God vs Science

[sportsshrink]

I'm sure most of you have seen the "so-called" 'missing link' that will now prove 'evolution'. This to will be disproven:rolleyes:


GOD vs. Science

A science professor begins his school year with a lecture to the students,
'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 smelt 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.'

At the back of the room another student stands quietly for a moment before
asking a question of His own. 'Professor, is there such thing as heat?'



'Yes,' the professor replies. 'There's heat.'

'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 transmit 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 smelt 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.

[talastan]

What I don't understand is the argument that Science and God can not exist together? :shrug: After all, we really only know very little about our world, our universe, our bodies, mind, etc. We're discovering something new everyday and yet we can't open our minds to the possiblity of God?

I try to focus on what I do know as far as proof goes, and the rest is based on my faith. Whether proven or not that is all God has ever asked of me. He's big enough to prove himself if he so desires..

[SNR]

-George Carlin

[|Zach|]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8fs1wkwAMQc&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8fs1wkwAMQc&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Sully]

Yeah...but what does Donald Trump have to say about it?

[H5N1]

THIS will end well.

[SNR]

THIS will end well.Actually, I predict that nobody, not even Christians, will take this thread seriously. It will be harmless.

[WilliamTheIrish]

Yea, I wouldn't post the link either. it would merely confirm your retar"t"ation

[SNR]

Yea, I wouldn't post the link either. it would merely confirm your retar"t"ationIt's probably a dumbass e-mail he received from his relatives.

[|Zach|]

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/zachishere/67715119/" title="DSCN3306 by zacharycobb, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/33/67715119_4be16f1d5f.jpg" width="500" height="375" alt="DSCN3306" /></a>

[Brock]

Ooh! post teh one about teh slave trader who survived teh storm and wrote "Amazing Grace"

[Reaper16]

Wait, so this guy is a science professor & a philosophy professor, and is teaching both subjects at the same time? Also, why is the student so verbose in the second half of the chain email, but so timid in the first half? It is an implausible story.

BUT the argument that the kid presents is valid. I would think, though, that the notion that evil is the absence of God cannot coexist with the common understanding of God as omnipresent.

I also don't know why this caricature of a philosophy professor is constructive. The history of philosophy is riddled with important thinkers that happened to be very Christian.

[CrazyPhuD]

I dunno....couldn't finish it...got bored after a paragraph...still the student should have been wearing the jersey of his favorite hockey player would have made it more convincing....

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51vcHZILX3L._SS400_.jpg

[L.A.Chieffan]

I dunno....couldn't finish it...got bored after a paragraph...still the student should have been wearing the jersey of his favorite hockey player would have made it more convincing....

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51vcHZILX3L._SS400_.jpg

i always wished that dude wouldve got traded to New Jersey

[BCD]

Also, why is the student so verbose in the second half of the chain email, but so timid in the first half? It is an implausible story.

At the back of the room another student stands quietly for a moment before
asking a question of His own. 'Professor, is there such thing as heat?'Reading comprehension fail?

[Mr. Kotter]

Reading comprehension fail?


Shhhhhhh. Reading comprehension is over-rated. It's all about self-esteem these days. ;)

[Reaper16]

Reading comprehension fail?
No. It was a reading fail. I would have comprehended it, had I read that sentence. My bad.

My other objections still stand.

[BCD]

No. It was a reading fail. I would have comprehended it, had I read that sentence. My bad.

My other objections still stand.Sorry. I had to mess with you. I'm currently in a communictions class online and I seem to notice this shit all the time now. Also, had that really happened, the professor would have moved on to something else long before the other student made him look like an ass.:D

[orange]

It's probably a dumbass e-mail he received from his relatives.

Not just a dumbass email - an old famous dumbass email. He left out the part where the student was supposedly Albert Einstein.

Already debunked in 2004:

http://www.snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp


The Internet forward quoted above draws upon yet another possible explanation: that evil is the absence of God, in the same way that cold is the absence of heat, and dark is the absence of light. This argument has been around for a long time, as has the legend about the pious student using it to squelch an atheist professor.

