Cow sets a bad example for progressive society

[Nick_A]

Nick: No, Einstein is not in agreement with her. Not even close. Einstein specifically mentioned that what he thought of religion was dramatically different from what most people meant by the word religion. For him, religion was more like philosophy. Einstein did not believe that any supernatural being existed. He was an atheist for all practical purposes and specifically rejected any claims regarding a personal God. When asked by a rabbi if he believed in a God, he took a tactful approach and said he believed in the God of Spinoza. That's a purely atheistic conception of God. Einstein''s God had all of the following characteristics: 1. It had no will of its own. 2. It had to obey all of the laws of physics. 3. It did not intervene in human affairs. 4. It did not care about morality. 5. It did not provide any life after death. This is simply atheism. The reason Spinoza said he was not an atheist? Because during his time the name atheist meant more than a lack of belief in a God, it meant that the person was immoral. Spinoza rejected any claim that he was an immoral person, hence, he played a sleight-of-hand with the meaning of the word God. Einstein did the same thing because he felt a little sheepish admitting to a rabbi that he was an atheist.

Einstein wrote:

Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.

The scientists’ religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.

There is no logical way to the discovery of elemental laws. There is only the way of intuition, which is helped by a feeling for the order lying behind the appearance.

What is this spirit superior to man? What is intelligence in relation to that which is superior to man?

Why does Einstein believe intuition is superior to logical analysis for discovering elemental laws?

I believe that one identical thought is to be found—expressed very precisely and with only slight differences of modality—in. . .Pythagoras, Plato, and the Greek Stoics. . .in the Upanishads, and the Bhagavad Gita; in the Chinese Taoist writings and. . .Buddhism. . .in the dogmas of the Christian faith and in the writings of the greatest Christian mystics. . .I believe that this thought is the truth, and that it today requires a modern and Western form of expression. That is to say, it should be expressed through the only approximately good thing we can call our own, namely science. This is all the less difficult because it is itself the origin of science. Simone Weil….Simone Pétrement, Simone Weil: A Life, Random House, 1976, p. 488

Would Einstein IYO disagree and assert that intuition could never verify a conscious source for creation?

[Science Fan]

Nick A: I think there are more fake quotes from Einstein than any other person in history. I know what Einstein wrote about the topic, and he rejected any such nonsense about a supernatural God. In fact, he hated people like you who falsely claimed otherwise. He was extremely clear on that. He in no way, shape or form, would have agreed with your concept of God, magic, or with hers.

[Science Fan]

Nick A: Keep in mind too that Einstein hated quantum mechanics, because it was non-deterministic, despite having made contributions to the subject. To the extent he relied upon his belief in Spinoza's God, he actually committed scientific errors. He literally could not handle the fact that at a certain level, the universe is in fact non-deterministic. Thus, even to the extent Einstein held a "religious" belief, it proved to be entirely inconsistent with physics.

There is no compatibility with religion and physics. Never has been. Physics is concerned about reality, makes no value judgments, and has never established that the universe in any way has to fit some pre-conceived notion of a God having created the universe. In fact, we continue to find a great deal of randomness to the universe, not just in quantum mechanics, but in non-linear dynamics, complexity, without even mentioning randomness appearing in areas like evolution. Science has never shown any design, none, it is simply a fantasy that some people want to bring into their scientific work, and it always bites them in the ass sooner or later. Einstein was no exception to this rule.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

'Supernatural god'. Tautology.

[Nick_A]

Nick A: Keep in mind too that Einstein hated quantum mechanics, because it was non-deterministic, despite having made contributions to the subject. To the extent he relied upon his belief in Spinoza's God, he actually committed scientific errors. He literally could not handle the fact that at a certain level, the universe is in fact non-deterministic. Thus, even to the extent Einstein held a "religious" belief, it proved to be entirely inconsistent with physics.

There is no compatibility with religion and physics. Never has been. Physics is concerned about reality, makes no value judgments, and has never established that the universe in any way has to fit some pre-conceived notion of a God having created the universe. In fact, we continue to find a great deal of randomness to the universe, not just in quantum mechanics, but in non-linear dynamics, complexity, without even mentioning randomness appearing in areas like evolution. Science has never shown any design, none, it is simply a fantasy that some people want to bring into their scientific work, and it always bites them in the ass sooner or later. Einstein was no exception to this rule.

What does Einstein mean by “spirit?” Einstein denied the personal God concept as did Simone. Can you be open to an impartial source Plotinus described as the ONE?

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/12/1 ... -manifest/

The 1999 book “Einstein and Religion: Physics and Theology” by Max Jammer included the following segment from Einstein’s letter translated into English. The efficacy of prayer and the limits of current scientific knowledge were two themes in the text [AEMJ]:

Scientific research is based on the assumption that all events, including the actions of mankind, are determined by the laws of nature. Therefore, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, that is, by a wish addressed to a supernatural Being. However, we have to admit that our actual knowledge of these laws is only an incomplete piece of work

(unvollkommenes Stückwerk), so that ultimately the belief in the existence of fundamental all-embracing laws also rests on a sort of faith. All the same, this faith has been largely justified by the success of science.
The letter continued with the following sentence aligned closely with the quotation under investigation [MJAE]:

On the other hand, however, every one who is seriously engaged in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. The pursuit of science leads therefore to a religious feeling of a special kind, which differs essentially from the religiosity of more naive people.

The 2002 book “Dear Professor Einstein: Albert Einstein’s Letters to and from Children” printed the child’s query and Einstein’s reply. The editor of this compilation, Alice Calaprice, is a top expert on Einstein’s quotations and also editor of “The Ultimate Quotable Einstein” reference [UQAE].

