Origins and Dangers of the ‘Wall of Separation’ Between Church and State
The following is adapted from a lecture delivered at Hillsdale College on September 12, 2006, during a Center for Constructive Alternatives seminar on the topic, “Church and State: History and Theory.”
I will offer the conclusion of the piece, but ask that you read the entire piece. I would love to hear your thoughts on this.
The rhetoric of “separation of church and state” and “a wall of separation” has been instrumental in transforming judicial and popular constructions of the First Amendment from a provision protecting and encouraging religion in public life to one restricting religion’s place and role in civic culture. This transformation has undermined the “indispensable support” of religion in our system of republican self-government. This fact would have alarmed the framers of the Constitution, and we ignore it today at the peril of our political order and prosperity.
October 8, 2006 - 01:57 AM on October 8th, 2006
I can’t believe that we’re living in a fully developed country in the 21st century where the majority of citizens still believe in God. I know that the issue in the post concerns the relationship between church and state, but at some level it comes down to a series of metaphysical questions.
October 8, 2006 - 06:12 PM on October 8th, 2006
Great article Peejz. This is the only judicial instance that I know of that is based not on the Constitution, but on one man’s opinion not given in the context of law.
October 8, 2006 - 06:40 PM on October 8th, 2006
I found it to be most enlightening. I need to sharpen my understanding this particular part of the COTUS. It is a fascinating study.
October 9, 2006 - 12:43 AM on October 9th, 2006
The historical background for the first amendment had to do with the fact that many of the original 13 colonies were founded as religious enclaves. Pennsylvania was given as a land grant to William Penn because the English crown was tired of listening to the Quakers complaining about the Anglican church. The same is true of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Maryland to name a few. The various religious sects were making such a stink over the direction that the Anglican Church was taking that it was easier for the English Crown (the head of the Anglican church much as the Pope is the head of the Catholic one) to give land grants and ship the dissidents to the new world. It got them off the Crown’s back and to pay for their newly acquired land they had to pay taxes to England and also trade with England for things that each needed. Raw materials to England, finished goods to the colonies. Remember, when the colonies were founded there was a lot of religious strife going on throughout Europe. In order to prevent that from occurring here, the founders put a provision into the Constitution that would prevent Congress from attempting to dictate a single state religion as was the case in many parts of Europe. There had been many EXTREMELY violent wars fought on the grounds of religion and the founders were trying to avoid one from happening here. The English Civil War as well as the beheading of Mary Stuart were both motivated by religion of Catholics versus Protestant. The wording of the Constitution is VERY specific. It says “Congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of religion, or restricting the free exercise thereof.” That means Congress shall NOT make laws mandating a national religion or restricting a person’s right to worship as he/she sees fit. Nothing more. There is not now, nor has there ever been, the phrase “separation of church and state” anywhere in the Constitution. There sheer thought that the government would mandate that religious implications not be considered when making laws would’ve caused the founders to greatly change what was written in the Constitution. How do you not consider religious implications when passing laws? How can anyone claim that religious implications aren’t considered when most of the criminal statutes in this country are based on the 10 commandments.
Murder – Thou shalt not kill
Theft – Thou shalt not steal
Perjury – Thou shalt not bear false witness (Unless you’re a politician looking to be elected or a news anchor looking for ratings)
I’m not a bible thumper by any means, but this has gotten out of hand and the responses are ridiculous. Exactly how does someone putting a cross, menorrah, or a crescent on public land impede on anyone else’s rights? There is nothing in the Constitution that says people must not be offended when someone else practices their religion. Hell, at least one poster on this topic has already indicated that he/she is offended by the outward display of religious faith because he/she feels that religion is outdated. He feels that his lack of faith outweighs other people’s right to practice their faith openly. Funny thing is, this attitude is almost always directed at Christians. Could it be that the radical Atheists/Agmostics are afraid of the Muslims? It reminds me of the bumper sticker that says ” People are more adamantly opposed to the wearing of fur versus leather because it’s easier to harass little old ladies than biker gangs.”
As for the comment that why would anyone still believe in a God in the 21st Century, it’s not about belief, it’s about faith. Faith is thinking that the person in the drive through isn’t going to screw up your order, the person with the red light is actually going to stop, etc etc. Anyone who claims they don’t have any faith, do but they just don’t realize it. And their faith may not be in a supreme being, but it is assuredly in the goodness that resides in most human beings. Why else would you drive through a green light unless you had faith that the person coming from the other direction is going to stop?
