3 posts tagged “science”
Global Warming seems to be one of the premier policy agendas of the Slanted Left with a significant amount of science to back it up.
Indeed in this age of using science to validate all kinds of research that may have ethical difficulties by Christian moralists, Left thinking has become the politically correct standard for scientific research.
There has been a very real concern for the environment through most of my adult life. The science that has developed Global Warming hypotheses seems to be the path that Left thinking scientists have used to congeal the scientific community to a path to save planet earth. This is much like Darwinism (and the theory’s updated offshoots) has become the politically correct scientific explanation of biological life on planet earth.
As it is near scientific heresy to buck the validity of Darwinism; so also it is becoming scientific heresy to buck the validity of Global Warming.
Those who are politically and scientifically against global warming usually involve free enterprise thinking. The Left thinking politically correct scientific community has developed an epithet for those disputing the conclusions of Global Warming theory. They are called Global Warming Deniers. This is reminiscent of the vitriol rightfully reserved for Holocaust Deniers.
I have even read that some Global Warming enthusiasts believe that it should be made a criminal offense to be a Global Warming Denier.
Here is a look at politically correct Global Warming:
"The current warming cycle falls within historical changes, and the earth has been warming and cooling for millions of years."
It is true that the earth goes through cycles of warm and cold periods due to the interaction of many factors, including especially small variations in the planet's tilt and rotation. A big difference now is that it is our own pollution causing the climate to change. This change is very rapid by historical standards, and it wouldn't be happening at this fast rate if the amount of carbon dioxide humans put in the atmosphere was less. (More Pro-Global Warming …)
Here is a look at politically incorrect views on Global Warming:
So, greenhouse is all about carbon dioxide, right?
Wrong. The most important players on the greenhouse stage are water vapor and clouds. Carbon dioxide has been increased to about 0.038% of the atmosphere (possibly from about 0.028% pre-Industrial Revolution) while water in its various forms ranges from 0% to 4% of the atmosphere and its properties vary by what form it is in and even at what altitude it is found in the atmosphere.
In simple terms the bulk of Earth's greenhouse effect is due to water vapor by virtue of its abundance. Water accounts for about 90% of the Earth's greenhouse effect -- perhaps 70% is due to water vapor and about 20% due to clouds (mostly water droplets), some estimates put water as high as 95% of Earth's total tropospheric greenhouse effect (e.g., Freidenreich and Ramaswamy, “Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,” Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264).
The remaining portion comes from carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, ozone and miscellaneous other "minor greenhouse gases." As an example of the relative importance of water it should be noted that changes in the relative humidity on the order of 1.3-4% are equivalent to the effect of doubling CO2. (More at Junkscience.com)
Obviously I am no scientist. What I am seeing here though is a series of facts with two disputed conclusions.
This is just the science disagreement and how one side (the politically correct) has the ear of the Left while the other side (the politically incorrect) has the ear of the Right.
It is politics that is the friend of agenda focused science. It is the politics of the Left and the Right that tends to aid with the funding of science.
It is in the realm of politics that something is occurring that I am a relative novice in reading about. This is where the “Conspiracy Theory” paradigm raises its head.
I love a good conspiracy theory especially when the facts in the theory are difficult to pooh-pooh away with anything more than looking at the data and developing the theory behind it. Hence it becomes fun when it comes down to believing who said what. One of the great tools of conspiracy theory is to question the credibility of either the person promoting the facts or the science behind the facts.
I am seeing the promoters of a Global Warming conspiracy theory and the promoters of Global Warming science embarking on the ‘question the credibility’ campaign to discredit whatever to solidify a position.
Then I ran into a global one-world government directly related to Global Warming.
While I was Googling the pros and cons of Global Warming I came across an inter-governmental agency disagreement that seems to have been attempted to keep hushed. The hushing seems to have occurred because the report contradicts the pro-Global Warming policies of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). After the ‘hushing’ was exposed then the usual tactic of discrediting the author of the memo questioning the validity of the EPA’s data. Specifically Alan Carlin’s memo said the EPA recommendation to President Barack Hussein Obama to regulate industry was based on outdated thus questionable data. The questionable data appears to blame industry for the Left science view that it is the cause of carbon dioxide release that contributes to Global Warming.
