Einstein: The Bible Is Pretty Childish

[head-case]

Mr Thumbs,  you must get a kick out of your condescending forgiveness to Einstein for his mistakes.  To compare Einstein's intellect to yours would be like comparing you to a rhesus monkey.

Humanity has always tried to make sense of our environment in the light of what is known of it at the time. Looking back the results may seem to be childish but that is an error. It is an understandable mistake so we can forgive Einstein for making it. If it were true then it can be predicted that in another thousand years or so (if we are still here), people will look back at Einstein's work and wonder at its childishness.

[Ten thumbs]

Mr Thumbs,  you must get a kick out of your condescending forgiveness to Einstein for his mistakes.  To compare Einstein's intellect to yours would be like comparing you to a rhesus monkey.

Indeed there is no comparison but Einstein was not the Pope and in his later years he became bogged down with untenable scientific ideas.
Firstly, normal children do not make up creation stories. Secondly, most of the Bible is concerned with recording history: again not a childish occupation. Lastly, if one argues that the miraculous stories of Jesus are fabrications they were not made up to entertain children but but to draw people into the new faith and in that they were remarkably successful.

[head-case]

Indeed there is no comparison but Einstein was not the Pope and in his later years he became bogged down with untenable scientific ideas.
Firstly, normal children do not make up creation stories. Secondly, most of the Bible is concerned with recording history: again not a childish occupation. Lastly, if one argues that the miraculous stories of Jesus are fabrications they were not made up to entertain children but but to draw people into the new faith and in that they were remarkably successful.

You should invest in a dictionary.  Childish means suggesting an immature intellect, or overly simple.  It doesn't mean 'done by a child.'

The miracles described in the gospels are pretty routine as miracles go.  Other religions had similar miracles.  Killing everyone who refuses to accept the new faith helps with recruitment.

[karlhenning]

Other religions had similar miracles.  Killing everyone who refuses to accept the new faith helps with recruitment.

Thank you for demonstrating "immature intellect, or overly simple."

[head-case]

Thank you for demonstrating "immature intellect, or overly simple."

Sometimes it is simple.   

[Bunny]

Indeed there is no comparison but Einstein was not the Pope and in his later years he became bogged down with untenable scientific ideas.
Firstly, normal children do not make up creation stories. Secondly, most of the Bible is concerned with recording history: again not a childish occupation. Lastly, if one argues that the miraculous stories of Jesus are fabrications they were not made up to entertain children but but to draw people into the new faith and in that they were remarkably successful.

Wow!  The Gospels as propaganda!!!  I never thought of them that way -- ever. 

[drogulus]

The first theory is correct, from what I understand--if the constants of the universe were slightly different, they would make life entirely impossible, not simply produce different degrees of hospitality/inhospitality to life.

    OK, the idea as I understand it is that it's remarkable that we live in a universe that allows for us. We are supposed to conclude that this is not a coincidence since it's unlikely. However, in a big universe unlikely things happen. We are also supposed to conclude that a universe that's friendly to life is also a meaningful fact. And, we don't need to take into consideration that the universe is so hostile to life that it might be the case that it only happened once. That, too, is a meaningful coincidence suggesting an intention.

    So, it seems we are in a Dollar Store. Everything costs a dollar no matter what it is. If the laws are free to vary independantly, it's miraculous that's the case. If they only can vary as a group, that's miraculous, too. And if they can't vary at all, well that's one dollar, please. The ball thinks it's remarkable to be anywhere it is. Such an attitude is compatible with the near certainty of life as well as the extreme implausibility of it. So it follows that nothing we could find out about the supposed fixity or variability of the possibilities for natural laws has any bearing. It will still seem like a remarkable event that we appeared.

     Even though I have the same feeling about that as everyone else does, I don't draw the invited teleological conclusion. The teleological idea is suggested by any supposed possibility, and isn't tied to any one of them. Nor are these likelihoods compared to each other in a meaningful way. The unlikelihood of our natural appearance is not being compared with the unlikelihood of preexisting intentionality in a universe that only features it in life forms like us. Nor is it compared to the unlikelihood of a previous process producing intentionality in order to impart it to this universe. What are the odds of that, and why are we allowing ourselves to "solve" an unlikelihood dilemma with an even greater unlikelihood without taking into account that probability?
   
     It can be hard to tell when a question is a real one that is answered differently in different cases or a pseudo-question that doesn't depend on any particular answer and merely invites the fore-ordained conclusion. If you think that a god answers all these questions without provoking the same questions in turn then you aren't interested in questions or answers either.