By the way, I don’t follow any organized religion. But that doesn’t mean that I don’t have faith, I just couldn’t explain what it’s in.
October 9, 2006 - 03:00 AM on October 9th, 2006
No one’s stopping you from sticking a big-ass crucifix, or crescent, or whatever on your front lawn (except the neighborhood kids, who’ll probably toilet paper it).
The issue is whether public space paid for by tax $$ should be adorned with symbols of one specific group’s wacky superstitions. If criticism of this sort are always directed at X-tians, I suspect that it’s because X-tians make up an overwhelming majority and are usually the one’s throwing a fit about this sort of thing. At least in the US, X-tians are way more likely to get you than Muslims.
Honestly, I wish that all religious faith would just go the way of belief in a flat earth; barring that, I’d at least rather see my local tax dollars spent on something (almost anything) else.
October 9, 2006 - 07:20 AM on October 9th, 2006
At least in the US, X-tians are way more likely to get you than Muslims.
We must have missed the reports of the Christians burning down Mosques or Synagogues. Must have missed where the Christian youth are rioting in the south…
October 9, 2006 - 08:47 AM on October 9th, 2006
“Xtians”? I bet you don’t type “Xlims”. Or how about “Xeists” for atheists?
When I see someone use “Xtians” I wonder whether it is laziness or an insult (or both).
October 9, 2006 - 08:50 AM on October 9th, 2006
7.
It is meant as an insult.
5.
There is absolutely nothing wrong nor unconstitutional with a community expressing thier beliefs or non-beliefs in the public square. Ronald Reagan said it best: “The best way to vote is with your feet.”.
October 9, 2006 - 02:46 PM on October 9th, 2006
Hey,
Xtians is short hand, but I’m glad to have it taken as an insult. At least I capitalized the “X.” I’m not sure if there’s a shorthand for muslims (MZM?)–if so, I’d be happy to use it. I think that atheists are a little higher on the evolutionary ladder….
I too missed the reports about Xtians burning down mosques, but I did catch the part about them shooting abortion doctors, molesting children and walling themselves up on rural compounds. But they’re not real Xtians, right? Isn’t it true that any religion could claim this about its more rambunctious followers? Given the number of people in this country who claim to be Xtian, you’re much more likely to be attacked by a Xtian than a muslim. In other countries, it’s the hindus or muslims or zoroastrians or whatever that you need to watch out for.
A few of the people who post on this blog seem mildly intelligent–you don’t really believe in god, do you?
October 9, 2006 - 03:24 PM on October 9th, 2006
“But they’re not real Xtians, right?”
Wow, you are arrogant enough to actually be a Christian.
As I Christian, I can honestly say that I don’t know if they are or not. That is God’s call. I won’t be arrogant enough to make that call.
A few of the people who post on this blog seem mildly intelligent–you don’t really believe in god, do you?
I beleive in God. Your problem is you relate faith with intelligence. There is no correlation. Albert Einstein believed in God, for example.
“Given the number of people in this country who claim to be Xtian, you’re much more likely to be attacked by a Xtian than a muslim.”
Of course- with as much as 82% of America claiming to be Christian and with about 2% at most claiming to be Muslim, that is only a statistical relaity.
October 9, 2006 - 03:48 PM on October 9th, 2006
Tedshed,
For the record, Einstein didn’t actually believe in God–not that I’m much for arguments from authority. He was fond of pithy sayings, like the “God does not play dice” one that everyone tends to quote. Here’s Einstein on the subject:
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. 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.
Like his pal Bertrand Russell, another smart non-believer, Einstein was interested in science. By the way, scientists represent the lowest percentage of theists–apparently the more that you actually know about the world, the less you need to fill the gaps withe superstition.
It’s certainly true that a lot of smart people do believe in God; nonetheless; I guess that this proves that even smart people are often the victims of silly beliefs that they never quite escape. A smart person might also be terrified of spiders–in this one instance, he or she would be pretty dumb.
Your problem is you relate faith with intelligence.
