Albert Einstein's Belief in Pantheism

Post Reply New Topic

Oh, and the main reason I read this thread: I am a pantheist. The universe is like a drug to me. Maybe this is because of my AS - I experience it so intensely.

I also like how pantheism can reconcile both religion and atheism. Of course, most religious people and atheists do not want to be reconciled, but at least the option is there if they ever want it.

if pantheism, as i learned in another thread here not long ago,
is all about holding the same admiration for the universe that religious people do for their god then i am a pantheist too.
i find the thought of the observable universe exhilerating, the almost endless possibilities that lie in its illusion of emptyness is amazing.

had you asked me yesterday i would have been an atheist,
though i guess i really should read up on the history of the term.

true, i simply view the term pantheist as "atheist with religious like feelings towards the universe"
i dont think it has a will, i dont thinkit has intention, its laws govern how we work as we are part of it, science is the understadning of these laws.

I can't see much good thinking in the Einstein stuff.

The best I see here:
http://einsteinandreligion.com/atheism.html

"Well a priori one should expect a chaotic world which cannot be grasped by the mind in anyway. One could (yes one should) expect the world to be subjected to law only to the extent that we order it through our intelligence. Ordering of this kind would be like the alphabetical ordering of the words of a language. By contrast, the kind of order created by Newton's theory of gravitation, for instance, is wholly different. Even if the axioms of the theory are proposed by man, the success of such a project presupposes a high degree of ordering of the objective world, and this could not be expected a priori. That is the "miracle" which is being constantly re-enforced as our knowledge expands."

Which is an invocation of the teleological argument. However, this invocation isn't very compelling. After all, a priori claims are hard to make, as one could make the opposite claim: "Rules are simpler than no rules. We should expect simplicity first. Therefore, we should expect a lawful world above a chaotic one". This does not have to be horribly compelling, just enough so to blunt his claim. I mean, Einstein's claim that patterns are unexpected is easily questioned and his inference seems horrible, because the set of godless lawful worlds is likely rather large, so even if our probability of God goes up if easily identified laws exist, it likely won't make the inference of God more probable than not, as any explanatory principle invoked for this kind of claim would likely need to provide an explanation for God as well. Finally, his comment on Newton seems to be problematic given that physics has proven itself to be very chaotic and problematic.

Honestly though, I think Einstein's religious feeling seems to be NOT based upon powerful analytic tools or great evidence or any such thing, if only because there is a lack of arguments/evidence of argument, despite all of the vague, wishy washy emotional content.