Carlin’s view apparently is the Right science view that the current aspect measured as Global Warming does not prove man-made carbon dioxide is the main contributor the Global Warming of the Left Science. (To read more on the Right science view of Global Warming look HERE.)
Now to the one-world government Global Warming conspiracy theory: Robert Ferguson writing for the American Thinker feels that President Obama’s appointment of global radical science promoter John Holdren as one of BHO’s unaccountable czars (in this case – Climate Czar), is reason to believe the Left is in bed with a certain U.N. agency which promotes U.N. control of a every nation’s energy policies.
The U.N. agency is Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and John Holden is held up as the classic example of Leftist manipulation the U.N. seems bent on doing in the 21st century.
Here is an excerpt of a book review which illustrates the dubious nature of Left thinking science as it pertains to Global Warming:
Christopher Horner's excellent book provides a convincing response to this all-too-frequent complaint.
But how can it do so? Will not an "anti-global-warming" book of necessity consist of an account of scientists who dissent from the consensus? If so, will it not fall victim to the difficulty raised in our imagined objection? The book will pick a few favored experts to back up a preconceived political agenda.
Horner strikes at the root of this objection. It rests on a false premise. Contrary to what our objection assumes, there is in fact no consensus of scientists behind global-warming alarmism:
Professor Dennis Bray of Germany and Hans von Storch polled climate scientists to rate the statement, "To what extent do you agree or disagree that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes?" … They received responses from 530 climate scientists in 27 countries, of whom 44 percent were either neutral or disagreed with the statement… Science magazine helpfully refused to publish the findings, by the way. (p. 157)
…
Appeal to the Intergovernmental Panel (IPCC) is likewise dubious. Far from expressing a consensus of the world's leading climate experts, the reports of IPCC alter the opinions of the contributors to reflect climate alarmism. Horner quotes to great effect several protests by IPCC experts over the distortion of their views.
Dr. Frederick Seitz … revealed that although the IPCC report carries heft due to having been the topic of review and discussion by many scientists, "the report is not what it appears to be — it is not the version that was approved by the contributing scientists listed on the title page." (p. 300)
Activists in charge of the report's summary exaggerated what the scientists had said to promote the global-warming agenda. (Ludwig von Mises Institute)
Then there is John Holden’s reputation of being made of the same stuff that Margaret Sanger believed (i.e. using eugenics like abortion to cull the weak and inferior from the strong and superior):
Consider that President Obama's top science adviser, climate Czar, John Holdren, is a long-time globalist who has endorsed and advocated for "surrender of sovereignty" to "a comprehensive Planetary Regime" that would control the entire world's resources, direct global redistribution of wealth, oversee the "de-development" of the West, control a World Army and taxation regime, and enforce world population limits. He has castigated the United States as "the meanest of wealthy countries," written a justification for compulsory abortion and sterilization of American women, advocated drastically lowering the U.S. standard of living, and left the door open to trying global warming "deniers" for crimes against humanity. (American Thinker)
I encourage reading the whole Ferguson article at the American Thinker quoted above to get the feel for the Slanted Left Global Warming global conspiracy theory.
JRH 8/9/09
Here is piece of Chain Email that my lovely daughter sent to me. I usually detest Chain Email because the facts often get obscure along the chain, the chain is an outright hoax or you have to send it to X amount friends to prove something or you might be cursed.
That is all hogwash!
This Chain Email on the other hand is a brilliant dialogue between an atheistic Professor and a couple of Christian students in his class. Plato would be proud.
JRH 1/7/09
*****************************
God vs. Evil
'Let me explain the problem science has with religion.' The atheist
professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his
new students to stand.
'You're a Christian, aren't you, son?'
'Yes sir,' the student says.
'So you believe in God?'
'Absolutely.’
'Is God good?'
'Sure! God's good.'
'Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?'