    It's not based on much, but I think life should be rare in the universe because only a small part of it permits the right kind of chemistry over long periods without disruption by high radiation levels or extreme swings in conditions produced by eccentric orbits, violent collisions or other nasty things. This is probably the only universe and it didn't appear out of nothing because nothing doesn't exist. Explanations, like causality, are patterns in existence that derive meaning from pattern detectors like us, and this is a new feature. The discoverable laws are among the patterns we detect, and the concept of cause could be said to be fulfilled by what can be discovered about causes and no higher perspective can be synthesized that could make a cause for them.

[head-case]

How can anyone imagine that any insight into the world can be gained from such an argument?   

    OK, the idea as I understand it is that it's remarkable that we live in a universe that allows for us. We are supposed to conclude that this is not a coincidence since it's unlikely. However, in a big universe unlikely things happen. We are also supposed to conclude that a universe that's friendly to life is also a meaningful fact. And, we don't need to take into consideration that the universe is so hostile to life that it might be the case that it only happened once. That, too, is a meaningful coincidence suggesting an intention.

    So, it seems we are in a Dollar Store. Everything costs a dollar no matter what it is. If the laws are free to vary independantly, it's miraculous that's the case. If they only can vary as a group, that miraculous, too. And if they can't vary at all, well that's one dollar, please. The ball thinks it's remarkable to be anywhere it is. Such an attitude is compatible with the near certainty of life as well as the extreme implausibility of it. So it follows that nothing we could find out about the supposed fixity or variability of the possibilities for natural laws has any bearing. It will still seem like a remarkable event that we appeared.

     Even though I have the same feeling about that as everyone else does, I don't draw the invited teleological conclusion. The teleological idea is suggested by any supposed possibility, and isn't tied to any one of them. Nor are these likelihoods compared to each other in a meaningful way. The unlikelihood of our natural appearance is not being compared with the unlikelihood of preexisting intentionality in a universe that only features it in life forms like us. Nor is it compared to the unlikelihood of a previous process producing intentionality in order to impart it to this universe. What are the odds of that, and why are we allowing ourselves to "solve" an unlikelihood dilemma with an even greater unlikelihood without taking into account that probability?
   
     It can be hard to tell when a question is a real one that is answered differently in different cases or a pseudo-question that doesn't depend on any particular answer and merely invites the fore-ordained conclusion. If you think that a god answers all these questions without provoking the same questions in turn then you aren't interested in questions or answers either.

    It's not based on much, but I think life should be rare in the universe because only a small part of it permits the right kind of chemistry over long periods without disruption by high radiation levels or extreme swings in conditions produced by eccentric orbits, violent collisions or other nasty things. This is probably the only universe and it didn't appear out of nothing because nothing doesn't exist. Explanations, like causality, are patterns in existence that derive meaning from pattern detectors like us, and this is a new feature. The discoverable laws are among the patterns we detect, and the concept of cause could be said to be fulfilled by what can be discovered about causes and no higher perspective can be synthesized that could make a cause for them.

[drogulus]

How can anyone imagine that any insight into the world can be gained from such an argument?   

     It isn't designed to gain insight, it's designed to express the limitations on what insight can realistically be had. We will find out more about what laws are in effect, but we won't find out more about what laws are, because laws are just descriptions of what is the case.

[head-case]

     It isn't designed to gain insight, it's designed to express the limitations on what insight can realistically be had. We will find out more about what laws are in effect, but we won't find out more about what laws are, because laws are just descriptions of what is the case.

And that isn't obvious?

What science has to say about religion has already been said.  Life is not supernatural, it's just the laws of physics and statistics.  Anyone who believes in organized religion these days is like a grown child pretending that Santa Claus exists.  By definition they are immune to argument.

[Xenophanes]

And that isn't obvious?

What science has to say about religion has already been said.  Life is not supernatural, it's just the laws of physics and statistics.  Anyone who believes in organized religion these days is like a grown child pretending that Santa Claus exists.  By definition they are immune to argument.

So science has nothing more to say about religion? I hardly think so. 

Who said that life is supernatural? And if anyone, what did they mean by that?

You have a strange idea of religion.  Who "believes in organized religion"?  Whatever would such a phrase mean?

Anyway, you have given your evaluation of "organized religion" but offer no arguments for it.

[M forever]

Anyone who believes in organized religion these days is like a grown child pretending that Santa Claus exists. 

What - you are saying Santa doesn't exist? That's not funny anymore. Did he not bring you presents when you were a child? Huh? And now you turn on him like that?

[Bunny]

And that isn't obvious?

What science has to say about religion has already been said.  Life is not supernatural, it's just the laws of physics and statistics.  Anyone who believes in organized religion these days is like a grown child pretending that Santa Claus exists.  By definition they are immune to argument.

So science has nothing more to say about religion? I hardly think so. 

Who said that life is supernatural? And if anyone, what did they mean by that?

You have a strange idea of religion.  Who "believes in organized religion"?  Whatever would such a phrase mean?

