themadness
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2008
- Messages
- 19
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2006
I'm not certain about Tesla, but Einstein was definitely not religious in the 'normal' sense of the word. It has often been construed by various organisations/individuals with an axe to grind (on par with the misquoting of biologists by creationists) that he was quote, "a deeply religious man". This is emphatically not true, especially given the recent high profile auctioning of his letters in which he emphatically stated that he was not religious.Starcraftmazter said:Einstein
Tesla
Two greats physisists in the history of the human race were deeply religious, and their religion inspired a lot of their work.
'nuf said, article's argument is invaid.
Einstein held what were a very interesting set of beliefs. He could probably be best described as either a deist or a pantheist, but basically he was in awe of the universe (something which I can relate to). He was just as annoyed when Atheists quote mined him as when people of a religious persuasion did the same.
Take note of the use of inverted comma's around the 'normal' above. I have always found it interesting that people often use very loose definitions of their beliefs in God. I'm going to go with the definition that religion (to borrow from wikipedia); ".. is a set of beliefs and practices generally held by a human community, involving adherence to codified beliefs and rituals and study of ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and mystic experience."
Besides this fairly inconsequential side note, the argument you have put forth is basically flawed. The point that the author of the study tried to was that there appeared to be an inverse correlation between intelligence and a belief in a 'personal God'. I don't necessarily agree with this point-of-view, but he was stating what the data seemed to suggest. This doesn't mean that if you find two prominent examples of people (you believe) are intelligent and believe in a personal God, that the argument is entirely invalid - it just means that they are intelligent and believe in a personal God. Its not like you are trying to prove an existence statement; where if you find one example of it not being the case the whole argument goes out the window.
This may be descending into ad-hominem territory but I believe that Karl Marx once stated (roughly translated and slightly paraphrased) that religion was the "opiate of the masses". Starcraftmazter, assuming you believe in a personal God (a reasonable proposition given your stance in this thread) - how do you integrate this with your political views ie to use a euphemism; quite far left? Note - this is a serious question. I do want to know.
Oh and ...
Please try not to generalise so much. I know this may be hard given your apparent intense disliking of Americans, but that is basically on par of trying to say that all Atheists are intelligent while all Christians are dumb. In short generalisations are evil.Starcraftmazter said:Indeed, this must be the most biased, most idiotic study done, just to badmouth religion.
And as if it wasn't already stupid - it was done in USA, on Americans, and I think that just says it all.