|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
 Posted - 04/13/2008 : 07:06:15
|
I'm very interested in the semantics of various religious terms, especially God and have how they have been slowly changing in usage, particularly ever since the Age of Enlightenment.
In one of the Wednesday discussions, I was talking to Kil, brought up Einstein's God, and he said that Einstein's God was a metaphor. I have pondered this because it didn't sit right with me but I didn't know why. I know that lots of the extreme progressive religious stuff I've read claims to not take religious myths literally, but then they also reject the idea that they are metaphorical.
I re-read many writings mentioning "God" from Einstein, and several struck me as not referring to a metaphor. Here are two examples from this list http://www.tricity.wsu.edu/~dcarrell/einstein/quotesaboutgod.htm:
| I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature." |
| "Everyone 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...In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive." |
I looked up the term "metaphor" in the dictionary:
[b]met·a·phor
1. a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance, as in “A mighty fortress is our God.” Compare mixed metaphor, simile (def. 1).
2. something used, or regarded as being used, to represent something else; emblem; symbol. |
When something is a metaphor, it is being used as a stand-in for something else, but the literal meaning of the word or phrase is not discarded. For instance, if I am telling someone about driving down the highway fast on a sunny day, and I say, "I was a bird, soaring through the sky." the bird and sky stand in for me in my car and the road, however, listeners are supposed to get the image of the bird in the sky in their mind.
When Einstein talks about God, he doesn't want people to think of a anthropomorphized being. For him, God is "the mystery... and with the awareness and a glimpse of... together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion... of the Reason that manifests itself in nature." And how convenient to be able to express all that in one three-letter word! God and religion are also about an experience, a feeling "of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive." If it is different from the more traditional, naive types of religious experience, then why call it "religious" and the object of this contemplation and feeling "God" in the first place? I would say that the answer is in the unfortunate limitations of the English language.
The word "God" simply seems to fit best to quickly name the sum of what Einstein's talking about, so he goes ahead and uses it in that fashion. And he's certainly not alone; he's famous for mentioning that he took his concept of God from Spinoza. It is not a metaphor; it is a synonym for something which doesn't have any other a single-word term in the English language.
Was Einstein (and others who use "God" this way) just mangling language? Confusing people for the sake of his own personal, literary satisfaction? I'm sure some would take that stance. I personally think of this as that he was insightful with regards to how religious terms in English are changing in the modern age of Western history.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
Edited by - marfknox on 04/13/2008 07:08:31
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2008 : 10:01:31 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
It is not a metaphor; it is a synonym for something which doesn't have any other a single-word term in the English language. |
I prefer "awe."
| Was Einstein (and others who use "God" this way) just mangling language? Confusing people for the sake of his own personal, literary satisfaction? I'm sure some would take that stance. |
That's basically my stance. I've said in the past that I think Einstein's indiscretion in choosing his words demonstrated a disastrous lack of judgment.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 04/13/2008 10:51:06 |
 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2008 : 10:42:01 [Permalink]
|
I think you nailed it.
In the article Einstein's God ;Just What Did Einstein Believe About God? from the Skeptic Society, I think this quote of Einstein's is his most succinct in terms of what he really thought about God.
| It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. |
Sure, I cherry picked the quote. But I think it is in the above quote where Einstein gets to the heart of where he was coming from.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2008 : 18:33:59 [Permalink]
|
Marfknox.....
| Was Einstein (and others who use "God" this way) just mangling language? Confusing people for the sake of his own personal, literary satisfaction? |
I think not. Einstien was using the language to the best of his considerable ability to more finely define Spinoza's Weltanschauung. Spinoza posited that God was all, God was nature, God = The Universe, which, of course, is pantheism. But pantheism expanded to be inclusive of all process as well as all material existence, all concept (if concept is to be considered of independent existence from the thought process of man) - in fact, "Man" in all of it's ramifications is completely within Spinoza's definition of God as Universe!
Spinoza's great contribution to philosophy was to associate enough language with his concept so that a new meaning of pantheism emerged and consequently a new realization of what God could be imagined to be!
Einstien contributed somewhat more to this process, writing in English - which restricts the understanding somewhat for those who are Anglophonic. Einstien would be better understood writing in his native German and being read by one fluent in the German language! Better yet, Spinoza's and Einstien's ideation would be best served by reading Ethics in Latin!
