Albert Einstein (1879-1955) Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Max Planck (1858-1947) Planck made many contributions to physics, but is best known for quantum theory, which has revolutionized our understanding of the atomic and sub-atomic worlds. In his 1937 lecture "Religion and Naturwissenschaft," Planck expressed the view that God is everywhere present, and held that "the holiness of the unintelligible Godhead is conveyed by the holiness of symbols." Atheists, he thought, attach too much importance to what are merely symbols. Planck was a churchwarden from 1920 until his death, and believed in an almighty, all-knowing, beneficent God (though not necessarily a personal one). Both science and religion wage a "tireless battle against skepticism and dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition" with the goal "toward God!"
Just as well I heard my bodyguard got out of prison and changed his ways. Never forget the night he asked our bible study group to pray that the guy he beat up behind the liquor store wouldn't die. We said "Yah, we can pray for that." By the way he didn't die. The power of prayer.
"Scientists are hard to work with on a committee, an academic friend once told me, because they often change their minds when they see new evidence." Precisely! Because they are rational, and admit they can be wrong! Unlike religious dogma that does not even allow for the possibility of being wrong. That is precisely what makes science so great. It is self-fixing, unlike religion. "I was reminded of this a few months ago when I saw a survey in the journal Nature. It revealed that 40% of American physicists, biologists and mathematicians believe in God--and not just some metaphysical abstraction, but a deity who takes an active interest in our affairs and hears our prayers: the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. This percentage, it turns out, is exactly the same as it was in 1916, when an identical poll was taken. Strikingly, as the nation's intelligentsia has turned toward atheism, many in the scientific community have stuck to theism. They apparently haven't changed their minds about whether God exists." An absolutely FRAUDULENT claim! I'm amazed at the length these people will go to spew fraudulent information to the public in defense of their personaly mythologies! Here is the real data: "The follow-up study reported in "Nature" reveals that the rate of belief is lower than eight decades ago. The latest survey involved 517 members of the National Academy of Sciences; half replied. When queried about belief in "personal god," only 7% responded in the affirmative, while 72.2% expressed "personal disbelief," and 20.8% expressed "doubt or agnosticism."" Even religious sites know the REAL numbers, sheesh! Take a look: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3506.asp 72.2% atheistic 20.8% agnostic Only 7% believers. The guy who wrote that article is a bold faced liar. Note: Only the nation's most distinguished scientists and engineers belong to the National Academy of Sciences. "Even as the "soul" has made a comeback, computer science has helped us imagine how it might be an immaterial and, indeed, immortal thing, separable from the body the way software is separable from the hardware that runs it." A possibility is not a fact. " And quantum theory, which overthrew Newtonian physics in the first half of this century, has revealed that matter itself has a ghostly, almost magical character. The universe turns out to be more like a thought than like a machine. Which raises a question for atheists: Whose thought? " LOL.... no one has proved it is like a thought. This is one persons opinion. Even if it is "like" a thought, that does not MAKE it a thought which requires a thinker. Really stretching here. ""The more I study science the more I believe in God," Albert Einstein once remarked. Einstein's Supreme Being, it should be noted, was a remote and disinterested one, more or less identifiable with the final laws of physics--a far cry from the God of Kierkegaard and Mother Teresa, the God incarnated under the reign of Augustus as a Galilean craftsman and crucified during the procuratorship of Pontius Pilate in an act of redemption." It is well known that Albert Einstein was not religious and that he used the word God metaphorically to describe what he perceived as order in the universe. He said in a personal letter: "I get hundreds and hundreds of letters but seldom one so interesting as yours. I believe that your opinions about our society are quite reasonable. 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." "Contemporary science, no matter how unsettling it may be to the vulgar atheism of many of today's intellectuals, could never by itself hint at such a deity. Still less could it resolve the perplexity of Evelyn Waugh--who, on his conversion to Catholicism, said, "I believe it all. But what I cannot understand is why God made the world in the first place."" Vulgar atheism? No, this guy isn't biased "I didn't realize someone else had the same take a I do on computer software. There is far from a lock on concenus in the scientific community." It's certainly a possibility. Just not proven, and therefore merely a hypothesis at this time. peace axeman
Prove any of those numbers are correct.....Prove Einstien said those things....i want to see evidence..
It's already proven. Since you won't accept quotes from me, you will have to look up the refernce in Nature magazine yourself. As for Einstein, im sure you can find a book of his personal writings for sale somewhere, and you can look it up yourself. peace axeman
Ya mean Einstein never had his voice recorded? Geez, its not hard to capture one's voice, even if they are unaware of it.
I'll assume your just kidding with that smiley there, and understand the difference between a claim as grand as god and a personally written letter from a mortal man. peace axeman
Are you saying that when Nature polled the National Academy of Sciences members, and then published their results, and that the same results can be found in the National Academy of scientists OWN publications, that this does NOT qualify as enough evidence in your view to believe that this polling took place? Nature magazine is writing about the existence of a POLL, which is verifiable. The bible is writing about incredibly unbelievable super natural beings, which is completely unverifiable. You equate these as the same???????? Should I read greek mythology, containing extraordinary events, and ASSUME they are true simply because they are written? Don't think so. As for a letter written by einstein, not much of a grand claim there, what would you require? If you really put the time and effort into it, Im willing to bet you could locate the actual letter, hand written, and addressed by einstein. Furthermore, you could probably get hand writing analysis done on it if you really want to be sure. Once again, people fail to see the relationship between the requirements of evidence and the nature/grandness of the claim. If you told me that you walked your dog yesterday, I would accept it at face value. If you told me you had a PHD in biochemistry, I might ask to see your university certificate. If you told me you were superman, you better COUNT on me asking to see you fly around while lifting a tow truck If a reputable magazine publishes a study, i'm apt to believe it. If an underground magazine published an article about alien abductions, im not going to believe it. If you claim that you are god and created the universe, you better believe I will ask you to give me a tour or the entire universe and perform some pretty miraculous shit See a pattern here??? The grander the claim, the greater the evidence required. This is why god requires so much evidence, and multiple cross referenced internet sources quoting Einstein letters are enough evidence. peace axeman