It seems to me if you believe in something you ought to be able to offer some sort of rational explanation. In every aspect of our life, except religion apparently, we base our “faith” on verifiable experiences. I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow because it has always done so in the past; I have faith in a friend because he has never betrayed me, etc. Clearly faith has some relationship to knowledge. I guess that if you admit that your faith is completely irrational–like faith in fairies or bigfoot or something–there isn’t much else to say. I’m not sure why I should respect something like that, though.
Here are a few nice lines from Samuel Harris’ most recent book:
It is worth noting that no one ever need identify himself as a non-astrologer or a non-alchemist. Consequently, we do not have words for people who deny the validity of these pseudo-disciplines. Likewise, “atheism”is a term that should not even exist. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make when in the presence of religious dogma. The atheist is merely a person who believes that the 260 million Americans (eighty-seven percent of the population) who claim to “never doubt the existence of God”should be obliged to present evidence for his existence — and, indeed, for his benevolence, given the relentless destruction of innocent human beings we witness in the world each day. Only the atheist appreciates just how uncanny our situation is: most of us believe in a God that is every bit as specious as the gods of Mount Olympus; no person, whatever his or her qualifications, can seek public office in the United States without pretending to be certain that such a God exists; and much of what passes for public policy in our country conforms to religious taboos and superstitions appropriate to a medieval theocracy. Our circumstance is abject, indefensible, and terrifying. It would be hilarious if the stakes were not so high.
October 9, 2006 - 04:07 PM on October 9th, 2006
This quote from an Xtheist website: “When that question was put to him, Einstein once responded, “I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony in what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.”
In other words, Einstein didn’t believe in God the way Christians do, but he did believe in the existence of a God. The evidence of God, which escapes you, is all around us. Where did the Universe come from? If you can’t prove that, then it must not exist, by your reasoning.
I too missed the reports about Xtians burning down mosques, but I did catch the part about them shooting abortion doctors, molesting children and walling themselves up on rural compounds.
Yeah, that’s really a huge problem these days. Christians running amok, terrorizing all over the globe. Yep, they’ve practically declared war on the West. Yep…
One guy shoots an abortion doctor and to you that’s the a trend (…them shooting abortion doctors). One Wacko in Waco runs a cult and that’s all the evidence you need. Them Xtians be bad, real bad.
Are you by any chance San Francisco Liberal? This is his style.
October 9, 2006 - 04:26 PM on October 9th, 2006
40 Million dead babies, 1 abortion doctor. I can see why someone can be so upset about the radical Christian, be afwaaaaid, vwwery afwaaid.
1000’s of babies die each year thru a forced insertion of a metal instrument to the back of their head. The body is half way out of the mothers womb. They leave the head inside so it will not be MURDER.
And that is the difference between Christians and pro-death cults.
Einstein did believe there was evidence of a God. He just did not believe in a personal God who interacts or intercedes.
Scientist who live for themsleves in Scientism can believe whatever they want. We have seen the results of life without God thru Marxist ideology in Stalin and Mao – over 100 Million dead thanks to anti-God, pro science, pro-man as little god.
The truth is scientist cannot determine what makes a simple rodent – vole work with its unique complex DNA combinations, let alone the universe and how we arrived. Piltdown man – a lie, Nebraska man – a lie, and many other “scientist” evolutionist lied to support their a priori world view.
The truth is science does not grow by consensus opinion, but instead by those who knock doors down and go against the grain.
The DESIGN Paradigm is kicking in and evolution as an answer to all things is falling by the wayside. Some of the greatest scientist in the world today admit that evolution is of little use in experimental biology and genetics. One of the worlds most renown and well respected geneticist Dr. Sanford, who holds 14 patents and numerous awards for his Gene Gun, stated himself, that evolution was a huge waste of time in critical thinking.
So please, put you wittle worldview aside for a moment. Look around you. We are not here by accident.
October 9, 2006 - 04:27 PM on October 9th, 2006
Spinoza’s God: “Deus sive Natura“. God is not distinguishable from nature. If by “God” you mean “water flows downhill,” I guess that I believe in “God” too. You might come up with a less confusing term, though. Incidentally, the most respected Spinoza scholar in the United States (Edwin Curley, who teaches modern philosophy at the University of Michigan) recently had a great debate with a believer. Curley took the position of a Spinozist atheist and nailed the guy. I suggest that you reread “Proposition XI” of the Ethics
Where did the Universe come from? If you can’t prove that, then it must not exist, by your reasoning.
