Guardian Reveals The Secret Of Life

The Guardian

This is what Einstein actually said.

“My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.”

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

32 Responses to Guardian Reveals The Secret Of Life

  1. These discussions about science, philosophy, and God are always on the same hackneyed rabbit trail.

    I see the greatest minds in science have all believed in God. Kepler wanted to be a priest but was told his mind would be better used in science than the clergy. Faraday wanted to be a missionary to foreign lands but was told the same as Kepler—and thank God for it! Richard Feynman always mentioned God. Galileo wanted to teach his science from pulpits of churches as sermons on God. And not only did Einstein say the above but also said this when asked if he believed in Jesus (please, all those who will reply this quote is of doubtful origins save it. it’s something Einstein said. Atheists hate that he said it, I already know it)

    “Unquestionably. No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life. How different, for instance, is the impression which we receive from an account of legendary heroes of antiquity like Theseus. Theseus and other heroes of his type lack the authentic vitality of Jesus.”

    • Billy Liar says:

      I see the greatest minds in science have all believed in God.

      Are you including Al Gore?

    • Right. says:

      They don’t use god in science. They can’t. God is not a scientific explanation. Some scientists had faith, yes, but they did NOT use god as a scientific explanation.

      I thought a blog like ‘real science’ would actually have a real definition of science.

    • Stephen Richards says:

      Einsteins belief also deflected him from achieving his greatest pinacle. When faced with the hypothysis of quantum physics he refused to accept its’ possibilities because “god doesn’t play (not sure here) poker with nature. He couldn’t accept the principles of probabilty, Heisenberg’s uncertainty, etc.

      I am a complete atheist having studied with the Mormon church of latter day saints and the church of england and now catholalism.

      • Heisenberg’s uncertainty should rather have been called Heisenberg’s unknown since more of what was uncertain in his time is evolving into understood. Just because someone doesn’t understand the laws of nature completely doesn’t mean that random things are happening. It just means that someone needs to learn more.

        You have an opinion of Einstein that has been bandied about since Neils Bohr, a man his inferior, said it. There is nothing unknown and uncertain with God. The fact that Bohr was unable to grasp that doesn’t mean Einstein was wrong. God does not play dice. He knows the outcome from the inception. Neils Bohr was wrong. Einstein was right.

      • Dave N says:

        I doubt Einstein was referring to “God” in the classical sense. Refer to the quote in this post; that would be more like it.

        This kind of thinking would not have prevented him from achieving all that he was capable of.

      • Amino Acids in Meteorites wrote:

        Just because someone doesn’t understand the laws of nature completely doesn’t mean that random things are happening. It just means that someone needs to learn more.

        At the quantum scale, this does not seem to be true: Random things are happening.

        The odd use of “probability” to determine an object’s position suggests that, were the effect real, the object would occasionally appear on the wrong side of a barrier that it could not possibly have gotten through. This “quantum tunneling” happens, in fact, and we call the effect “radioactivity.”

        And a single “particle” can interfere with itself, going through two openings at once though it will only arrive at a single point (if it doesn’t cancel itself out through self-interference). This is very bizarre; we can imagine no physical mechanism that could be represented in a single universe this way … but there it is, and we can take advantage of it.

        Essentially, all of electronics does take advantage of this effect.

        Random (and seemingly impossible) things do happen to individual particles, though with a large enough number of them we can compute the probability.

        ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

      • Einstein was referring to God. If you take all he said as a whole he meant God, literally, God.

      • Keith DeHavelle

        You are describing things that are not yet understood. They are not random. They are not understood. There is a bigger picture that has not been grasped by man yet. God understand them now. Maybe one day man will too,

        Is it ok for humans to admit they just don’t understand some things?

      • gator69 says:

        Quantum physics is navel gazing, philosophy disguised as science.

  2. Andy DC says:

    The next great breakthru in science may be discovering the method of spirit communication. Must be something similar to electricity or radio waves. There appears to be empirical evidence, thru religion and individual testimony of sane, sincere people that spirit communication is real. It will be up to the next Einstein to unravel this mystery. That will be a bad day for atheists.