As an example of what I mean consider the German word schadenfreude and what it takes to express it's meaning in English! And yet English is largely derivative of North Germanic!
Spinoza wrote in Latin, German, Dutch and Hebrew and each idiom has it's idiosyncrasies, which makes translation to English problematic when it comes to nuances of meaning. It is difficult for a mono-lingual person to fully comprehend the subtleties inherent in high-level writing of a foreign tongue.
Einstien's native tongue was, of course, German; he read Latin but was not fluent in it, and he had a working knowledge of Hebrew so he was only partially qualified to comprehend the full meaning of Spinoza's writing. The Ethics which is of course Spinoza's seminal work, was written in Latin.
Latin translation to English is difficult as English is not a Romance language, but rather a bastard anglo-frisian northern Germanic conflation with heavy Norman influences, some Latin and Greek. Consequently to grasp completely Spinoza's conceptualization of a pantheistic God, one would need a mastery of Latin.
Spinoza was originally a Cartesian advocate in his philosophy (he early on wroteThe Principles of Cartesian Philosophy) but developed naturalistic pantheism out of it's early Greek and Roman roots into a philosophical position that has shaped much of modern thought. He influenced Hegel, Nietzsche, Karl Marx, Goethe and even Immanuel Kant! Certainly Einstien's "theological" views were strongly derivative of Spinoza!
To the statement, "Was Einstein (and others who use "God" this way) just mangling language? Confusing people for the sake of his own personal, literary satisfaction? I'm sure some would take that stance." Humbert states| That's basically my stance. I've said in the past that I think Einstein's indiscretion in choosing his words demonstrated a disastrous lack of judgment. |
The quotation from Einstien was:| It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. |
Einstien did not misspeak nor mislead. He possiblly did not say enough to clarify the phrase "If something is in me which can be called religious", which has been used by many to demonstrate that Einstien did believe in a conventional, theistic God. In a perfect world, one could argue that Einstien should have expanded on "I do not believe in a personal God " to go on and say "because 'a personal God' implies a supernatural being or deity or an anthropological entity similar to humankind, and I emphatically do not believe in any such nonsense!"
Unfortunately, he did not offer such a fuller explanation of his god-views. But to describe his (boxed) statement above as "mangling language, confusing people for the sake of his own personal, literary satisfaction? ", " using loaded words", or a "disastrous lack of judgment" is clearly overreaching.
Marf, I see the problem as one of defining a singular expression of the word "God" in terms other than those intended by the speaker. If the word "God" means a extremely specific, catholic (small "c") definition to the listener and he does not hear, or bother to consider that the speaker intends something quite different, then there has been a breakdown in communication.
Hummer is quite right in substituting another word altogether, like "awe", for "God" (especially with the initial capital G), if it is not crystal clear what the speaker means by "God", but your statement Marf:| The word "God" simply seems to fit best to quickly name the sum of what Einstein's talking about, so he goes ahead and uses it in that fashion. And he's certainly not alone; he's famous for mentioning that he took his concept of God from Spinoza. It is not a metaphor; it is a synonym for something which doesn't have any other a single-word term in the English language. |
is quite accurate and succinct in defining Einstien's view of "God"
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 04/15/2008 : 10:54:10 [Permalink]
|
I don't think "awe" works in most respects. For instance: "Awe doesn't play dice with the universe" doesn't really make any sense. I think Humbert and Kil have a totally respectable argument that Einstein's use of "God" mangled or at least confused language in more a bad way than a good way. But I disagree with their argument, and wouldn't the world be boring if we all agreed on everything.  |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 04/15/2008 10:54:54 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 04/15/2008 : 11:45:38 [Permalink]
|
Hmmm...The mystery... and with the awareness and a glimpse of... together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion... of the Reason that manifests itself in nature doesn't play dice with the universe. However you wish to fill in this blank:______________ doesn't play dice with the universe. it's only going to make sense if it's an anthropomorphized something-or-other, yet:| When Einstein talks about God, he doesn't want people to think of a anthropomorphized being. |
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 04/15/2008 : 14:05:45 [Permalink]
|
Marf and Dave.....