I’m not asking you to tell me where God came from; I’m asking you to provide a shred of evidence for His existence that isn’t just question begging. I can provide you with a lot of evidence in support of the existence of the universe.
If you’re interested in the question of “where the universe came from”–not exactly the phrasing that I’d use–I could recommend a series of books that might help you out. They have evidence in them and everything!!
Could you provide me with a thought out, rational argument for your belief in God? I’d love to hear it. If you can convince me I’ll drop what I’m doing, run to the nearest church or mosque or whatever and start prayin’.
I’m not “San Francisco Liberal.” Sorry.
October 9, 2006 - 04:40 PM on October 9th, 2006
Hey Michael,
You provided no arguments.
For every one scientist you can find who’s working outside of his field at a shit bible college in the south, and who doesn’t understand evolution, carbon dating, etc, I can find 10,000 actual scientists, published in peer review journals, who’ll back up what I’m saying.
The truth is scientist cannot determine what makes a simple rodent – vole work with its unique complex DNA combinations, let alone the universe and how we arrived.
I’ve seen this stuff before. You’re getting it from the same website that are scrambling to find educated Xtians in the 20th century — the same one’s trying to claim Einstein. I suggest that you actually look at some of the recent texts written on evolution, physics, zoology and the other aspects of science the you so clearly have no grasp of, then post again.
The DESIGN Paradigm is kicking in and evolution as an answer to all things is falling by the wayside. Some of the greatest scientist in the world today admit that evolution is of little use in experimental biology and genetics.
The failure to follow even the most basic procedures of scientific discourse, and the total failure to submit work to the scientific community which withstands scrutiny, have weighed against intelligent design being considered valid science. To date, the intelligent design movement has yet to have an article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. You can write DESIGN in all caps, but it makes no difference.
Here’s a nice example of an argument from ignorance:
1. There is a gap in scientific knowledge.
2. The gap is filled with acts of God (or Intelligent designer) and therefore proves the existence of God (or Intelligent designer).
DO you have a better one?
October 9, 2006 - 04:46 PM on October 9th, 2006
This great!
I love to watch religious people get pissed. I want to hear Robert and Michael make arguments for god! No “nature is beautiful” or “Puppies are cute therefore god exists.” Those don’t count.
October 9, 2006 - 05:02 PM on October 9th, 2006
11.
That is incorrect. The assumption you beleive are widely disregarded.
Einstein was a deist as was many founding fathers. Here is an interview in the 19219 Saturday Evening Post:
“To what extent are you influenced by Christianity?”
“As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene.”
“Have you read Emil Ludwig’s book on Jesus?”
“Emil Ludwig’s Jesus is shallow. Jesus is too colossal for the pen of phrasemongers, however artful. No man can dispose of Christianity with a bon mot.”
“You accept the historical Jesus?”
“Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life.”
His own words, after all…
October 9, 2006 - 05:11 PM on October 9th, 2006
Wow!! Einstein believes that Jesus actually existed!! I guess that disproves what I’ve said about him not believing in a Monotheistic God but instead believing in the orderliness of nature!
Here are E’s words again (since he said that he hated to be misrepresented):
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly.
It isn’t really accurate to say that E was a “deist” either. Here’s Webster’s on deism (only the relevant info highlighted):
“Deism is belief in the existence of a personal God, with disbelief in Christian teaching, or with a purely rationalistic interpretation of Scripture…”
Eisenstein did, however, mention on numerous occasions that he was extremely impressed with the pacifism of the historical Jesus. I’m impressed by this as well, but it has nothing to do with whether or not God exists.
Still waiting on those arguments…
October 9, 2006 - 05:29 PM on October 9th, 2006
I’m logging off. I’m tired of waiting for a real argument. At least Peaches occasionally says something smart about economics. I should probably go elsewhere for stuff on religion.
\I’ll leave you with a link to a nice piece by Daniel Dennett on “intelligent” design. Dennett is great because he writes for a popular audience while still getting the science right.
Here’s the essay.
October 9, 2006 - 08:06 PM on October 9th, 2006
Lets cut the bs. All religion is a matter of faith. You have it or you don’t. It can neither be proved nor disproved.
Now just try and prove that human activity is a substantial contributor to global warming. I’m guessing your a Gorebot, like San Francisco Liberal.