    • Right. says:

      No. It would be a good day for atheists because finally there would be some evidence for all this religion. We’ve been asking for evidence all the time, and all atheists I know including myself would gladly change their mind if scientific evidence presents itself.

      You don’t know any atheists.

      • Scott says:

        Right. says:
        September 9, 2012 at 5:52 pm

        …all atheists I know including myself would gladly change their mind if scientific evidence presents itself.

        I know plenty of atheists. I’m guessing only a few of them would change their minds, and I don’t think any of them would be “glad” about it.


      • Stephen Richards says:

        I hate discussing religion because it is always based around the counterfactual arguments. As a physicist (ex-ChPhys) I am ready, willing an able to look at any evidence on any subject, analyse it and reach a conclusion if possible. I will also seek to engage ‘experts’ in reaching my conclusions. The religion of AGW and of any other church leave me asking the question as to why apparently intelligent people worship.

    • Andy DC says:

      I have known atheists and some of them are almost more militant than the religious fanatics. Their minds are closed to even the possiblity of an afterlife or any spritual realm.

      • I agree. The term “atheist” has been poisoned, somewhat, by the large crop of “anti-theists” who are tremendously hostile to religion. (Interestingly, they tend to be hostile to Christianity while being considerably less concerned about Islam.)

        I have always been troubled by those quick to blame, say, all wars on religion. (It’s often Christianity to blame in their views.) This ignores the effect of politics; people in positions of power tend to use their own mindsets as justification. A religiously inclined leader (or one in such a culture) might use religion as a justification — when his real goal was territory, and religion’s supposed role is a red herring.

        George W. Bush perhaps disappointed the left in this regard. He did not use religious justifications in Iraq, nor even territorial ones — so they had to make up a “God told me to strike them quote” that is still popular on the Left though long-debunked by the people (including Muslims) who were at that meeting.

        And even a non-theist — mind closed or not — should be able to understand the benefits that religion brings to many people and to society in general, whether or not he chooses to be part of the congregation (note that the article is written from an atheist perspective):

        Let’s say someone gives you $10. Not a king’s ransom, but enough for lunch. You’re then told that you can share your modest wealth with a stranger, if you like, or keep it. You’re assured that your identity will be protected, so there’s no need to worry about being thought miserly. How much would you give?

        If you’re like most people who play the so-called dictator game, which has been used in numerous experiments, you will keep most of the money. In a recent study from a paper with the ominous title “God Is Watching You,” the average subject gave $1.84. Meanwhile, another group of subjects was presented with the same choice but was first asked to unscramble a sentence that contained words like “divine,” “spirit,” and “sacred.”

        The second group of subjects gave an average of $4.22, with a solid majority (64 percent) giving more than five bucks. A heavenly reminder seemed to make subjects significantly more magnanimous. In another study, researchers found that prompting subjects with the same vocabulary made some more likely to volunteer for community projects. Intriguingly, not all of them: Only those who had a specific dopamine receptor variant volunteered more, raising the possibility that religion doesn’t work for everybody.

        A similar experiment was conducted on two Israeli kibbutzes. The scenario was more complicated: Subjects were shown an envelope containing 100 shekels (currently about $25). They were told that they could choose to keep as much of the money as they wished, but that another member of the kibbutz was being given the identical option. If the total requested by the participants (who were kept separated) exceeded 100 shekels, they walked away with nothing. If the total was less than or equal to 100, they were given the money plus a bonus based on what was left over.

        The kicker is that one of the kibbutzes was secular and one was religious. Turns out, the more-devout members of the religious kibbutz, as measured by synagogue attendance, requested significantly fewer shekels and expected others to do the same. The researchers, Richard Sosis and Bradley Ruffle, ventured that “collective ritual has a significant impact on cooperative decisions.”

        See also a study that found that religious people were, in some instances, more likely to treat strangers fairly. Or the multiple studies suggesting that people who were prompted to think about an all-seeing supernatural agent were less likely to cheat. Or the study of 300 young adults in Belgium that found that those who were religious were considered more empathetic by their friends.