'Yes'
'Are you good or evil?'
'The Bible says I'm evil.'
The professor grins knowingly. 'Aha! The Bible!' He considers for a
moment. 'Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here
and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?'
'Yes sir, I would.'
'So you're good...!'
'I wouldn't say that.'
'But why not say that? You'd help a sick and maimed person if you could.
Most of us would if we could. But God doesn't.'
The student does not answer, so the professor continues. 'He doesn't,
does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he
prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you
answer that one?'
The student remains silent.
'No, you can't, can you?' the professor says. He takes a sip of water
from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax.
'Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?'
'Er..yes,' the student says.
"is Satan good?'
The student doesn't hesitate on this one. 'No.'
'Then where does Satan come from?'
The student falters. 'From God'
'That's right. God made Satan, didn't he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in
this world?'
'Yes, sir.'
'Evil's everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything correct??
'Yes'
'So who created evil?' The professor continued, 'If God created
everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to
the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil.'
Again, the student has no answer. 'Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred?
Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?'
The student squirms on his feet. 'Yes.'
'So who created them?'
The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question.
'Who created them?' There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer
breaks away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized.
'Tell me,' he continues onto another student.
'Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?
The student's voice betrays him and cracks. 'Yes, professor, I do.'
The old man stops pacing. 'Science says you have five senses you use to
identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?'
'No sir. I've never seen Him.'
'Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?'
'No, sir, I have not.'
'Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelled your Jesus?
Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that
matter?'
'No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't.'
'Yet you still believe in him?'
'Yes'
'According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol,
science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?'
'Nothing,' the student replies. 'I only have my faith.'
'Yes, faith,' the professor repeats. 'And that is the problem science
has with God. There is no evidence, only faith.'
The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of His
own. 'Professor, is there such thing as heat?'
'Yes.'
'And is there such a thing as cold?'
'Yes, son, there's cold too.'
'No sir, there isn't.'
The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested.
The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain.
'You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat,
unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don't have
anything called 'cold'. We can hit up to 458 degrees below zero, which is
no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing
as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458
degrees.'
'Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits
energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or tran smit energy.
Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see, sir, cold
is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure
cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold
is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.'
Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding
like a hammer.
'What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?'
'Yes,' the professor replies without hesitation. 'What is night if it
isn't darkness?'
'You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of
something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing
light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's
called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word.'
'In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make
darkness darker, wouldn't you?'
The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will
be a good semester. 'So what point are you making, young man?
'Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to
start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed.'
The professor's face cannot hide his surprise this time. 'Flawed? Can you
explain how?'
'You are working on the premise of duality,' the student explains.. 'You
argue that there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad
God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we
can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought.'
'It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully
understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be
ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing.
Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it. 'Now tell me,
professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?'
'If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man,
yes, of course I do.'
'Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?'
The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes
where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed.
'Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and
cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not
teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?'
The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion
has subsided.
'To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, let
me give you an example of what I mean.'
The student looks around the room. 'Is there anyone in the class who has
ever seen the professor's brain?' The class breaks out into laughter.
'Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt the
professor's brain, touched or smelled the professor's brain? No one
appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of
empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no
brain, with all due respect, sir.'
'So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures,
sir?'
Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his
face unreadable.
Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers. 'I guess
you'll have to take them on faith.'
'Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with
life,' the student continues. 'Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?'
Now uncertain, the professor responds, 'Of course, there is. We see it
everyday It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in
the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These
manifestations are nothing else but evil.'
To this the student replied, 'Evil does not exist sir, or at least it
does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just
like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the
absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what
happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like
the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when
there is no light.'
The professor sat down.
The student was Albert Einstein. Albert Einstein did write a book
titled God vs. Science in 1921...
'For we walk by faith, not by sight.' 2 Corinthians 5:7
************************************
I have read this on the Internet before and it is awesome. Since it is a chain email I am certain the young student was not Albert Einstein but rather a clever writer utilizing Einstein's name. This is a fantastic introduction of how philosophy uses logic to try to defame Faith. The student's come back was brilliant, don't you think?