Have at it…but I think it is only fair to warn you that argument has already been shot down here…
October 9, 2006 - 08:20 PM on October 9th, 2006
19.
Let me once again quote his own words:
“I am a Jew”
Perhaps if you actually read the entire quote then you would have seen that little gem. Kind of explains his belief in a historical Jesus also.
Not sure where you actually got your definition of deism, but here is more accurate definitions:
Deism
1. belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation (distinguished from theism).
2. belief in a God who created the world but has since remained indifferent to it.
October 9, 2006 - 08:29 PM on October 9th, 2006
21- that’ll leave a mark:razz:
October 10, 2006 - 02:06 AM on October 10th, 2006
Hey Kids,
Still no argument, huh? That’s pretty sad considering religion is apparently important enough to you to “argue” about. Again, if you’re happy to admit that your belief is as irrational as a belief in bigfoot or fairies, I guess that we can let it go at that. Is that what you mean when you keep repeating that it’s just “faith”? “I have absolutely no reason to believe in this but I’m so, so, so frightened that if I were to stop something bad might happen to me.” Actually, that sounds more like cowardice (or at least neurosis) than an alternative to reason. It’s typical that you’d try desperately to change the subject: “C’mon, can’t we talk about global warming instead”; or, “You’re probably a dirty liberal–let’s talk about how you’re a dirty liberal, OK.” Sad.
Obviously, religious folks do think that there’s something to a belief in god besides blind stupid, faith. Otherwise they wouldn’t spill so much ink trying to prop up pseudo-scientific theories that incorporate their all-powerful father-figure. People have responded to me on this blog with half-assed references to DESIGN–is that really the best you can do?
Einstein says he’s a Jew–so what? We all know that the term refers to a cultural designation and an upbringing as much as it does to any religious faith. Did the Nazis ask for proof of faith before they decided that someone was or was not Jewish? Baruch Spinoza, Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, and Jacques Derrida were Jews–none believed in a monotheistic God. Once again, Einstein states “I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly.” How does whether or not he was circumcised affect this statement?
I’m not sure what this has to do Einstein’s belief in an historical Jesus, but then I also don’t know what TedShed means when he writes “The assumption you beleive are widely disregarded.”
Finally, regarding your charming attempt to salvage your definition of deism: “Belief in a god who created the world” (however indifferent) is belief in a personal god. The closest theistic position to Einstein is pantheism: Once again, Deus sive Natura. If you’re going to try to quote a definition back to me (mine came from Websters, as I noted), at least make sure that you’re not too stupid to understand it.
You’ve lost the argument about Einstein, but that isn’t what’s at issue, is it? I’m asking for an argument for the existence of God. Robert says that he believes in God in the same way that some people believe in elves or unicorns. Perhaps he has a cool blacklight poster of a unicorn in his room next to his picture of “our savior.” Regardless, I don’t think that most people responding to me believes that there is as little reason to believe in God as in other mythic creatures (except maybe Robert and his unicorn poster). If you honestly can’t provide the tiniest valid argument for your belief in God, maybe you should rethink your belief. Robert can still keep his poster, though–his childlike wonder is kind of endearing.
Still waiting…
October 10, 2006 - 03:17 AM on October 10th, 2006
It doesn’t look like the right voices boys are up to the challenge.
I don’t want to move everybody away from the question of whether god exists, but the outcome is pretty obvious. Nice job, greve.
Here’s a funny article on all of the privileges that church groups get and secular organizations don’t.
I guess it pays to believe (or pretend) to believe in pack of lies…
October 10, 2006 - 08:21 AM on October 10th, 2006
“Still no argument, huh?”
Evidently, you have a reading comprehension problem.
“Again, if you’re happy to admit that your belief is as irrational as a belief in bigfoot or fairies, I guess that we can let it go at that.”
Of course it is as that is the very definition of faith- belief in something that you can not prove.
I have absolutely no problem with that.
“You’ve lost the argument about Einstein, but that isn’t what’s at issue, is it?”
Denial will get you no where, or is it once again that reading comprehension problem of yours?
October 10, 2006 - 09:45 AM on October 10th, 2006
“Robert says that he believes in God in the same way that some people believe in elves or unicorns.”
Really? I posted that? And I have a Unicorn poster? You are spiraling out of control, sitting there inventing straw man scenarios and drawing your own conclusions from them. I’d call that a form of argumentive masturbation.