Although 2004 tellings of the legend name Albert Einstein as the faith-driven student, there is no reason to suppose the renowned physicist had anything to do with the fictive incident. Biographies of the man are silent on his having dealt one of his teachers such a comeuppance. Moreover, this famous scientist gets used in legends whose plots call for a smart person, one whom the audience will immediately recognize as such (i.e., modern tellings of an ancient legend about a learned rabbi who places with his servant feature Albert Einstein in the role of esteemed scholar). This venerated cultural icon has, at least in the world of contemporary lore, become a stock character to be tossed into the fray wherever the script calls for a genius. (Thankfully, contemporary lore has other uses for him too. In a legend of entirely different character, Albert Einstein was rumored to have made a guest appearance on the television western Gunsmoke.)

Likewise, "the atheist professor" is a figure common to a number of urban legends and anecdotes of the faithful ; he gets flung into the mix where there's a need for someone to play the role of Science Vanquished in Science-versus-Religion tales. But he is not inserted merely to serve as an icon of learning to be humbled in tales that aim to teach that faith is of greater value than proveable knowledge; he is also woven into these sorts of stories for his lack of belief. Just as the villain in oldtime melodramas had to have a waxed moustache, a black cape, and an evil laugh, so too must the bullying professor of such stories be an atheist it would not be enough for him to be merely an insufferable, over-educated git arrogantly attempting to stretch the minds of his students by having them question something deeply believed. No, he must instead be someone who rejects the existence of God, an assignment of role that re-positions what might otherwise have been a bloodless debate about philosophy as an epic battle between two champions of faith and denial and sets up the action to unfold as one putting the boots to the other.

He's a stereotype, not an actual person. He exists to be knocked over by the persuasive arguments of the faithful in yarns about theology successfully defended.

...

Stories about atheist professors being bested by true believers who did have answers at the ready are both ventings of this frustration and expressions of delight in finally seeming to have been armed with deft responses to fling back. These are tales of affirmation, modern-day parables of trials overcome and fierce adversaries bested by those who held fast to what they believed in, even in the face of ridicule rained down by authority figures. Like parables, they are meant to inspire similar resolve in those with whom they are shared ; should those members of the flock ever find themselves in like circumstances, they should feel moved to emulate the brave little students of legend who stood up to the big, bad atheist professors.

[Reaper16]

Sorry. I had to mess with you. I'm currently in a communictions class online and I seem to notice this shit all the time now. Also, had that really happened, the professor would have moved on to something else long before the other student made him look like an ass.:D
To be fair, nothing about that chain email warranted a thorough reading. If anything, I'm disappointed that you bothered to read it closely enough to know that I made a mistake.

[HolyHandgernade]

All right, I can't go to sleep tonight, so I'll pick this story apart which has been going around for quite some time. I'm not interested whether it is true or not (it obviously isn't), but the fallacies in the argument.

'You're a Christian, aren't you, son?'
'Yes sir,' the student says.

Although you don't know it until you get to the end, all this phrase does is attempt to link Christianity into a larger philosophical/theological debate by association, otherwise, there's no purpose for it. Most of the counter arguments that follow that center on dualism isn't really a cornerstone of Christian theology (though it was in Gnostic Christianity). Buddhism and Taoism attempts to get past duality are a major theme of their theologies.

Skip a bunch of opinion statements by first believer and equally ignorant arguments by professor. For example, an actual philosophy professor wouldn't challenge a student's symbol for the Good, he would ask him what is meant by "the Good".

So, let's get to the rather silly dualism arguments:

Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.'

'In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?'

All dualism says is that we cannot describe anything "rationally" if we can't contrast it against a perceived opposite. For example, if everything were "light", there would be no reason to call it "light", it would simply be the state that is given. There is no light without a dark to compare it against. Just because one factor is "active" and the other is the background by which it is judged doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We have to work at knowledge, ignorance is the inactive state, doesn't mean ignorance doesn't exist. All those things are judged by an interpretation based in dualism.

Sir, science can't even explain a thought.'

Now the student is conflating two different categories. The job of science is not to explain a thought. The job of science is simply to observe the observable traits when thought occurs and then offer a theory of the objective processes involved. I didn't see a point where the philosophy/scientist professor denied subjectivity. Science can absolutely determine the processes involved in thought, just not the subjectivity of the thought itself.

Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it.'

My automobile has the absence of life, does that mean it is dead? And, if we are to exclude artifacts, the student assumes what we call "death" is not simply another state of consciousness. Is life the absence of the "Bardo Realm"?

'Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?'

I'm so glad we're moving out of this line of thinking as the dominant line of political ideology. It is not on faith that we assume we have a brain. All human beings who have been studied prior to and after death have had a brain. No brain surgeon opens a man's skull on pins and needles wondering what will be underneath. You can have an image of your brain scanned if you really want. What the student should have said was "mind", at least it wouldn't have appeared so ignorant.

