Did Einstein try to destroy science?

Einstein once said, "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in all that exists..." (Einstein Archive 33-272). Spinoza viewed God and nature as one and the same.Einstein's famous saying about God playing dice was just his metaphorically way of saying that he didn't believe in a non-deterministic universe. Einstein was a very spiritual but not at all a religious man, and this was well understood not only at the time but still today. It is not a religious statement on Einstein's part of a belief in God, nor a reflection of any confusion on his part of God and science.--Percy

A redeclaration of your initial premise doesn't really provide me any options other than to repeat what I just said, which I won't do since it appears just above in Message 2. If you want to respond to something I actually said then I'll be happy to address your comments.--Percy

Einstein rejected quantum uncertainty, so while it would be inaccurate to characterize Einstein's dice statement as an assertion that the universe is deterministic, it is a certainly consistent with such a belief, and I do think Einstein thought the universe deterministic. Einstein's dice statement was about quantum uncertainty, not his religious beliefs. But Einstein's statement about his belief in the God of Spinoza was unequivocably a statement about his religious beliefs, such as they were.--Percy

Einstein's theology was Spinozan, which equates the universe to God. When Einstein said God doesn't play dice he was saying the universe doesn't play dice. Einstein was undeniably a very spiritual man, and as the excerpt you quoted in your next message makes clear, he saw a cosmological spirituality as the ultimate religious expression.--Percy

AbE: I realized later that the point you were asking me to substantiate might not be that Einstein was a Spinozan, but that Spinoza equated God and universe. If that's the case then I didn't realize you didn't understand Spinoza. See the Wikipedia entry on Spinoza for a relatively accessible explanation of his philosophy. In particular, your statement that Spinoza believed that God caused the universe is extravagantly wrong since Spinoza went to great lengths arguing against that possibility, most notably arguing that two infinities cannot coexist and that they must therefore be one and the same.I noticed that you started up this new thread just after we finished discussing your discussion style in the moderation thread, and I figured that you'd be motivated to show how wrong everyone is about you, so I entered this thread thinking I would help you out by providing as unprovocative a foil as I could, but you're making this difficult by continuing in your usual unconstructive mode.In Message 2 I quoted Einstein saying he's a Spinozan. You still haven't addressed that evidence, and I really cannot provide any more proof or substantiation of Einstein being a Spinozan than a quote of Einstein saying he's a Spinozan. All the other quotes of Einstein that have appeared in this thread are consistent with Einstein being a Spinozan, so they cast no doubt upon this quote. If you want to raise issues and/or doubts concerning the quote (perhaps about its authenticity or interpretation) then go ahead and we can discuss them, but until you actually address the proof and substantiation I already provided so that I have some idea of what you consider its weaknesses, demands for proof and substantiation are just plain weird.Contributing to the weirdness is this: First, the Forum Guidelines request that you provide relevant short excerpts from links and use the link solely as a reference for more information and to provide the context. That section of the webpage was 1100 words long, how am I supposed to know which part is relevant to your argument?Second, at the end of that section Einstein references Spinoza, providing yet more substantiation for the point that you want more proof and substantiation for. And I can't see anything else in that lengthy Einstein excerpt where he says anything remotely resembling a statement about his own personal religious beliefs. In other words, you wasted a lot of my time making me read a long passage that doesn't support your position.This, among many other reasons, is why you're in here. Your desire, which you're almost never able to resist giving in to, is to rail on and on endlessly about things, whether you're making any sense or not, whether you're following any rules of decorum or not, or whether you're listening to what anyone else is saying or not. No, Spinoza argued that God and universe are one and the same. Until you get right what Spinoza believed, you'll continue to get wrong what Einstein believed.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Add explanatory comment.

There is no quote of Einstein's, either here in this thread or anywhere else, to indicate that he believed in a Divine Spirit Creator. Einstein wrote voluminously, so I am sure he made many statements of a sufficiently ambiguous nature with regard to God that they could be considered consistent with a Divine Spirit Creator, but when Einstein spoke specifically about God he said he was a Spinozan or described beliefs that were Spinozan. Another aspect of Spinozan philosophy I didn't mention earlier is that it was often seen as the atheist's alternative. There is no hint of a Divine Spirit Creator in Spinozan philosophy.Regarding the actual title of the thread, it makes me wonder if you accept any mainstream interpretation of anything. Whether it's Wheeler or Einstein or Spinoza or whoever you somehow always manage to come up with some oddball interpretation from way, way out in left field, one that even the person's own words can't dissuade you from.Here's another Einstein quote for you: --Percy