Einstein says he’s a Jew–so what?
Well for starters, it can be assumed that he would know something about that. And what makes a Jew a Jew? Could it have something to do with their religion? You rely on the Einstein quotes that support your position, yet ignore, then dismiss any that do not. Classic.
October 10, 2006 - 09:50 AM on October 10th, 2006
Robert can still keep his poster, though–his childlike wonder is kind of endearing.
Your trolling is kind of endearing, in a juvenile kind of way. Like I said before, I can’t prove there is a God, and you can’t prove there isn’t. It is a matter of Faith. You have it or you don’t. You don’t. End of discussion.
October 10, 2006 - 10:03 AM on October 10th, 2006
One important part of this debate is missing: proof that god doesn’t exist.
October 10, 2006 - 10:05 AM on October 10th, 2006
Einstein took the reality of nature and the physical universe as proof that there is a Creator. I guess Einstein was not as smart as Greve.
October 10, 2006 - 11:47 AM on October 10th, 2006
Boy you guys are dumb.
First, in response to Peaches (and this is a version of an argument that’s available on a lot of sites): A common objection to atheism is that it is impossible to prove the non-existence of God. Yet there are actually two ways to “prove” the non-existence of something. One way is to prove that it cannot exist because its very concept is self-contradictory (e.g., square circles, married bachelors, etc.). Here, I’d suggest the problem of evil as a “proof” of the non-existence of an omnipotent, benevolent God. The other way is by carefully looking and seeing. Here, I’ll quote Ambrose Bierce:
To be an atheist it is not necessary to prove that God doesn’t exist. What do we call people who don’t believe in leprechauns, the Tooth Fairy, the Sandman, or Tinkerbell? Do we have to prove they don’t exist? Rather, it is incumbent upon those who assert God does physically exist to prove it.
I look around, I listen, and no God. I also don’t see Santa Claus or Tinkerbell. If someone tells me that I must prove the non-existence of the latter, I’m in a strange position. Isn’t it enough that there is not the tiniest reason to believe that they do exist?
Second. Back to poor Einstein: Allow me to repeat myself: Being a Jew can mean a lot of things. It can mean that you attend Synagogue, believe in the God of Abraham, keep Kosher, celebrate high holidays, etc. OR it can mean that you have been born into a family that traces its ancestry back to one of the twelve tribes of Israel. The two aren’t mutually exclusive, but they’re certainly separable. In the former, it’s a religious issue. In the latter, it’s only an ethnic issue. Once again, this is why someone like Sigmund Freud (with whom Einstein co-authored a series of anti-war writings) could describe himself as a Jew while comparing belief in God to a childhood neurosis. Since Einstein says that he does not believe in God but rather in the orderliness of the universe, it makes sense to assume that his jewishness is ethnic and not religious. Clearly, along with not understanding what deism is you don’t understand what it means to be Jewish.
Einstein took the reality of nature and the physical universe as proof that there is a Creator.
No, he didn’t. Einstein, yet again: It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly.
He’s expressed it clearly–who has the problem with reading comprehension?
Einstein believed in the orderliness of nature. He did not believe that nature was “created.” Are you so desperate to hang on to your superstition that it has blinded you to this incredibly obvious distinction??
Apparently TedShed admits that his belief in God = a belief in fairies or unicorns. Robert is still holding out but has yet to provide any evidence to the contrary. Peaches is surprisingly weak given that he usually does a nice enough job with social and economic issues.
October 10, 2006 - 12:29 PM on October 10th, 2006
Boy you guys are dumb. said the guy that refers to peaches? Please point out a post by peaches..
Isn’t it enough that there is not the tiniest reason to believe that they do exist? Isn’t it enough that there is not the tiniest reason to believe that there is a sign of intelligence in your arguement, therefore I will conclude that you aren’t.
October 10, 2006 - 12:47 PM on October 10th, 2006
Wow! I can’t argue with Peaches’ brilliant refutations of everything I’ve written! I guess he’s proven to me that a powerful and loving God rules over the universe.
C’mon peaches, you can do better than that. Show me where my logic is flawed.
October 10, 2006 - 01:04 PM on October 10th, 2006
Greve throws in the towel. Guess he can’t prove that God, or a “Creator”, doesn’t exist.