The primary purpose of metaphor is to widen the understanding of a concept by framing a comparison with a similar, more easily understood concept. God doesn't play dice with the universe is pure metaphor for The operation of the Universe is not governed by chance or happenstance.Metaphor
a figure of speech in which a word or phrase denoting one kind of object or action is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them |
Einstein's actual quotation was:| Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the 'old one'. I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice. |
(Letter to Max Born (4 December 1926) This quote is commonly paraphrased "God does not play dice" or "God does not play dice with the universe", and other slight variants.) Einstein was, of course, expressing his disagreement with the lack of deterministic causality in Max Planck's original iteration of the quantum hypothesis in 1900.
When you read the original quotation in it's entireity, you see that Einstein did speak ambiguously regarding God - the capitalization of "He" for example, and the phrase "the old one", although it was placed in single quotation marks.
However:| I believe in Spinoza's God, Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind. |
| 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 different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. 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. |
| It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. |
| Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible concatenations, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion. To that extent I am, in point of fact, religious. |
But there is a third stage of religious experience which belongs to all of them, even though it is rarely found in a pure form: I shall call it cosmic religious feeling. It is very difficult to elucidate this feeling to anyone who is entirely without it, especially as there is no anthropomorphic conception of God corresponding to it.
|
The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling, which knows no dogma and no God conceived in man's image; so that there can be no church whose central teachings are based on it. Hence it is precisely among the heretics of every age that we find men who were filled with this highest kind of religious feeling and were in many cases regarded by their contemporaries as atheists, sometimes also as saints. Looked at in this light, men like Democritus, Francis of Assisi, and Spinoza are closely akin to one another.
|
| A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death. |
| "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere" |
| Those whose acquaintance with scientific research is derived chiefly from its practical results easily develop a completely false notion of the mentality of the men who, surrounded by a skeptical world, have shown the way to kindred spirits scattered wide through the world and through the centuries. |
| The most beautiful and deepest experience a man can have is the sense of the mysterious. It is the underlying principle of religion as well as all serious endeavor in art and science. He who never had this experience seems to me, if not dead, then at least blind. |
| Nobody, certainly, will deny that the idea of the existence of an omnipotent, just, and omnibeneficent personal God is able to accord man solace, help, and guidance; also, by virtue of its simplicity it is accessible to the most undeveloped mind. But, on the other hand, there are decisive weaknesses attached to this idea in itself, which have been painfully felt since the beginning of history. The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and of science lies in this concept of a personal God. |
Source for Einstein quotations
Obviously, it takes considerable absorption of Einstein's writings before one can formulate an informed opinion of his views on God and religion. If anyone reading these posts has a serious interest in Einstein's highly complex religious views, it would be valuable to use the link and read the entire article.
The above is but a small sample of Einstein's views on God or gods, religion in general (specifically his), and the Universe. For anyone truly interested in understanding the genius of Einstein, I highly recommend Einstein, His Life and Universe by Walter Isaacson, 2007, Simon and Schuster.
It is the definitive biography of A.E. and available at any library.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 04/15/2008 : 14:14:22 [Permalink]
|
I understood the metaphor just fine, bngbuck, long before this thread. I was simply pointing out to marf that it's tough to have a non-anthropomorphized thing-a-ma-bob playing dice (a decidedly human activity). "That chair doesn't play dice with the universe" makes as much sense as "awe doesn't play dice with the universe." Whatever non-anthropomorphized concept one jams in in place of the first word will destroy the poetry of the metaphor by confusing the reader.
By the way, it is said that Born wrote back, "Albert, stop telling God what to do." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 04/15/2008 : 16:15:12 [Permalink]
|
Dave.....
| I understood the metaphor just fine, bngbuck, long before this thread. |
Long before this thread, I had no doubt that you did, Dave. I was just pointing out that the dice metaphor did not in any way suggest that Einstein had a belief in an anthropological God, as many have tried to spin his quotations to demonstrate that falsehood. Not you, of course!
But I have read reams of bullshit fundamentalist crap stating that Einstein was a theist and using that quote and many others - "I am not an atheist", - for example, to demonstrate that one of the greatest scientists in history was some kind of god-fearing bible thumper.| By the way, it is said that Born wrote back, "Albert, stop telling God what to do." |
Apocryphal, probably, I have attempted to verify it with no success. It's a good line though!
From Einstein:(After reading the letter)
Born explained the issue to his high-strung wife, Hedwig, who was always eager to debate Einstein. She told Einstein that, like him, she was unable to believe in a dice-playing God. But, she added "nor am I able to imagine that you believe - as Max has told me - that your complete rule of law means that everything is predetermined, for example whether I am going to have my child innoculated"
It would mean, she pointed out, the end of all ethics. |
Her comment is symptomatic of the controversy that Einstein caused throughout his later life due to his fervent determinism. He might well have completed the "Unified Field Theory" that he sought after the birth of quantum mechanics, if his philosophical mind-set had not been so deterministic! |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 04/15/2008 : 17:11:15 [Permalink]
|
Hmmm...
