICTIONS THREATENED BY SOMEONE THE LIKES OF ME WHO SHOULD NOT KNOW JESUS ANYWHERE NEAR AS MUCH AS THEY SHOULD KNOW JESUS BY NOW.  AND THEY EVEN HAD A THIRTY YEARS HEADS START. 

PLUS  I STOPPED LEARNING ABOUT JESUS AT THE AGE OF EIGHTEEN 
AND 
DIDN'T(?)WANT TO KNOW(?) MORE 
ABOUT 
HIM AGAIN UNTIL THANKSGIVING 2010.

 BY DEFAULT, BELIEVE THIS MAKES ME A BETTER FOLLOWER OF JESUS THAN THEM.  LIKE TO SEE THESE TWO TRY SURVIVING NOT JUST ONE, 
BUT 
TWO(?) MIDLIFE(?) CRISIS(?)SAME 
BOTH 
ME AND JESUS!  

TRUTH ME HERE!
BY DEFAULT, WHO'S DYING FOR WHO'S SIN HERE?

 THEN WE HAVE THE ISSUE OF A SON  G. ROBERT GARY, JR. MDIV ALSO A METHODIST BUT WITH A DEGREE IN... PSYCHOLOGY?



SHOULDN'T THIS MAKE REV. BERT, MDIV PRETTY MUCH THE SAME AS DR. BOB, THD?  THOUGHT THE ONLY DIFFERENCE WAS HUMAN PCYCHOLOGY?  
  
AND REV. BERT EVEN TALKS ABOUT A BAD PATCH WHERE 
WANDERING(?)LOST(?)BROKE(?)LIVING
WHILE
VISITING(?)FRIENDS(?)CALIFORNIA.
EVEN BEING SENT SOME MONEY BY PARENTS.

I THOUGHT ORDAINED MINISTERS WERE GARANTEED JOB PLACEMENT BY THE CHURCH?

BY DEFAULT, DOESN'T THIS MAKE BERT LOOK MORE LIKE A EX-EX-CONVERT WHIPPED BACK INTO SUBMISSION?

OR DID THE PRODIGAL SON COME BACK HOME WITH HIS TAIL BETWEEN HIS LEGS?

MADE ME THINK OF ANOTHER JAMES AVERY.  LOL  REALLY JUST TOO FUNNY ALTHOUGH VERY, VERY SAD.  

IT'S ALL VERY, VERY, DEPENDENT ON SOMEONE ELSE!

SURVIVER'S BIAS TURNS THE OTHER BLIND EYE.

The trick to understanding the colorful language, or the art behind my language:

An appreciation(?)for the fact I must still be W.A.S.P. to these very same people, even when going out of my way letting them know "I'm gay", "I'm atheist", as well as "I'm a Liberal."

In other words,
most likely not one of them.

And some, like my mother for example,  had to ask me what a White Anglo Saxon Protestant was after coming across my first use of the acronym in "Herd Health Medicine."  Then she has the gaul mentioning only one other part within that same blog entry when asking what she thought about the piece overall.   

"You sort of insulted us by referring to us "rednecks."
~(My Mother)~

"That's it!  Anything else?" 

There was a reason I sent a printed copy to her by mail; insisting she read it.  My mother, and only my mother should have caught the huge compliment I paid her overall, as well as being able filling in some missing information here and there for Donna and the other girls to understand my blog better.  Turns out all those phone calls/discussions we had over all those years since me telling her I was gay were a huge waste of time. Prescious time.
MINE!

They only happened because she insisted upon them, at same time she being the one inhibiting any meaningful conversation.

 

an appreciation(?) for the fact that most obviously not W.A.S.P., if not all of them, do not care whether I vote with them on their issues or not. Why?  Because they tend to be more likely homophobic, even more  religious, and most definitely more likely a Democrat turn Republican than the other way around.once able affording expensive shoes.  You don't wait until one shoe is on the other foot before switching parties; you wait until you can buy the pair. And when I say the expensive shoes, I mean the really, really expensive shoes; .  You definitely save up for a nicer home nicer neighborhood first before And this apply even to many homosexuals whether they are religious or not.  Because I'm openly gay, openly atheist, openly Liberal relatively to them, they don't want their name associated with me in any way.   

And,

when no longer any among us who obviously aren't, the inability of some no longer able refraining from the use of their colorful language; somehow, believing themselves now automatically having a private conversation.  

Email exchanges, between me and the wife of a nationally known pastoral consultant, G. Robert Gary, Sr. ThD.,  I'm wanting to believe, an example of a genuine civil debate between two extremely close neighbors of the "third kind,"  as opposed to those kinds feeling the need constantly putting themselves  through  reinforcement ritual within the confines of a church,  with their repetitious greetings of, "Hello neighbor," to each other.  

