Belief in God 'childish,' Jews not chosen people:

[Nucklesack]

Originally Posted by This_person

Einstein provided me with that idea:

This proposal caused a sharp reaction from the scientific community of the time. Eddington found Lemaitre's notion unpleasant. As for Einstein, he found it suspect, because, according to him, it was too strongly reminiscent of the Christian dogma of creation and was unjustifiable from a physical point of view. The debate between cosmology and religion took the form of a polemic that would last several decades. In this debate, Lemaître would be a fundamental actor who unceasingly tried to separate science from faith.

However, in January 1933, Lemaitre and Einstein, who had met on several occasions - in 1927 in Brussels, at the time of a Solvay congress, in 1932 in Belgium, at the time of a cycle of conferences in Brussels and lastly in 1935 at Princeton - traveled together to California for a series of seminars. After the Belgian detailed his theory, Einstein stood up, applauded, and said, "This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened".

{One source among many}

Not to nitpick but where does Einstein say the Big Bang was to close to Genesis, so it cant be true? Your first paragraph mentions it but its someones interpretation of Einsteins belief.

The Second paragraph doesnt re-inforce the first paragraph, because you havent shown where Einstein discounted it based on theological reasons.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

Not to nitpick but where does Einstein say the Big Bang was to close to Genesis, so it cant be true? Your first paragraph mentions it but its someones interpretation of Einsteins belief.

The Second paragraph doesnt re-inforce the first paragraph, because you havent shown where Einstein discounted it based on theological reasons.

You don't think that his critisism of it based on it sounding like Genesis demonstrated him discounting it based on it sounding like Genesis?

Seriously, he continued to hold onto his constant universe theory until he finally had to give it up as his "biggest blunder", but only when the theory of the Big Bang had been thoroughly peer reviewed and he wouldn't be seen as a theist for believing it. He told the guy who most famously discussed it that "math doesn't prove everything" when he couldn't refute the data, just the concept.

[Nucklesack]

Originally Posted by This_person

You don't think that his critisism of it based on it sounding like Genesis demonstrated him discounting it based on it sounding like Genesis?

Seriously, he continued to hold onto his constant universe theory until he finally had to give it up as his "biggest blunder", but only when the theory of the Big Bang had been thoroughly peer reviewed and he wouldn't be seen as a theist for believing it. He told the guy who most famously discussed it that "math doesn't prove everything" when he couldn't refute the data, just the concept.

But i dont see Einstein disproving it for theological reasons, i see him disproving it because it went against what he believed (the universe always was).

It looks as if Eddington is the one who had issues due to theology, and the author of the piece lumped Einstein in with him.

As to Einstein holding onto his Theory over the Big Bang, that is the way a Peer Review is supposed to work.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

But i dont see Einstein disproving it for theological reasons, i see him disproving it because it went against what he believed (the universe always was).

Other than him saying he was against it for theological reasons, and arguing that the science was good but the thought was bad, I don't know what else to say. Read what he had to say on it.

As to Einstein holding onto his Theory over the Big Bang, that is the way a Peer Review is supposed to work.

Open minded skeptisism, yes. Blatant denial because it disagrees with your own personal views, no.

[Nucklesack]

Originally Posted by This_person

Other than him saying he was against it for theological reasons, and arguing that the science was good but the thought was bad, I don't know what else to say. Read what he had to say on it.

I'm not the one arguing Einstein was against the Big Bang for theological reasons.

Your example doesnt show where Einsteins claimed any such thing. It does quote Eddington (who's not Einstein) statements about it being to close to Theology, but the article then lumps Einstein in as being similiar without any proof. Solely because Eddington (who's not Einstein) did feel that way.

Your article then goes on and states that Einstein was against the Big Bang because it ran counter to his "Universe Always was" theory, which sounds like Eintstiens reasoning way ahead of any theological one

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

I'm not the one arguing Einstein was against the Big Bang for theological reasons.

Your example doesnt show where Einsteins claimed any such thing. It does quote Eddington (who's not Einstein) statements about it being to close to Theology, but the article then lumps Einstein in as being similiar without any proof. Solely because Eddington (who's not Einstein) did feel that way.

Your article then goes on and states that Einstein was against the Big Bang because it ran counter to his "Universe Always was" theory, which sounds like Eintstiens reasoning way ahead of any theological one

Well, except that his "reasoning" wasn't scientifically based. He decided the physics, the math, was right. But, it sounded like creation, therefore it must be wrong and HE must be right - even in the face of conflicting information.

That's kind of my point all along. His mind was not open. His reason for choosing a constant universe was, I'm sure, ego driven as well as anti-theologic driven, but it was still anti-theology (at least in part).

His ideology was kinda the point of the original post starting the thread, too.

[Nucklesack]

Originally Posted by This_person

Well, except that his "reasoning" wasn't scientifically based. He decided the physics, the math, was right. But, it sounded like creation, therefore it must be wrong and HE must be right - even in the face of conflicting information.

And thats the point, from what are you basing that Einstein didnt like the Big Bang theory because it sounded like Creation? Eddington is not Einstein, and Eddington is the one who claimed that.