        It is foolish for non-theists to wish such a system destroyed. I am sort of the antithesis of the antitheist atheist, and find their hostility disappointing.

        Ah, but like the “occupy” movement, they often seem to be motivated by hate. In fact, I always write “occupy” in lower case, because those folks hate capitalism.

        ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

  3. Billy Liar says:

    Who’s the guy on the left?

    • Socrates, an able representative of philosophy … except that in his time, the two disciplines were less distinct. For example, the early Greeks used rather clever scientific methods to determine the size of the Earth, and got close — perhaps within ten percent, depending upon how we translate their units of measure.

      ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

  4. I’m still waiting for a warmer/Democrat to start booing God.

    • They were shouting “No” rather loudly at the inclusion of God in the Democrat’s platform. (The amendment, to be fair, also including them suggesting that Israel was an ally and that we recognized their capital — the “no!”” was to all of this together.)

      Obama has always had a rather ambivalent relationship with Jerusalem. As usual, his team is attempting to have this both ways: Removing God and Israel to appease the progressive radicals, then putting them back to appease the conservative Democrats. If it were not for media covering for them, both sides would be utterly disgusted with Obama’s team.

      ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

  5. NikFromNYC says:

    The real secrets of life only cost $123 million to decipher vs. the $500 million wasted on custom Solyndra robots that now amount to scrap metal. Today was reported that “junk DNA” has a gene regulatory function that can finally be measured.

    “The new data come from the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements project, or ENCODE, a $123 million endeavor begun by the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) in 2003, which includes 442 scientists in 32 labs around the world.”

    By the way, no good scientist I ever met in 13 years in academia ever seriously suggested “junk DNA” was anything but playful terminology.

    Feynman was quite fond of LSD, as was of course Kary Mullis. It creates religious visions. Must be something genetic, instinctual, eventually measurable.

  6. Gon says:

    I can boo God if you want Amino. Is that the guy who wants to torture billions of people forever? Are yuo guys kidding? 😀

  7. u.k.(us) says:

    slp says:

    September 10, 2012 at 12:35 am

    Einstein also said:

    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
    Read the second part, it was written for a reason.

  8. Lou says:

    Growing up, I never attended church for Sunday services or never had talks with my parents about religious, God, etc. You could say I was unknowingly atheist the whole time. The Bible sounded like tall tales that I thought was not possible. Anyway, over time, I picked up a little information here and there that may have some connections to Bible. I am beginning to think that whatever was written in the Bible may have actually happened a long time ago but at least not in the literal sense. Think about this… look at the technology we have now…We’d had to invent new words for all of these technologies for the past 100 years. Vocabulary or language can change a lot over the time so the translation or interpretation can vary a lot. I mean, change some words in the Bible book and it’d sound like Atlantis from a long time ago if you look at it differently. Two books that dramatically changed my view of ancient past – The Giza Power Plant : Technologies of Ancient Egypt and Lost Technologies of Ancient Egypt: Advanced Engineering in the Temples of the Pharaohs by Christopher Dunn who is an engineer. I’ve always been curious about past climate change so it just happens to be part of human history. Anyway, looking into climate change in Egypt on what may have wiped out that advanced civilization, I came across this where Sphinx may be much older than what is told by mainstream academia. It reminded me of Noah’s flooding. Keep it in mind that Plato got the story about Atlantis from Egypt. Who knows if Atlantis actually existed but I thought it was very intriguing esp after reading Dunn’s books. I highly recommend these books. Here is an except of what was written in the book to get an idea what Dunn has to day –

  9. Sleepalot says:

    Einstein was harrassed his whole life about his religious views, and he said many different things at different points in his life, including “I believe in the God of Spinoza” ie. “I’m a deist”.

    I’m an atheist, and I could be a deist on alternate days without changing my mind about anything. It’s an abusrd “appeal to authority” to suggest it matters what Einstein’s religious views were. Let it go.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s