Anyway, you have given your evaluation of "organized religion" but offer no arguments for it.

I'm afraid that I've got to agree with head-case on this: Science has very little to say about religion, if anything at all.  On the other hand, religion has a lot to say about science.

Religion's relationship with science reminds me of Newton's relationship with the Bible.  Newton studied scriptures obsessively, looking for errors and secret messages, much the way a stalker studies the object of his obsession.  The stalker is constantly looking at the actions and speech of the object for the secret messages, and proof of the relationship between himself and the object.  There are organized religious associations (such as the intelligent design community) who examine scientifically obtained information with a similar intent: They search for errors and the secret messages to reveal the "hand of God."   

[Xenophanes]

I'm afraid that I've got to agree with head-case on this: Science has very little to say about religion, if anything at all.  On the other hand, religion has a lot to say about science.

Religion's relationship with science reminds me of Newton's relationship with the Bible.  Newton studied scriptures obsessively, looking for errors and secret messages, much the way a stalker studies the object of his obsession.  The stalker is constantly looking at the actions and speech of the object for the secret messages, and proof of the relationship between himself and the object.  There are organized religious associations (such as the intelligent design community) who examine scientifically obtained information with a similar intent: They search for errors and the secret messages to reveal the "hand of God."   

i didn't say science has much to say about God.  I said it has something to say about religion--and I would include other areas of study other than the physical science.  But science can look at how people react, what happens in the brain, and so on.  I hardly think there is nothing more to learn in such areas. Also, many of us have found that certain interpretations of religious texts are not tenable--such as the idea that we can learn much about the physical structure and history of the universe from such texts.

[Joe_Campbell]

I don't see how one can honestly say science has nothing to say about religion. The very foundation of the OT in the Bible is put into question by certain scientific theories. I think science is saying a lot about a religion when it suggests that that religion may just be plain wrong.

[head-case]

I don't see how one can honestly say science has nothing to say about religion. The very foundation of the OT in the Bible is put into question by certain scientific theories. I think science is saying a lot about a religion when it suggests that that religion may just be plain wrong.

Religion is a fairy tale.  Science has nothing to say about something which has no basis in reality.  Of course, science can help us understand why humans have a need for such fairy tales,  but that is not the study of religion, but of biology.  In a general sense it is clear that a "spiritual" sense helped early humans survive and that it was an outcome of evolution, like other traits.

[Joe_Campbell]

Religion is a fairy tale.  Science has nothing to say about something which has no basis in reality.  Of course, science can help us understand why humans have a need for such fairy tales,  but that is not the study of religion, but of biology.  In a general sense it is clear that a "spiritual" sense helped early humans survive and that it was an outcome of evolution, like other traits.

Right. How is it 'clear' that religion helped early humans to survive when the general non-religious position is that we'd be better off without it. I see you've adopted the M-forever 'fairy tale' nomenclature for religion. Considering the historocity of the bible, I'm not sure how you can claim it as a work of fiction.

[head-case]

I wasn't aware that M used this terminology, it is a fairly straight forward analogy. 

When humans had no understanding or control over how the world worked they needed something to motivate them.  They also had instincts for cooperative behavior (as most animals do) but needed something to rationalize it).  God was the answer.  People now have science, and are like grown-ups who have credit cards and don't have to ask Santa to bring them presents if they're good.

The bible has sections that claim to be history but they don't seem to be very accurate. 

Right. How is it 'clear' that religion helped early humans to survive when the general non-religious position is that we'd be better off without it. I see you've adopted the M-forever 'fairy tale' nomenclature for religion. Considering the historocity of the bible, I'm not sure how you can claim it as a work of fiction.

[Joe_Campbell]

I wasn't aware that M used this terminology, it is a fairly straight forward analogy. 

When humans had no understanding or control over how the world worked they needed something to motivate them.  They also had instincts for cooperative behavior (as most animals do) but needed something to rationalize it).  God was the answer.  People now have science, and are like grown-ups who have credit cards and don't have to ask Santa to bring them presents if they're good.

So is this your thorough analysis of the situation using 'common sense'? With all that science has to offer, I would think you would provide a better explanation for your ideas. You seem to ascribe to the notion that, if something can be explained scientifically, that explanation automatically is THE REASON. I don't discount scientific explanations, but you have no way to verify your assumption.

Let me ask you this:
Is the concept of God a human fabrication as an explanation for why we are here? OR
Is the concept of God a human fabrication as a rationalization for cooperative behaviour?

As long as both the answers point out that God is a farce, it doesn't matter if they're contradictory. Are these both scientific theories as well?

[Al Moritz]

People now have science, and are like grown-ups who have credit cards and don't have to ask Santa to bring them presents if they're good.

You have no idea how incredibly childish this sounds to someone like me who is both a scientist and who believes in God (but not in Santa Claus).