Here is an excerpt containing the quotation under investigation providing an alternative translation into English [PSAE]:

But also, everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that some spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe, one that is vastly superior to that of man. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is surely quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.

[Greta]

Yes, secular society is too controlling. What we need instead is the freedom of total religious control as evidenced by freedom-loving religious governance throughout history.

Religions never abuse trust like secularists. You can always trust a religious person to do the right thing. You could trust a religious person with the welfare of your children but could you trust a secularist??? When has a religious person ever abused their authority? The religious have shown themselves to be trustworthy and sensible at all times.

Secularists, by contrast, they need to control people, even down to dictating to multinationals and billionaires at times. The nerve! No, religious control of society is the only way forward, to drain the swamp of secularists. Otherwise we face the real and present risk of progressing.

Meanwhile, that there is "more out there" than we know is no mystery. Reality is bigger and deeper than we will ever be able to imagine or explore. Sure. Scientists not only know this well but love the fact that learning is apparently endless. If they knew everything they would be bored.

[Nick_A]

Yes, secular society is too controlling. What we need instead is the freedom of total religious control as evidenced by freedom-loving religious governance throughout history.

Religions never abuse trust like secularists. You can always trust a religious person to do the right thing. You could trust a religious person with the welfare of your children but could you trust a secularist??? When has a religious person ever abused their authority? The religious have shown themselves to be trustworthy and sensible at all times.

Secularists, by contrast, they need to control people, even down to dictating to multinationals and billionaires at times. The nerve! No, religious control of society is the only way forward, to drain the swamp of secularists. Otherwise we face the real and present risk of progressing.

Meanwhile, that there is "more out there" than we know is no mystery. Reality is bigger and deeper than we will ever be able to imagine or explore. Sure. Scientists not only know this well but love the fact that learning is apparently endless. If they knew everything they would be bored.

So you would kill this independent cow to preserve the social order which requires people not to think but to blindly accept the dictates of their secular superiors. Our hero cow invites us to question in a new way. It is simply intolerable. Our cow must be forced to drink the hemlock to nullify its influence forever. It is for the good of all atoms of the Great Beast.

[Dubious]

The only GREAT BEAST you should be concerned with is the one eating at your brain.

[Science Fan]

Nick A: You keep trying to support your heroine's delusional beliefs, and have yet to come up with any convincing argument in her defense. She was delusional. Period. She claimed that a God exists, and had no evidence to support such a claim. She further assumed she just knew what that God wanted, and there is absolutely no way she could provide a rational justification for such a belief. It's purely delusional.

You keep trying to rely on Einstein, who never even believed in the supernatural. Furthermore, Einstein admitted his greatest blunder in physics was based on his bringing into the field of physics his "religious" beliefs. So, Einstein is actually a perfect example of how even a smart person can screw the pooch by bringing their religious or ideological beliefs into science.

Science does not allow anyone to prejudge the evidence, which literally means, no one can coherently bring their religious beliefs into the scientific realm, without committing a foul.

[Nick_A]

Nick A: You keep trying to support your heroine's delusional beliefs, and have yet to come up with any convincing argument in her defense. She was delusional. Period. She claimed that a God exists, and had no evidence to support such a claim. She further assumed she just knew what that God wanted, and there is absolutely no way she could provide a rational justification for such a belief. It's purely delusional.

You keep trying to rely on Einstein, who never even believed in the supernatural. Furthermore, Einstein admitted his greatest blunder in physics was based on his bringing into the field of physics his "religious" beliefs. So, Einstein is actually a perfect example of how even a smart person can screw the pooch by bringing their religious or ideological beliefs into science.

Science does not allow anyone to prejudge the evidence, which literally means, no one can coherently bring their religious beliefs into the scientific realm, without committing a foul.

You will say that it is delusional for a woman dying of TB to be in a hospital writing "The Need for Roots." Maybe it is. If she were not delusional she would be just resting following doctors orders.

Simone, Plotinus, Plato, and others all had the same God concept. You could say that it was because she was delusional. Maybe we are delusional since we have "forgotten" it and prefer to ridicule the quality of philosophy which helps us remember.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/questionofgod/voices/weil.html

There is a reality outside the world, that is to say, outside space and time, outside man's mental universe, outside any sphere whatsoever that is accessible to human faculties.

Corresponding to this reality, at the centre of the human heart, is the longing for an absolute good, a longing which is always there and is never appeased by any object in this world.

Another terrestrial manifestation of this reality lies in the absurd and insoluble contradictions which are always the terminus of human thought when it moves exclusively in this world.

Just as the reality of this world is the sole foundation of facts, so that other reality is the sole foundation of good.

That reality is the unique source of all the good that can exist in this world: that is to say, all beauty, all truth, all justice, all legitimacy, all order, and all human behaviour that is mindful of obligations...............................

She writes of the influences of God, a conscious source, outside the limitations of time and space which is the same as Plato's Good and Plotinus' ONE. If she is delusional then Plato and Plotinus were delusional. How do you know? Is the complimentary relationship between the good and facts delusional? Maybe we should ask our cow. She seems to have more sense than many and can recognize bull when she sees it.

[Nick_A]

At this time I'd like to raise toast to Hero Cow. People can say that she failed in her quest for freedom but she accomplished more than most of us do. She pursued freedom. Yes she was brought down by well meaning people and often that is how freedom is lost. She tried and lost. But she died serving as an inspiration for many who are normally too afraid to value freedom much less strive for it. She didn't die as many secular progressives do within society as accepting slavery to the government and pretending it serves a greater good.

Death by slaughterhouse or death in pursuit of freedom. Which would you choose?

Farewell dear Hero Cow

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ani ... fb8150a182

[henry quirk]

I'm surprised the Wash Post would print such a story.

Anyway...

Better to go out like that cow than as most do.

[Luxin]

deleted 422