October 10, 2006 - 01:08 PM on October 10th, 2006
I’m happy to lay out the argument against the existance of the Xtian God (conflict between omnipotence and omnibenevolence plus the problem of evil).
As far as the deistic God goes, I’ll rely on Occam’s razor (look it up, mouth-breather).
October 10, 2006 - 01:54 PM on October 10th, 2006
No takers? Then I’ll “throw in the towel.” I guess that I shouldn’t be too surprised that none of you losers could begin to defend your beliefs. Still, I didn’t expect it to be quite so pathetic.
I’m going to check out some of the other good XXXtian blogs and see if anyone else wants to play. This is the last you’ll hear from me, so if you want to get some shots in you may as well do it now as I won’t be here to spank you.
XXOO,
G.
October 10, 2006 - 02:04 PM on October 10th, 2006
Man, he TOASTED you all. I thought that one of you’d be able to come up with something but that was some serious Globetrotters vs. the Washington Generals shit. I don’t know whether grev is on the left or the right but if I was you I’d get this whole argument deleted so you dont look bad.:cry:
He’s right: you all got SPANKED!!
October 10, 2006 - 02:26 PM on October 10th, 2006
28. One important part of this debate is missing: proof that god does exist. How about that?
October 10, 2006 - 02:38 PM on October 10th, 2006
One important part of this debate is missing: proof that god does exist
I totally agree! All these guys are pretending that they’ve won the argument and it’s totally pathetic. They haven’t said anything. They totally missed the stuff about Einstein and they threw out some bullshit about intelligent design and greve smacked all of it back at them. Its like they couldn’t understand the posts or something.
Listen guys–maybe you should stick to calling liberals “gorebots” or whatever and leave the stuff about religion to somebody who can handle it better. You all totally embarassed yourself.
October 10, 2006 - 02:45 PM on October 10th, 2006
38. I like you already..
October 10, 2006 - 04:18 PM on October 10th, 2006
“One important part of this debate is missing: proof that god doesn’t exist.”
That isn’t possible. In the course of rational debate, one can not prove a negative.
“Back to poor Einstein: Allow me to repeat myself: Being a Jew can mean alot of things. It can mean that you attend Synagogue, believe in the God of Abraham, keep Kosher, celebrate high holidays, etc. OR it can mean that you have been born into a family that traces its ancestry back to one of the twelve tribes of Israel.”
That is again not accurate. Your fisrt description is the definition of Jew. Your second description is that of a Hebrew.
That aside, it is irrelevent as the context of the quote was religious:
“As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene.â€
In other words, even though his religion is Jewish and thus does not beleive in a Christians Jesus, he is still fascinated by him.
“He’s expressed it clearly–who has the problem with reading comprehension?”
Clearly, you do. As I said, he was a deist. Again, the definition of a deist is “The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.”
“Apparently TedShed admits that his belief in God = a belief in fairies or unicorns”
No I didn’t say that, no more than I said that the belief in science is the belief in faries in unicorns. Since you so like to quote out of context, let me repeat what I said: “Of course it is as that is the very definition of faith- belief in something that you can not prove.”
Science assert things that they can not and can never prove, such as the concepts of black matter and string theory. It is not outside of human nature to have faith. It occurs in most facets of life.
As far as faith goes, I am completely comfortable in its existance. It is arrogant of us as a race to beleive that we will be able to understand or comprehend everything there is to comprehend. If our race survived time infinitum, we would never be able to comprehend it all.
“Listen guys–maybe you should stick to calling liberals “gorebots”or whatever and leave the stuff about religion to somebody who can handle it better.”
Ahh yes, the old liberal verses conservative ploy. Small minded people make small minded assumptions on both ends of the spectrum. Perhaps you should stick to cheerleader on the sidelines as it appears you have even less to contribute than people in the discussion who resort to ad hominem attacks.
Look it up, mouth breather…:roll:
October 10, 2006 - 06:06 PM on October 10th, 2006
yaaah, treckler, dood, he really told those Xtians now, didn’t he! He slayed them! yaaah, you and greve and knipple, yer way kewlllll!
yeah, you should go over to some bible-thumping xtian boards now and troll them too. maybe you can find some that want to joust. right on
i just want you guys to know you are aight! yo man yore my peeps!