Originally Posted by This_person

That's kind of my point all along. His mind was not open. His reason for choosing a constant universe was, I'm sure, ego driven as well as anti-theologic driven, but it was still anti-theology (at least in part).

His ideology was kinda the point of the original post starting the thread, too.

Once again, your interjecting your interpretation about Einstein, without any proof.

Einstein = Hardheaded = True

Einstein = Against the Big Bang because it mirrors Theology = False

[wildsage]

Originally Posted by This_person

...and was unjustifiable from a physical point of view.

Einstein was ALL about the physics, it was the math that he distrusted:
"Do not worry about your difficulties in Mathematics. I can assure you mine are still greater."

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

Your example doesnt show where Einsteins claimed any such thing.

Nope, it does not.

And besides, scientific research obviously did not come to a screeching halt for "several decades" because the god of E=mc² pulled a boner. Don't you think that the contemporary minds were just DYING to get a contrary opinion considered seriously? I suspect that the young guns were lined up trying to disprove the old master.
I contend that Einstein was irreligious, not bothering himself with that side of the cosmological arguments until someone with an agenda tried to put him in a position that he didn't choose: "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views." And his reaction was the same with either side.

[fuzzywzhe]

Originally Posted by This_person

His bigotry against ideas other than non-religious ones is why he could not accept the Big Bang Theory - sounded too much like Genesis. Of course, it's the accepted theory, today.

More proof that scientists do NOT have open minds.

This is absolutely not untrue.

Einstein was the champion of the "big bang theory". This theory originated from George LeMaitre, a Belgian priest. The theory was named the big bang theory not by either Einstein or LeMaitre but by the detractors of the theory in the scientific community to denigrate it. After Hubble's Law had been published, Einstein endorsed LeMaitre's "big bang theory", since Hubble's Law shows that the universe is apparently expanding and this explains why we see red shift nearly everywhere we look in the universe. Previously, it was believed by almost the entire scientific community that we lived in a static universe that had no beginning and would have no end.

LeMaitre predicted a background radiation that would be expected to exist if there really was a beginning of the universe. In 1964 Robert Wilson and Arno Penzias accidentally observed this background radiation for the first time, and their measurements were consistent with LeMaitre's prediction of the intensity of the signal. These two won a Nobel Prize for this discovery, however there is still contention as to whether the big bang actually happened although it's widely accepted as scientific fact by most people today.

If Einstein had any bigotry with regard to science, it was his belief that a model could precisely predict the actions of particles. He did not (originally) believe in the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and argued at length with Bohr over this, Bohr proved him wrong using Einstein's own equations. You may know this argument from Einstein's famous quote "God does not play dice". You can know that Einstein abandoned his belief because the Boise Einstein condensate is named after him, and exhibits the property of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. In science, to progress, you have to admit when you're wrong. In the pursuit to understand the natural world there have been far more failures than successes, but the successes are kept and built upon. Every scientist makes errors, it's impossible not to.

If you want to criticize scientists, at least get what they actually professed correct. A good scientist's mind is often limited (but not always), to observable fact, because scientific discipline makes the assumption that everything in the universe can be explained by cause and effect that nothing has a supernatural explanation. After all, a scientist can't ram a proton traveling at 99.999999% the speed of light into a substance, observe odd behavior and say "well, God did it". You may want to regard that as a limitation of science, this sort of disciplined thinking has utterly revolutionized the world.

I would like to point out that when Christianity dominated Europe in culture and education it was called the Dark Ages. During this time a man by the name of Bruno was burned at the stake for claiming that stars were other suns (among other more radical and wrong ideas), and Galileo almost saw the same fate for implying the Earth wasn't actually the center of the Universe.

I would humbly like to suggest that based on my observation of the past, that scientists have much more open minds than religious dogmatists. Perhaps you would like to inspect your own openmindedness.

I would also like to point out that over our lifetimes our opinions and personal beliefs do change. I was rather surprised to see Einstein be so blunt with regard to atheism. Although I cannot know for certain, I rather doubt Einstein always had this hardened a view. Einstein has made many statements on religion, and I've never seen him be less evasive than in this particular quote. It's very surprising to me.

As an aside, I should disclose that I am an atheist myself, although I think it's likely I'll take Pascal's Wager at some point while I lie on my deathbed but I'll never accept Christianity I'm certain. I cannot believe the one true religion can have such a history. Perhaps I will become a Jain, they are non violent, have never had a war or an Inquisition or a Crusade. They believe that the ultimate sin is to harm others, and by others, animals are included in that, even plants are. I would have to agree at least partially with that philosophy, it's very compelling anyhow - to strive to hurt as little as possible throughout your lifetime. That philosophy doesn't seem to exist in any Judeo religion which I think is great pity and most ironically of all, many Christians consider such a religion a false religion undoubtedly created by Lucifer. I often wonder why Christians never consider the possibility that their own religion is a creation of Lucifer.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

And thats the point, from what are you basing that Einstein didnt like the Big Bang theory because it sounded like Creation? Eddington is not Einstein, and Eddington is the one who claimed that.

Once again, your interjecting your interpretation about Einstein, without any proof.

Einstein = Hardheaded = True

Einstein = Against the Big Bang because it mirrors Theology = False

Okay, now YOU've made the claim, thus the burden of proof has shifted.