deist (n)

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.

That what you meant?

What's the source for that definition?

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 15:25:38 +0000 (UTC), "dandelion"
<dandelion@meadow.net> wrote:

"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-32dn33F3k6nflU1@individual.net...

Einstein was a _deist_.

So what?

I don't think he was. He made the mistake of using deist language,
laced with "if": IF he had a god it would be Spinoza's - which was a
metaphor for the wonders of the universe, and remember that the
Rabbinate considered him atheist; IF he had anything religious in in
him it would be awe for the wonders of the universe, etc.

IF he had anything religious in in
him it would be awe for the wonders of the universe, etc.

John Harshman wrote:

david ford wrote:

Einstein, Albert. Cited in Jammer, Max. 1999. _Einstein
and Religion: Physics and Theology_ (USA: Princeton
University Press), 279pp., 48, who obtained the remark from
D. Brian, _Einstein-- A Life_ (Wiley, New York, 1966), p.
186, who obtained the remark from G. S. Viereck, _Glimpses
of the Great_ (Macauley, New York, 1930). Einstein is
responding to an inquiry to define God:
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
languages. The child knows someone must have written
those books. It does not know how. It does not
understand the languages in which they are written. 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 the
universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws
but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited
minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the
constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's pantheism,
but admire even more his contribution to modern
thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with
the soul and body as one, and not two separate things.

Einstein was a deist.
He wasn't a theist.
He wasn't a pantheist (see above, and Jammer, 148-149).
He had a freethought conversion experience when 12, but
grew out of that youthful faith (Jammer, 138, 140).
Einstein wasn't an atheist (quote above, and Jammer, 97).

Einstein was a _deist_.

Then again,

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

and

"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."

and

"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is
a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the
crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due
to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious
indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility
corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of
nature and of our being."

I don't think this adds up to deism at all. The deist god is personal,

and he may in fact care about individuals though all his intervention
would have been at the beginning. Looks like he was variously an
agnostic and a Spinozan to me.

But anyway, as another poster has said already, why should we care? And
why is this in any way relevant to talk.origins, where I'm reading it?

It isn't important whether any scientist believed in God. The science is
what is important, and where it leads us.

Each and every avenue science has taken mankind down has led us away
from the gods we are called upon by the religious to worship, because
scientific knowledge and understanding lead us to better, more tenable,
more believable and more durable explanations as to why we are here, how
we got here and what our destiny is.

The religious are trying to lead us out of the library by the door we
came in through.

John Harshman wrote:

david ford wrote:

Einstein, Albert. Cited in Jammer, Max. 1999. _Einstein
and Religion: Physics and Theology_ (USA: Princeton
University Press), 279pp., 48, who obtained the remark from
D. Brian, _Einstein-- A Life_ (Wiley, New York, 1966), p.
186, who obtained the remark from G. S. Viereck, _Glimpses
of the Great_ (Macauley, New York, 1930). Einstein is
responding to an inquiry to define God:
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
languages. The child knows someone must have written
those books. It does not know how. It does not
understand the languages in which they are written. 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 the
universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws
but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited
minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the
constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's pantheism,
but admire even more his contribution to modern
thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with
the soul and body as one, and not two separate things.

Einstein was a deist.
He wasn't a theist.
He wasn't a pantheist (see above, and Jammer, 148-149).
He had a freethought conversion experience when 12, but
grew out of that youthful faith (Jammer, 138, 140).
Einstein wasn't an atheist (quote above, and Jammer, 97).

Einstein was a _deist_.

Then again,

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly

harmony

of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and

actions

of human beings."

and

"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."

and

"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal

God is

a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the
crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly

due

to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious
indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility
corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of
nature and of our being."

I don't think this adds up to deism at all. The deist god is

personal,

and he may in fact care about individuals though all his

intervention

would have been at the beginning. Looks like he was variously an
agnostic and a Spinozan to me.

But anyway, as another poster has said already, why should we care?

And

why is this in any way relevant to talk.origins, where I'm reading

it?

It isn't important whether any scientist believed in God. The science
is
what is important, and where it leads us.

Each and every avenue science has taken mankind down has led us away
from the gods we are called upon by the religious to worship, because
scientific knowledge and understanding lead us to better, more
tenable,
more believable and more durable explanations as to why we are here,
how
we got here and what our destiny is.

The religious are trying to lead us out of the library by the door we
came in through.