According to Snopes.com this is an urban legend concerning Albert Einstein’s involvement as a student; nonetheless as Snopes.com points out this has been a philosophical conundrum for quite some time.
Frankly a simple Google search of a book entitled, “God vs. Science” attributed to Albert Einstein doesn’t exist either. The only websites that claimed such a book exists were using this Chain Email as a reference.
Einstein did write a paper entitled, “Science and Religion.” Here Albert Einstein is critical of organized religion believing theology holds back the advancement of humanity via science. On the other hand Einstein does not deny the existence of a supernatural force or the moral foundations of the Judeo-Christian tradition.
The last two paragraphs of the “Science and Religion” have Einstein saying this:
“This attitude, however, appears to me to be religious, in the highest sense of the word. And so it seems to me that science not only purifies the religious impulse of the dross of its anthropomorphism but also contributes to a religious spiritualization of our understanding of life.
The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge. In this sense I believe that the priest must become a teacher if he wishes to do justice to his lofty educational mission.”
More Einstein on Religion:
When asked by an astounded atheist, if he were in fact deeply religious, Einstein replied:
Yes, you can call it that. Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible concatenations, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion. To that extent I am, in point of fact, religious.
H. G. Kessler, The Diary of a Cosmopolitan, (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1971), p.157; quoted in Einstein and Religion by Max Jammer (Princeton University Press, 1999) pp. 39-40.
First Line of “Einstein’s Faith”:
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
I utilize these quotes from Albert Einstein to signify that he indeed was a religious person; however it is very doubtful he engaged in such a philosophical dialogue with a Professor. The dialogue is brilliant though, is it not?
Here is piece of Chain Email that my lovely daughter sent to me. I usually detest Chain Email because the facts often get obscure along the chain, the chain is an outright hoax or you have to send it to X amount friends to prove something or you might be cursed.
That is all hogwash!
This Chain Email on the other hand is a brilliant dialogue between an atheistic Professor and a couple of Christian students in his class. Plato would be proud.
JRH 1/7/09
*****************************
God vs. Evil
'Let me explain the problem science has with religion.' The atheist
professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his
new students to stand.
'You're a Christian, aren't you, son?'
'Yes sir,' the student says.
'So you believe in God?'
'Absolutely.’
'Is God good?'
'Sure! God's good.'
'Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?'
'Yes'
'Are you good or evil?'
'The Bible says I'm evil.'
The professor grins knowingly. 'Aha! The Bible!' He considers for a
moment. 'Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here
and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?'
'Yes sir, I would.'
'So you're good...!'
'I wouldn't say that.'
'But why not say that? You'd help a sick and maimed person if you could.
Most of us would if we could. But God doesn't.'
The student does not answer, so the professor continues. 'He doesn't,
does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he
prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you
answer that one?'
The student remains silent.
'No, you can't, can you?' the professor says. He takes a sip of water
from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax.
'Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?'
'Er..yes,' the student says.
"is Satan good?'
The student doesn't hesitate on this one. 'No.'
'Then where does Satan come from?'
The student falters. 'From God'
'That's right. God made Satan, didn't he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in
this world?'
'Yes, sir.'
'Evil's everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything correct??
'Yes'
'So who created evil?' The professor continued, 'If God created
everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to
the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil.'
Again, the student has no answer. 'Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred?
Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?'
The student squirms on his feet. 'Yes.'
'So who created them?'
The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question.
'Who created them?' There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer
breaks away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized.
'Tell me,' he continues onto another student.
'Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?
The student's voice betrays him and cracks. 'Yes, professor, I do.'
The old man stops pacing. 'Science says you have five senses you use to
identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?'
'No sir. I've never seen Him.'
'Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?'
'No, sir, I have not.'
'Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelled your Jesus?
Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that
matter?'
'No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't.'
'Yet you still believe in him?'
'Yes'
'According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol,
science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?'
'Nothing,' the student replies. 'I only have my faith.'
'Yes, faith,' the professor repeats. 'And that is the problem science
has with God. There is no evidence, only faith.'