'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.'

First of all, in Christian theology, evil absolutely "exists", God allows it to exist. Might as well throw out Satan if one is to say otherwise.

Saying "evil is the absence of God" is admitting there are some places or situations "God isn't". If God "isn't" in certain scenarios, then is it really "God"? We can measure heat and light, but we can't measure God. We contrast light against the dark, heat against the cold, running his analogy out to its conclusion, God is contrasted against evil. He has just made "God" a dualistic "thing", or at least attempted to. His argument should be that "God" transcends the duality of good and evil, light and dark, heat and cold. But, instead, he tries to argue the transcendence of God by making him dualistic, which is a complete contradiction. You can tell a Christian wrote it, only someone without a grasp on duality would make such a convoluted example. Christianity depends upon duality. Christianity without duality is Neo-Platonism.

-HH

[SNR]

All right, I can't go to sleep tonight, so I'll pick this story apart which has been going around for quite some time. I'm not interested whether it is true or not (it obviously isn't), but the fallacies in the argument....You know, when I can't sleep, I usually choose pr0n.

[HolyHandgernade]

You know, when I can't sleep, I usually choose pr0n.

You have kids?

-HH

[Silock]

You have kids?

-HH

Dude, you're a sick motherfucker.

[SNR]

You have kids?

-HHLock the door. Clear the cache. Wipe up. You're golden.

[HolyHandgernade]

Dude, you're a sick mother****er.

I didn't mean porn of children! I meant in terms of, "Daddy, is there somebody up there with you?" ROFL SNR got it. Man, SNR, you're sick! :D

-HH

[Nightwish]

Also, why is the student so verbose in the second half of the chain email, but so timid in the first half? It is an implausible story.
Two different students. Also, with the capitalizating of the personal pronoun, it implies that the second student is God.

BUT the argument that the kid presents is valid.
The point about faith is valid, perhaps, but the rest is pretty much rife with fallacy, particularly the part about evil not existing unto itself but instead being merely the absence of God, as that presupposes not only the existence, but also the nature of God and the nature of evil, none of which can be measured or tested. The author of that piece basically tries to hide the need for presupposition by first conning the reader with other examples of things we take for granted that are actually the absence of something else we take for granted (i.e. heat and light), thereby insisting that because that is the case with A & B, it must also be the case with Z, which is, of course, a logical fallacy.

[Reaper16]

Two different students. Also, with the capitalizating of the personal pronoun, it implies that the second student is God.


The point about faith is valid, perhaps, but the rest is pretty much rife with fallacy, particularly the part about evil not existing unto itself but instead being merely the absence of God, as that presupposes not only the existence, but also the nature of God and the nature of evil, none of which can be measured or tested. The author of that piece basically tries to hide the need for presupposition by first conning the reader with other examples of things we take for granted that are actually the absence of something else we take for granted (i.e. heat and light), thereby insisting that because that is the case with A & B, it must also be the case with Z, which is, of course, a logical fallacy.
You're preaching to the choir here. I was merely speaking theologically. Valid wasn't the best word. What I meant was that his argument would be fine to offer up in a discussion; its easily defeated but only if his opponent is smart enough to defeat it.

[CoMoChief]

Some of the things in christianity I believe, some are just flat out lies or just stories told over time.

The Bible has been revised and re-written many many many times throughout the years.

Do I believe there was someone named Jesus who held worship with others? Yes
Was he born from a virgin Mary - No, seriously folks thats impossible. You mean to tell me that Mary just magically became prego without conception of some sort with a man? Has this happened ever before - No it wasn't.

The story of the Ark - Bogus, no way in hell that could have ever happened. EVER
Water into Wine, healing people magically - NOPE dont think that happened either.

I believe in God. I believe he created earth, but I also think that over time, biologically, things evolved over time, organisms, plants animals, then people.

you have to remember back then when people first started civilization no one knew why the sun came up and went down everyday, they thought the gods did it, they didn't know the earth spun on an axis daily. Night was considered evil because thats when Man was unsafe from other speicies like lions, tigers, etc, it was cold, couldnt see, then light was viewed as good, because it would provide heat, warmth, plants would grow, vegetation, sight, and most predators wouldnt feed then, Man was more safe in the daytime.



