I don’t think I am the one missing the point. From @Rumraket:
“This glorification of deceased scientific or philosophical celebrities is pathetic, and so is the idea of trying to claim that they would have supported this or that position.
Ultimately it doesn’t matter what he would think about it, because we can think for ourselves.”
The real question is why people quote Newton and Einstein on these matters as if their opinions on religion carry any more weight than the average Joe from off the street.
If a prospective juror in a criminal trial indicated such reasoning, the juror would be rejected by the defense attorney. Prejudice is prejudice, no matter what justifications are offered for it.
At least half the atheists posting here are trolls (and at least one of the alleged Christians who argues like an atheist), so if you adopt that stance, you’ll have to stop responding to several people here.
I understand that Newton and Einstein had different views on God, the former believing in a personal god, which was not the case of the latter. When I’ve advanced that both men were aligned, it was about the idea that the contemplation of nature, informed by science, leads the human mind to recognise the existence of a creative intelligence at the source of the universe. IOW, both men would have endorse what Hamlet said to Horatio: There are more things in heaven and Earth , Horatio , / Than are dreamt of in your philosophy
I did not say that their opinions carried any particular weight. I said they were right in their open-minded attitude regarding some larger metaphysical and epistemological questions, not in any of their conclusions.
And one could offer the same remark when people here who are trained in biology or biochemistry offer rigid opinions on climate change as if their opinions carry any more weight than the average Joe off the street.
You’re probably right about this. Even though it’s unclear how personal Einstein though the “intelligence” was that lay behind the universe, his comments do seem to show a preponderance of openness over closedness, and a sense that “everything is nothing but matter/energy in motion” is too crude an approach to reality. If he had lived to read the thought of the “new atheists” (which is a pretty much unimaginative repackaging of the thought of the “old atheists”), I think he would have been appalled. I can’t prove that, but all the comments of his that I’ve read, pertaining to the big questions, suggest it. I don’t think he was as deep a thinker (outside of mathematics and physics) as some do, but it would be hard to be as shallow a thinker as Dawkins, Krauss, etc.
They have only a superficial understanding of scientific specialties outside their own. The vast majority of scientists I have talked to are very hesitant to render judgment, based on their own reasoning, in fields outside of their own. It seems to be only internet-quarreling scientists who are confident that they can discuss any scientific subject and speak about it with decisive reasoning. (E.g., one person here whose field is biochemistry is confident that conclusions drawn by many very intelligent people trained in physics and cosmology, regarding fine-tuning, are “crap”, though his training is far from that of the relevant experts.) I conclude that the sort of scientist who enjoys debating fiercely on the internet is somewhat less modest, intellectually and professionally, than the typical scientist.
Thank you for making this distinction.
Oh, and by the way, I’ve been reading that book by Hedin that you never read, and that you assumed – based on what you thought you knew (through rumor and hearsay) of his course – was “creationist” and promotes “Abrahamic religion”. For your information, it does not seem to even mention creationism and it does not directly endorse “Abrahamic religion”. It mentions the Bible only two or three times in passing, and never once argues for a conclusion based on anything in the Bible. It does seem to argue for a generic theism, but “Abrahamic religion” is too narrow a characterization for theism in general. I’ve seen nothing in the text so far, and nothing in the Index, to warrant the conclusion that the book was “creationist.” And in fact it’s decisively not young-earth creationist, as it explicitly affirms the Big Bang cosmology and timelines. So if it’s creationist, it’s progressive creationist – and so far I’ve seen no endorsement even of that. From what I’ve read so far, his position is compatible with guided evolution, designed evolution, or something of the sort, though I won’t know for sure until I finish it, so I will refrain from guessing what he will conclude. Perhaps from these remarks, you will begin to suspect that your inferences were premature, but anyhow, back to Newton and Einstein, which was our topic here (or so I thought)…
[This post was moved in error, so I’m adding it back to this thread.]
In your linked article, you also state:
But here’s my point: when Newton put forward his Intelligent Design arguments, he thought he was doing science.
But surely, to go back to a point I raised early in this thread, when Newton put forward his alchemical claims, he likewise “thought he was doing science.” Why should Newton’s 18th Century opinions on what is or is not good science be of any relevance today?