Tag Archive for 'nature'

Einstein on religion

I have always known that Einstein had some pretty cool and unique views on religion, but I haven’t looked into it much until today. I regret not having done so sooner! Found some really great quotes.

Religion without science is blind.

Some people really need some of this sense talked into them!

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.

The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive.

I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility.

I do not try to imagine a personal God; it suffices to stand in awe at the structure of the world, insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to appreciate it.

I too agree that the idea of a personal, personified God is silly. These quotes precisely illustrate how I like to look at the world myself. Maybe that means I’m a genius too! (ha)

One thing that sets us apart, though, is his definition of “religion,” which is a little too broad for my taste. Take a look at these quotes:

I am a deeply religious nonbeliever. This is a somewhat new kind of religion.

(An extension of the first quote of the post:)

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

Clearly, when he said “religion,” he wasn’t referring to your classic ones. I think he meant something like a more personal religion or belief system – which I would hesitate to call “religion,” because I find myself in the same boat, and I don’t like to call myself “religious.” Meh, it’s all good!

There’s a nicely related NY Times excerpt from the book The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins that I highly recommend. He seems to share my view on the words “God” and “religion.” (I wanted to excerpt some of it here, but it said I needed the publisher’s permission. Too messy.)

Don’t miss my previous discussion of how religions are simply just tools of cultivation/self-improvement.

The Universe, yourself included

universeA while back, I wrote about this idea of becoming “one” with the universe. Before I go on, I need to first establish the idea that, throughout time, the basic principles of the Universe, as a whole, have never changed. Even when the world undergoes cycles of big bangs and shrinkages, even when solar systems collapse and reform, even when seasons change, the Universe, as a whole, remains unmoved.

Pi can always be described as the ratio 3.14. A circle’s circumference will always, just helplessly, be a little greater than three times its diameter. An equilateral triangle will always have equal sides and three angles of 60º. The three angles of all triangles will always add up to 180º. A wave’s frequency will always be inversely proportional to its wavelength. Gravity will always be proportional to the masses of the two objects. A physicist would be able to give you a whole slew of constants and physical relationships that most people haven’t even heard of. These are all bits and pieces of what I like to call the “definition” of nature.

Of course, these numbers are only mere representations of nature. I hope my main idea isn’t obscured by this. The important thing is that there exist (∃) features in the universe that are constant and everlasting. Continue reading ‘The Universe, yourself included’