The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of His
own. 'Professor, is there such thing as heat?'
'Yes.'
'And is there such a thing as cold?'
'Yes, son, there's cold too.'
'No sir, there isn't.'
The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested.
The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain.
'You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat,
unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don't have
anything called 'cold'. We can hit up to 458 degrees below zero, which is
no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing
as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458
degrees.'
'Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits
energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or tran smit energy.
Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see, sir, cold
is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure
cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold
is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.'
Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding
like a hammer.
'What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?'
'Yes,' the professor replies without hesitation. 'What is night if it
isn't darkness?'
'You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of
something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing
light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's
called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word.'
'In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make
darkness darker, wouldn't you?'
The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will
be a good semester. 'So what point are you making, young man?
'Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to
start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed.'
The professor's face cannot hide his surprise this time. 'Flawed? Can you
explain how?'
'You are working on the premise of duality,' the student explains.. 'You
argue that there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad
God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we
can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought.'
'It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully
understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be
ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing.
Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it. 'Now tell me,
professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?'
'If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man,
yes, of course I do.'
'Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?'
The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes
where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed.
'Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and
cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not
teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?'
The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion
has subsided.
'To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, let
me give you an example of what I mean.'
The student looks around the room. 'Is there anyone in the class who has
ever seen the professor's brain?' The class breaks out into laughter.
'Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt the
professor's brain, touched or smelled the professor's brain? No one
appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of
empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no
brain, with all due respect, sir.'
'So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures,
sir?'
Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his
face unreadable.
Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers. 'I guess
you'll have to take them on faith.'
'Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with
life,' the student continues. 'Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?'
Now uncertain, the professor responds, 'Of course, there is. We see it
everyday It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in
the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These
manifestations are nothing else but evil.'
To this the student replied, 'Evil does not exist sir, or at least it
does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just
like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the
absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what
happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like
the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when
there is no light.'
The professor sat down.
The student was Albert Einstein. Albert Einstein did write a book
titled God vs. Science in 1921...
'For we walk by faith, not by sight.' 2 Corinthians 5:7
************************************
I have read this on the Internet before and it is awesome. Since it is a chain email I am certain the young student was not Albert Einstein but rather a clever writer utilizing Einstein's name. This is a fantastic introduction of how philosophy uses logic to try to defame Faith. The student's come back was brilliant, don't you think?
According to Snopes.com this is an urban legend concerning Albert Einstein’s involvement as a student; nonetheless as Snopes.com points out this has been a philosophical conundrum for quite some time.
Frankly a simple Google search of a book entitled, “God vs. Science” attributed to Albert Einstein doesn’t exist either. The only websites that claimed such a book exists were using this Chain Email as a reference.
Einstein did write a paper entitled, “Science and Religion.” Here Albert Einstein is critical of organized religion believing theology holds back the advancement of humanity via science. On the other hand Einstein does not deny the existence of a supernatural force or the moral foundations of the Judeo-Christian tradition.
The last two paragraphs of the “Science and Religion” have Einstein saying this:
“This attitude, however, appears to me to be religious, in the highest sense of the word. And so it seems to me that science not only purifies the religious impulse of the dross of its anthropomorphism but also contributes to a religious spiritualization of our understanding of life.
The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge. In this sense I believe that the priest must become a teacher if he wishes to do justice to his lofty educational mission.”
More Einstein on Religion:
When asked by an astounded atheist, if he were in fact deeply religious, Einstein replied:
Yes, you can call it that. Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible concatenations, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion. To that extent I am, in point of fact, religious.
H. G. Kessler, The Diary of a Cosmopolitan, (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1971), p.157; quoted in Einstein and Religion by Max Jammer (Princeton University Press, 1999) pp. 39-40.
First Line of “Einstein’s Faith”:
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
I utilize these quotes from Albert Einstein to signify that he indeed was a religious person; however it is very doubtful he engaged in such a philosophical dialogue with a Professor. The dialogue is brilliant though, is it not?
