Re: An interesting view.
- From: mike3 <mike4ty4@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 01:47:55 -0700 (PDT)
On Jun 13, 12:59 am, Tonico <Tonic...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 13, 3:49 am, mike3 <mike4...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 11, 11:31 pm, Tonico <Tonic...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 12, 3:39 am, "T.H. Ray" <thray...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Then what's with the crap about tears in his eyes over
some priest calling him an atheist?
Tom
Angus Rodgers
(twirlip@ eats spam; reply to angusrod@)
*************************************************************
That part of "tears in his eyes" is most probably a lie someone
wishing to "prove" the world that Einstein was religious added there.
How do you define a "religion", anyway?-
*********************************************************
In fact I don't: I don't know enough for that.
You don't know enough for it? What does this mean? Surely you must
have some definition you use for the word, as you're using it? I
wasn't
asking for a "rigorous" and "academic" definition, just whatever
_you_,
_personally_, use the term "religion" to mean. Or is it that you just
do not know enough to really be able to express in words your internal
sense of what you mean by the term?
Nevertheless, I'd say
that "religion" involves belief in some god(s) and acceptance of some
other (few, many, several) dogmas that build up a frame in which that
belief develops.
I'm not a scholar in Einstein's life and deeds, though I've read at
least two biographies and many articles about him, but I tend to think
he wasn't religious in any "standard" way we can understand that term
now.
What sort of way is that? You mean because he didn't believe in a
"deity"? There are belief systems that often get called "religions"
despite lacking a "deity".
I can't say for sure he didn't believe in some deity, though I
strongly think that, in last analysis, he didn't.
Some of his, apparently true, quotes, like the one that goes "Science
without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." seem
more to point, imo, towards a sensible human being than towards a
believer. By the way, imo that phrase is pretty stupid, and in two
ways at least.
Why's that? What are the two ways this phrase is stupid?
The "tears in his eyes" is, imo, a rather clumsy, sentimental-like way
to try to portray Einstein as someone whose deep, hidden religious
feelings had been hurt by that question.
Where did this come from, anyway, this thing with the teary-eyed
Einstein???
I'll tell you this: the 2006 (or so) Economy Nober prize Prof. Israel
Aumman was my set theory teacher in undergraduate school. He's a nice
guy, a not very good teacher and a terrible, awful and pretty unfair,
imo, marks-giver. He's also a very religious, orthodox jewish man, and
a right winger from here to Mars.
He was once asked, I can't remember whether in TV or some paper, how
does he manage to be a mathematician and a religious man at the same
time.
And he simply answered: I don't mix together both things. Period.
Many of my teachers were religious, and very religious, guys, and even
though I can't understand how can they make that sharp separation they
say they do between their religion and their science, I respect that.
I guess that'd be way harder to achieve for biological sciences
scholars...I don't know.
Hmm.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: An interesting view.
- From: Tonico
- Re: An interesting view.
- References:
- Re: An interesting view.
- From: Angus Rodgers
- Re: An interesting view.
- From: T.H. Ray
- Re: An interesting view.
- From: Tonico
- Re: An interesting view.
- From: mike3
- Re: An interesting view.
- From: Tonico
- Re: An interesting view.
- Prev by Date: Re: Congruence question.
- Next by Date: Re: Church-Turing thesis and quantum computers
- Previous by thread: Re: An interesting view.
- Next by thread: Re: An interesting view.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
