An interesting book by Alistar McGrath just came out.
A Theory of Everything (That Matters): A Brief Guide to Einstein, Relativity, and His Surprising Thoughts on God
In Light of Today’s Scientific Achievements, Do We Need God Anymore? Einstein’s revolutionary scientific ideas have transformed our world, ushering in the nuclear age. The current pace of scientific and technological progress is simply astounding. So is there any place for faith in such a world? Einstein himself gave careful thought to the deepest questions of life. His towering intellectual status means he is someone worth listening to when we think through the big questions of life:
Can science answer all our questions?
Why is religion so important in life?
How can we hold together science and faith?
In this book, McGrath examines the life and work of Einstein, explaining his scientific significance and considering what Einstein did and did not believe about science, religion, and the meaning of life. A Theory of Everything (That Matters) is a must-read for anyone who wants to understand the role of faith in a world where science and technology govern our lives.
I have read Einsteins book and his speeches on his subject. yet i don’t find him a towering figure in science. jUst someone with a idea coupled with many wrong ideas. I have no interest in his opinion on God or on science and faith. Nobody in science matters in these things. they are be definition just people working on a subject(s). they have nothing to contribute more then others.
Finally i question if these physic things are to be seen as that intellectually superior to anything in science/ i suspect its not WISDOM, but instead uNDERSTANDING to use the bibles definitions of intellectual thought. i think great inventers more likely use wisdom, since they must twist science to a result, then mere figure out folks. i’m not sure. i suspect so.
once again the faith verses science thing comes up. Thats not it. instead its about claims that science disproves the bible or disproves evidence for GOD.
For or against creationism its not relevant what Einstein thought about it MORE then anyone else. unless physics was showing proof for or against.
I thought I should check the title of the “Einstein’s book” which you have faithfully reported as having “read”. Trying Wikipedia first I observe that “Throughout his life, Einstein published hundreds of books and articles. He published more than 300 scientific papers and 150 non-scientific ones. On 5 December 2014, universities and archives announced the release of Einstein’s papers, comprising more than 30,000 unique documents”. I note that you are unimpressed and do not consider him “a towering figure in science”. Again from Wikipedia: "Einstein’s intellectual achievements and originality have made the word “Einstein” synonymous with “genius”’. The rest of your post contains so little correct grammar and so much incoherence, I fear you may have confused the Einstein being referred to with some geezer you met down the pub. Yes, I have scan read McGrath’s book and heard his presentation covering aspects of his book.
Whats your point or beef? I read a book by him 'The evolution of physics" with Infeld. It was not a good teach. being a innovator and a teache are two different skills.
I don’t agree there is such a thing as genius. I simply see people have ideas or as in music HITS.
einsteins were limited to a few things in physics. it was in the days when there was a prejudice that physics was more complicated then other stuff. It was complicated but not much or at all that lots of things. In fact i think its a UNDERSTANDING thing and not WISDOM as the bible would term it. that is as God would term it. I like his discoveries, if accurate, and want to understand relativity more. yet i still think its not as impressive a intellectual accomplishment as thousands of important inventions affecting medicine or technology or other things like politics etc etc.
remember Einstein stressed science was about guesses. only afterwards was science practiced to confirm/disprove the guess. this was important to him because his guess , I understasnd, was very much led by Mach’s resistance to Newton. so to get the intellectual credit one must stress the methodology. thats why Einstein was consistent in saying the trail was newton, faraday, maxwell, herrz, lorentz, and then him.
As a thinker I like Einstein in his physics. Not saying he is wrong. i guess i’m a fan with reservations for many reasons.