All I'm saying is that back then there wasn't much knowledge on why things happened the way they did, beliefs, stories and such were passed down to families that were nothing more than just fabels.

I mean have you heard of anyone......anyone at all that was sick and then magically was healed because he found God......God healed him. There has been no such thing of this. Our bodies naturally fight off diseases and injuries. this is science, not faith. When we die, I don't think we or our sousl resurrect into the heavens above, I think when we die we die, and thats it.....its over....it's just the same way it was before you were born. nothing, nada. Dont exsist anymore.


The Catholic church has been corrupt for centuries and has murdered millions over the years for not believing in something that was never proven to be true, stolen people's money, property etc. Religion IMO is just a crock of shit in many cases. I think it does nothing but create arguments and problems throughout the world. just my opinion.

I just need to see to believe. I'm not one to believe in something that in no way can be proven to be true. And something that has been argued, re-written, revised, re-edited etc over centuries of time IMO can't be a valid source of proof of fact.

This post wasn't meant to offend anyone here at all. If I did I apologize, it wasn't meant to personally attack anyone or their beliefs. People have the right to worship whatever they want to. I'm just giving a little insight as to why I think this way about this subject.

[petegz28]

Not just a dumbass email - an old famous dumbass email. He left out the part where the student was supposedly Albert Einstein.

Already debunked in 2004:

http://www.snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp


The Internet forward quoted above draws upon yet another possible explanation: that evil is the absence of God, in the same way that cold is the absence of heat, and dark is the absence of light. This argument has been around for a long time, as has the legend about the pious student using it to squelch an atheist professor.

Although 2004 tellings of the legend name Albert Einstein as the faith-driven student, there is no reason to suppose the renowned physicist had anything to do with the fictive incident. Biographies of the man are silent on his having dealt one of his teachers such a comeuppance. Moreover, this famous scientist gets used in legends whose plots call for a smart person, one whom the audience will immediately recognize as such (i.e., modern tellings of an ancient legend about a learned rabbi who places with his servant feature Albert Einstein in the role of esteemed scholar). This venerated cultural icon has, at least in the world of contemporary lore, become a stock character to be tossed into the fray wherever the script calls for a genius. (Thankfully, contemporary lore has other uses for him too. In a legend of entirely different character, Albert Einstein was rumored to have made a guest appearance on the television western Gunsmoke.)

Likewise, "the atheist professor" is a figure common to a number of urban legends and anecdotes of the faithful ; he gets flung into the mix where there's a need for someone to play the role of Science Vanquished in Science-versus-Religion tales. But he is not inserted merely to serve as an icon of learning to be humbled in tales that aim to teach that faith is of greater value than proveable knowledge; he is also woven into these sorts of stories for his lack of belief. Just as the villain in oldtime melodramas had to have a waxed moustache, a black cape, and an evil laugh, so too must the bullying professor of such stories be an atheist it would not be enough for him to be merely an insufferable, over-educated git arrogantly attempting to stretch the minds of his students by having them question something deeply believed. No, he must instead be someone who rejects the existence of God, an assignment of role that re-positions what might otherwise have been a bloodless debate about philosophy as an epic battle between two champions of faith and denial and sets up the action to unfold as one putting the boots to the other.

He's a stereotype, not an actual person. He exists to be knocked over by the persuasive arguments of the faithful in yarns about theology successfully defended.

...

Stories about atheist professors being bested by true believers who did have answers at the ready are both ventings of this frustration and expressions of delight in finally seeming to have been armed with deft responses to fling back. These are tales of affirmation, modern-day parables of trials overcome and fierce adversaries bested by those who held fast to what they believed in, even in the face of ridicule rained down by authority figures. Like parables, they are meant to inspire similar resolve in those with whom they are shared ; should those members of the flock ever find themselves in like circumstances, they should feel moved to emulate the brave little students of legend who stood up to the big, bad atheist professors.


Actually Albert Einstein was a Pantheist. And I would guess, being a Panthiest meself, if Einstein said anything it would be that both the Professor and the Student were wrong. Both of their arguments come from Myopic definitions of "God".

[orange]

A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. (Albert Einstein)

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. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)


Much more: http://www.spaceandmotion.com/albert-einstein-god-religion-theology.htm

[petegz28]

A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. (Albert Einstein)

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. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)




Much more: http://www.spaceandmotion.com/albert-einstein-god-religion-theology.htm

Exactly. And that is what makes him a pantheist.