October 10, 2006 - 06:30 PM on October 10th, 2006
It appears Greve knows more about Einstein’s beliefs than Einstein did.
October 10, 2006 - 10:58 PM on October 10th, 2006
What- no takers? Then I’ll “throw in the towel.”
Once in answer to the question “Do you believe in the God of Spinoza?” Einstein replied as follows:
I can’t answer with a simple yes or no. I’m not an atheist and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see a universe marvellously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza’s pantheism, but admire even more his contributions to modern thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and the body as one, not two separate things.”
October 11, 2006 - 07:57 AM on October 11th, 2006
Hello,
I found this discussion while looking for something else entirely, but as I like to think that I’m relatively impartial on the issue (and a Jew, which seems to have become important with respect to Einstein) maybe I can help to clear some things up (and to do so with a bit more civility).
Einstein. I actually had the good fortune to study with a few individuals who knew him personally and loved to speak about him–although I was young and they were already fairly old, I realize that this still betrays my age.:wink: I’ve also read a few of the better known biographies, which always tend to dwell on his religious belief. First, Einstein’s judaism was purely ethnic and not religious, although he did have the same religious upbringing that most German Jews would have had at the time, he quickly secularized (as so many of his generation did). He even became a socialist and late in his life he published a Marxist analysis of labor exploitation in capitalist economies in the socialist journal Monthly Review. He denounced “the economic anarchy” and “crippling egotism” of capitalist society and called for “the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system oriented towards social goals.” Neither I nor any of my friends who are Jewish distinguish between being a “Jew” and being a “Hebrew.” The term “Jew” covers both what TedintheShed described as a Jew and what he described as a Hebrew. If Einstein was a religious Jew, he would have believed in a personal God. He stated unambiguously, however, that he did not. He also did not believe that the universe was created.
What does it mean, then, that he stated “I am not an atheist?” I think that this is a distinction that Greve missed, though he may have touched on it with all of his silly talk about Fairies. During the first half of the 20th century, especially in the writings of Einstein’s very anti-religious friend, Bertrand Russell, there was a much more careful distinction drawn between agnosticism and atheism. Now, agnosticism usually (not always) means that you’re “on the fence”about the existence of God. Russell, however, though he’s more critical of belief in God than just about any philosopher that comes to mind, always stated that he was no atheist because he did not believe that the non-existence of God could be proved, though he did believe that all arguments for the existence of God could be disproved. Greve conflates these two notions, as do some of the people who are so keen to criticize him.
What Einstein did believe strongly (as most scientists do) was that the universe is magnificently orderly and that humans may never completely understand its rules. He was critical of religion insofar as it occasionally impeded the progress of science, although he also recognized that science lacks a value system of its own and occasionally runs amok. He was, therefore, an outspoken critic of the “nuclear age.” It is not, however, accurate to claim Einstein in support of a belief in anything remotely similar to the Christian God.
I’ll finish with some commentary on the excellent passage selected by TedintheShed in the hopes that I can explain how it relates to what I’ve already written (my comments are in square brackets)
I can’t answer with a simple yes or no [Here we find the position of the agnostic]. I’m not an atheist and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. [This analogy is difficult because readers tend to want to assume that Einstein means that God "wrote"the laws of the universe. This is misleading. In fact, as we can gather by remarks made by Einstein elsewhere, the universe is the "author"of its own laws because nature is not distinct from God"Deus sive Natura, as Greve seems fond of citing]. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see a universe marvellously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations. [This refers explicitly to limitations in the science of Einstein's day"I won't bore you with the details, but the problems have been taken up by other scientists who've built on Einstein's work]. I am fascinated by Spinoza’s pantheism, but admire even more his contributions to modern thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and the body as one, not two separate things.”[Spinoza rejected Descartes' mind/body dualism in favor of the notion that mind and body describe two perspectives on the same entity. In the context of 20 th century science, however, this position would have been recognized as anti-religious insofar as it refuses the notion that an immortal soul is distinct from mortal flesh. Consequently, Spinoza, along with Thomas Hobbes, took the first step toward jettisoning the idea of the soul altogether.]
But all of this is merely an argument from authority, right? If Einstein jumped off of a bridge, I certainly wouldn’t do the same.
October 11, 2006 - 08:28 AM on October 11th, 2006
44- John Frankln, Thank-you for coming here and posting that! Very well said.