What started this flurry of emails was me having sent Janet Gary, my only friendly neighbor at the time, a link to a blog article just uploaded venting my frustration with the Tea Party Movement Uprising; right on the tail of Barrack Hussein Obama and his family having moved into the White House.  That was all this email contained.  Just a link to this blog article. 

I already knew without having to ask, that Janet might be a bit upset with my Halloween 2008 decorations front yard that year.  And all I was wanting:  Janet reading that blog entry, with pictures of Halloween decorations uploaded along with an article I'm hoping better explained whom I considered to be the inspiration for those signs.  

As she was my only friendly neighbor so far,  as well as realizing Janet probably being upset by some of those signs (especially the one of a cross);  was only making an attempt, if going to be losing this only friendly neighbor of mine, losing her for the right reasons instead of a misunderstanding.  

  

Subject:	Re: Your blog
From:	Janet Gary (jgary@LearnLink.Emory.Edu)
To:	jimedavery@att.net;
Cc:
Bcc:
Date:	Thursday, October 21, 2010 5:45 PM

James Avery <jimedavery@att.net> writes:

Barrel'>http://anattemptathumility.blogspot.com/2010/10/halloween-every-2-years.html">Barrel

1) I can't answer the question you asked about God with "yes" or "no."

2) I suppose you know your yard and blog will either bring you negative response or no response at all, with the exception of your close friends.

3) What kind of response do you expect from me?

Subject:	Re: Your blog
From:	James Avery (jimedavery@att.net)
To:	jgary@LearnLink.Emory.Edu;
Cc:
Bcc:
Date:	Thursday, October 21, 2010 8:57 PM

was not really expecting a response.

but it was nice of you to do so.

jim ed.

Subject:	Re: Your blog
From:	James Avery (jimedavery@att.net)
To:	jgary@LearnLink.Emory.Edu;
Cc:
Bcc:
Date:	Thursday, October 21, 2010 10:00 PM

after giving it more thought.

like to add:

"A truly virtuous man would come to the aid of a complete stranger equally as he would a "close friend." Then again, a truly virtuous man would have no friends."

Not claiming to be anywhere close to virtuous; nor is my intent making friends.

"Doing the right thing for the wrong reason has no morale worth."

Negative response not always a bad thing. Where would Christians be without Jesus Cruxifixion.

Would call that a "negative response" to his message.

Truly, I have nothing against the man. Stripped of all the divinity stuff, nothing really unique about his teachings.

Subject:	Re: Your blog
From:	Janet Gary (jgary@LearnLink.Emory.Edu)
To:	jimedavery@att.net;
Cc:
Bcc:
Date:	Friday, October 22, 2010 4:50 AM

Confirmation or rebuttal is futile to one who asks for none.

Subject:	Re: Your blog
From:	James Avery (jimedavery@att.net)
To:	jgary@LearnLink.Emory.Edu;
Cc:
Bcc:
Date:	Friday, October 22, 2010 4:24 PM

"There is a need to maintain a kind of balance of intellectual power. If no atheist philosophers engaged with the issue of God's existence, then the field would be left to the believers. We would then have the impression that only the religious deal with these issues with intelligence and sophistication. That would give succour to the legions of believers who have no interest in theology, but like to know others are taking care of it for them. We need books like this, therefore, not to win the battle–-for it can't be won-–but simply to show the enemy isn't off the hook."

The word "enemy" bit strong of a word. I do not consider people of faith my enemy; nor do I believe it was "Muslim who killed us on 9/11," as O'Reilly said it on much talked about episode of The View.

From a homosexual's point of view, the Bible or the Quran, same as "six and half a dozen."

If right is right, and wrong is wrong; then anything not quite right nor completely wrong has to fall somewhere in between. Believe most would agree a non-believer, who's also a homosexual, automatically gets placed the closest to wrong. 

But where does one view themselves on that line in relation with people like Rev. Phelps, Bishop Long, Brother Ted? Oh what the hell; let's put The Cheney Family on there, as well?

The only way I can relate to this question is the fact, that out of three children, two sons who were hearing impaired that did not have a good relationship with, much respect for their father; the daughter, in every sense normal, who right up to his death, despite his seeming indifferent, wanted her father proud, always seeking his approval.

Probably should add, my brother , 5 years older than me, an alcoholic who until very recently, lived at home.

Yet in the end, in the Will, everything was split evenly three ways.   And my sister gave him 2 granddaughters as well.

Whatever it was in the beginning.......it's neutral.

No one is going anywhere without anybody.

Simply Jim

***

"even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other" there are "strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies" as aspirations for truth derive from the religious sphere."

~(Albert Einstein)~