🚀 go-pugleaf

On 16 Jul, 04:49, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 14, 7:45 pm, Uncle Vic <addr...@withheld.com> wrote:
> > One fine day in alt.atheism, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Jul 14, 7:16 pm, Uncle Vic <addr...@withheld.com> wrote:
> > >> One fine day in alt.atheism, Mitch Raemsch
> > >> <mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > On Jul 12, 8:41 pm, Uncle Vic <addr...@withheld.com> wrote:
> > >> >> One fine day in alt.atheism, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> >> > He created our scientific journey.
> > >> >> Including the wrong science of Genesis?
> > >> >> Exodus?
> > >> >> Deuteronomy?
> > >> >> The rest of the bible?
> > >> > NO.
> > >> The only knowledge we have of this god comes from the bible, which
> > >> does contain wrong science - science that matches the knowledge level
> > >> of people
> > >> who lived in the time the bible was written.  If he created our
> > >> scientific
> > >> journey, he gave us a bum steer, and only man himself could correct
> > >> it - even at the risk of being burnt alive at the stake for heresy.
> > > "How can cosmic religious feeling be communicated from one person to
> > > another, if it can give rise to no definite notion of a God and no
> > > theology?
> > I don't know, I guess it can't.
> > > In my view, it is the most important function of art and
> > > science to awaken this feeling and keep it alive in those who are
> > > receptive to it. " Albert Einstein in Religion and Science
> > "The mystical trend of our time, which shows itself particularly in the
> > rampant growth of the so-called Theosophy and Spiritualism, is for me no
> > more than a symptom of weakness and confusion. Since our inner
> > experiences consist of reproductions, and combinations of sensory
> > impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seem to me to be empty
> > and devoid of meaning."
> >         [Albert Einstein, letter of 5 February 1921]
> > --
> > Uncle Vic
> > aa Atheist #2011
> > Separator of Church and Reason.
> > Convicted by Earthquack.

> At the end of his life he said the more he believed in a Creator.
>
> Mitch Raemsch.

It really difficult to know how AE felt about the world at large. If
someone thought it might make a positive difference, he never refused
to support any cause, though, if you read through his stuff, there was
a low expectation of success. The League of Nations, for example,
almost certainly struck him as self-contradictory: 'league'?

It was not alone his physics that made him attractive to genuine
reformers: money made no impact on him at all, he hated convention,
exemplified by socks and ties, both of which he abhorred, and,
latterly, he couldn't even be bothered to switich on the lights in his
study. I think he retreated within himself, and unlike Ghandi and
Russell and Shaw, almost certainly felt that he could make no long-
term differences, though, to be sure, he supported them in their
endeavours.

I suspect he would have agreed with Fred Hoyle's 'The Intelligent
Universe' - rather than with the notion of a specific entity or person
cosmically engineering Life!

The latter, of course, is only less regressive than the former, though
more direct! The notion of an endowing and omnipotent Creator would
have struck him as absurd, though not, I am sure, extra-dimensional
physics, including, for example an extra quark per electron!

Was he religious? You bet! All the same, he would have ticked the box
for spiritual, for what, I hope, are obvious reasons.
--
'foolsrushin.'