The mystery... and with the awareness and a glimpse of... together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion... of the Reason that manifests itself in nature doesn't play dice with the universe.
However you wish to fill in this blank:
______________ doesn't play dice with the universe.
it's only going to make sense if it's an anthropomorphized something-or-other, yet: |
Oh give me a break, Dave. The line about dice is a literary metaphor. I said that awe doesn't fit, not because awe isn't an anthropomorphized something-or-other, but because an essential part of Einstein's God is the consistent order of the universe. When he said God doesn't throw dice with the universe, he was rejecting the notion that anything within the laws of nature happen by chance, opposed to natural laws. That is more than merely awe, thus while awe is part of it, awe cannot serve as an adequate synonym for Einstein's God. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 04/15/2008 17:12:02 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 04/15/2008 : 20:42:26 [Permalink]
|
Now that I think about it more, it was totally disengenuous for me to dispute the whole "awe" thing using a quote from Einstein that was entirely metaphorical. Bad Marf. 
I still contend that "awe" is sorely inadequate as a synonym for Einstein's concept of God. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 04/15/2008 20:42:59 |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 04/15/2008 : 21:06:13 [Permalink]
|
Marf.....
| I still contend that "awe" is sorely inadaquate as a synonym for Einstein's concept of God. |
You (and Dave) are really right, "awe" doesn't work very well either linguistically or conceptually. But Hummer is right that "God" doesn't cut it either, as the word carries too much baggage from aeons of use in a very specific context.
It's time for a new (neologism) word for "God" that connotes a broader conceptualization than is possible from the traditional three letters! Any suggestions? Anybody? Einstein would be pleased by a descriptive word! As a passing acquaintance of the man, I would bet that Randi would be too!
"Bright's" didn't work for 21st century intellectuals, so maybe we can lessen that pain by coming up with a new euphemism for God, one with only carry-on impedimentia!
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 04/16/2008 : 08:47:16 [Permalink]
|
bngbuck wrote: | But Hummer is right that "God" doesn't cut it either, as the word carries too much baggage from aeons of use in a very specific context. |
This is the heart of the problem. I've read enough to know that some believe religious terms (including the term "religion") can shed their baggage and take on new, more modern meanings. The other camp insists that the baggage only confuses things and new vocabulary must be adopted. Personally I'm in the latter camp (edited to add: on most but not all of these terms), but I can't say I have any certainty or strong feelings one way or another about any. I mostly wish we weren't in a state of ambiguity about it.
Ultimately time will decide. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 04/16/2008 08:48:35 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2008 : 16:51:27 [Permalink]
|
According to Mark Perakh, a letter from Einstein a year before his death reads in part,the word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. In the comments, Perakh also cites another Einstein letter, "Einstein, letter to Guy H. Raner Jr of July 2, 1945," as being one in which Einstein called himself an atheist.
Later, Perakh also references this famous passage:When asked whether he believes in the God of Spinoza, Einstein is supposed to have replied as follows:
"I can't answer with a simple yes or no. 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 different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. 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 a universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's pantheism, but admire even more his contributions to modern thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and the body as one, not two separate." and says,...the quoted passage is not found anywhere in Einstein's own writing; it is rather a quotation from somebody named Viereck who surmised how, in his opinion, Einstein should have answered a question about his being an atheist. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2008 : 22:59:09 [Permalink]
|
Dave......
As with many philosophers, Einstein's early and mid-life statements vary significantly from late-life statements. Being an old man, I frequently reflect on my earlier convictions. In those occasional youthful moments when I thought, I thought differently than I do now!
We find AE saying at different periods in his life....| I believe in Spinoza's God, Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind. |
| Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible concatenations, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion. To that extent I am, in point of fact, religious. |
| "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere" |
| “I can't answer with a simple yes or no. I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. |
Finally....| the word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. |
It's rather like the Bible. One can pretty much make whatever one wants to out of the many statements on God and religion by selecting the quote that best fits one's own predelictions.
And it was always so, and so it is now with argument from authority! |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
God of Einstein and Spinoza
