If they are my definitions of the words being used by Einstein in the quotes you've linked to, then he and I exactly agree -- exactly. He speaks pure Advaita.
You anti-God-ists refuse to have a legitimate debate and insist on strawdogging by this easily thrashed dead-horse meme of "personal God." Every time I use the word "God," not a, ahem, soul here has bothered to see if I mean "personal God" or "Einstein's object of wonderment." That's the tell, ya see? You anti-God-ists are out for a fight and pick your issues that you think are your aces up your sleeves. And, bother! if anyone tries to spotlight deeper issues. Anti-God-ists come off as sycophants of Holy Concept -- all bow to the power of concepts! Pray for another concept to arrive. Sickeningly religious if you ask me. Einstein's quotes clearly show his strongest endorsement of "awareness" and "being" as palpable memes that cannot be un-included in a scientific summation of the basis of creation. Awareness is required for any religion, but awareness has no need for any particularity when it comes to embodiments. Argue all day long about vanilla or chocolate, get off on it and rouse yourselves to heights of fervor, but let's all agree that there is such a thing as "taste" -- common ground, eh? That Einstein did not believe in a soul that survives death is the most powerful card anti-God-ists can play -- their faces displaying a proud smuggery that they've got the top trump. Note that Einstein says Buddhism would be a religion that came close to meeting his need for logic and sanity in a relationship with the unknown. Obviously Buddhism's "void" is a central meme that resonates with science's holy grail of the unified field -- for in such a field, there can be no defining (G. O. D. = Get Over Defining) since all "forces" would be one -- and where there's solely "one" there cannot be a second element with the role of observer. There's your Quantum God.....pure unified everything more intimate with itself than two entangled photons. Whew, it takes my breath away when I read about today's ESTABLISHED profundities. If I were a Christian, I'd be bad-mouthing quantum physics with every Sunday's sermoning breath. And I suppose many of them do. They'd be the smarties. I haven't googled it, but maybe Einstein can be found opining that this unified field that is so sought by today's (post Bohr) very religious scientists who believe so deeply that it must exist is righteously labeled "God," or "Being" or "Awareness" -- but always with the dynamic "alive" being integral to any defining. I see nothing in the quotes provided that would obviate this possibility -- that the unified field is alive and at least 13 billion years old, if not eternal. "Alive" would mean -- processing awareness that is structured by inviolate axioms of relationship. In this "religion," one might say that an electron is being holy when it circles a proton "exactly so." It is sinless, ya see? There is your alter, there is your saint with perfect humility. Every time I read about how physics is trending, I never see atheism becoming more solid. I see religion's power rent, but transcendentalism is all the more supported thereby. When I read Einstein's words, I hear a clarion pealing that there is a "something" which is beyond grasp by concept but which is as deserving of worship which one sees modeled in the electron's constancy as it en-spheres the proton. Indeed, I am humbled thusly, for I have not yet that perfect ability to focus on the centrality of existence -- Being -- in such lock-step resonance with it. If I did, I know I would feel ELECTRIC! Edg -- Priest of the Living Unknown --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: > > I don't want to get into any of the knee-jerk defenses > of faith vs. reason or God vs. things-just-happening; > there is a place for both points of view in the world. > I'm merely reacting to the oft-repeated-as-if-it-were- > true claim that Einstein was a religionist or believed > in God, almost always repeated by God freaks. > > T'ain't true. He said some things that mentioned God, > usually as a metaphor for the "laws of nature" as he > perceived them. These quotes have been touted by people > with a God to sell, doing the same thing Maharishi did, > trying to use a public figure to sell their ideas. But > the vast majority of Einstein's quotes in letters and > talks dealt with his *lack* of belief in any kind of > sentient God. His daughter in recent years has released > a number of these letters into the public domain, with > the effect that Einstein's overall position as a rational > humanist with an astounding sense of wonder about the > universe, but without the need to project some kind of > sentience guiding and controlling it, is clear. > > Here are a few "balancing" quotes from him. Those who > feel that they need to become angry or lash out at > either him or at me for pointing them out, please > read my recent post on Faith before doing so to get > a feel for what you look like, and what you are demon- > strating about the nature of your faith when you do so. > > http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/einstein.htm > > http://www.atheistempire.com/greatminds/quotes.php?author=9 > > http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Religions-Atheist-Atheism-Agnostic.htm > > Now, that taken care of, as to the question of intuition. > I for one see no problem with intuition being both a > valuable and a valid mechanism, in both life and science. > "Having a feeling" for how something works sometimes > leads scientists to deeper and fuller understanding of > the thing, and how it indeed seems to work. Sometimes > it doesn't, and leads down a blind alley. > > The issue, in my opinion, is which one "owes allegiance > to" the most -- one's intuition, or the facts. If the > latter, you're a scientist, and will have no problem > shrugging your shoulders, saying "Ooops...wrong about > that one," and moving on. If the former, you're a > religionist (or a solipsist), and choose to disregard > verifiable, demonstrable facts so that you can persist > in believing the things you want to believe. > > While the latter approach is as old as humanity, and > seems to be the Operating System du Jour on this dumb- > and-dumber planet, you're never going to convince me > that it's either a rational approach, or a spiritual > one. My notion of spiritual most closely maps to the > Buddhist one of trying to suss out "What is," without > a lot of "What I've been told is" or "What I'd like > to be" in the way. > > Your mileage may vary. And that's OK, if you want to > live your life that way. But don't think for a minute > that you choosing to live your life that way sets any > kind of standard. >