Proper debate form would be for you to find the supporting statements you're referring to and quote them here, providing the links to provide both reference and context. Here you go riding off on your irrational horse again. You say Einstein tried to destroy science by mixing God and science, then when it is pointed out that this is obviously wrong just from Einstein's own words declaring himself a Spinozan and since you can't say Einstein was wrong when describing himself, you next go off and misinterpret Spinoza.This is from Wikipedia: This is from Britannica: This is from the Columbia University Press Encyclopedia: Dwell on the last phrase of the above excerpt for a while: "Nature is not the product or agency of a supernatural God."This is from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: I can't even guess where you got your weird ideas about Spinoza from, unless it's the only way to avoid being wrong about Einstein, and of course we all know that Randman can never be wrong.--Percy

No, Randman, it is you who have false concepts of Spinoza. Read my previous post, it provided many excerpts making clear how wrong you are. This is just you misinterpreting what someone said again, something you do all the time. If you want to provide quotes and supporting argument go ahead, but don't bother urging others to go find your evidence for you. Oh, gee, hey, thanks, oh arrogant one. Again, see my previous message. Oh, it helped a great deal. It helped show that you didn't bother reading the next paragraph: Spinoza did not view God as the divine creator of the universe. He viewed God and universe as one and the same. By the time you get to proposition 15 distinctions are being sliced pretty finely, and you're reaching an unintended conclusion by somehow assuming that the finer distinctions made later invalidate the overarching declarations made at the beginning.--Percy

Hi Randman,Here's more from further on in the same Stanford article ( Baruch Spinoza (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) ): If you read the whole section on "God or Nature" you'll get a much better idea of the Spinozan position on God and the universe than you will by just cherry picking paragraphs that in isolation might seem supportive of God as the creator of the universe.--Percy

So you think that Spinoza and Einstein believed there was a God who created the universe, just like standard Christian theology?--Percy

I already read what you provided, they didn't support your view, and I already successfully rebutted them. All you're really doing is declaring yourself judge in the debate: "My arguments already carried the day."Debates move forward to explore new contexts. You made the point that you thought earlier points were effective, so it is incumbent upon you to bring those points forward into the current context and test them in it to see if they are any more effective now than they were before. Just telling people to go off and read your old posts, especially without any specific links at all, just isn't going to accomplish anything.Just an aside: this is another reason why debate with you is so difficult. It doesn't take any time at all before it breaks down into arguments about how to properly approach discussion, causing discussion itself to fall by the wayside. Uh, have you noticed the title you chose for your thread: Did Einstein try to destroy science?Yes, you are mind-boggling. No, you're wrong about my beliefs. While I don't think I could state my beliefs as simply as this, it's fairly consistent with what I believe. Oh, boy, here we go! Yes, I know you found words that could be interpreted that way, but only by ignoring the overarching context. If you conclude that Spinoza believed that first there was a God who then created the universe, then you're wrong. That's the Christian view that Spinoza strongly opposed. Spinoza was a favorite of atheists, not of Christians (or of Jews), and there's a good reason for that. I guess some might think that way. I certainly don't, but as I said before, my beliefs don't lend themselves to simple expression.--Percy

No, you're wrong, I understand that just fine. The universe is just a synonym for everything everywhere. You're going to have to explain how Einstein's adoption of Spinozan philosophy, the friend of atheists, could somehow be construed as mixing religion and science. Einstein was pretty clear that he held no traditional religious beliefs. He thought the effort to understand the universe a very spiritual experience, and he said this many times in many ways. I see it the same way.--Percy

I was responding to your reference to "the creation". I even quoted the entire paragraph where it appeared, so I'm surprised you couldn't figure out where the question was coming from. It seemed weird in a discussion about Spinozan philosophy, so I asked. Yeah, this is a pretty good statement of Spinozan belief. Well, perhaps, but only if you define spirit very loosely. I'm not sure precisely what Spinoza might have meant by spirit, but Einstein was pretty clear. To quote The Expanded Quotable Einstein (page 201), he saw it more as "an attitude of cosmic awe and wonder and a devout humility before the harmony of nature." For Einstein the spiritual was the feeling he got from studying the universe and was not really some kind of actual spirit.--Percy

Sorry, wasn't clear to me. Most people here, including myself, consider you anti-science, and so combining your "refreshing" comment with the title sounded to me like an argument that Einstein was trying to destroy science. Oh, heck, I'm flattered! Just one of the many millions you find frustrating. You have such difficulty discussing with anyone that you find an exchange of a couple civil messages with Mick something to crow about. I would never say that "Spinoza would argue that God created those thigns" because he didn't see God as an active player but as an essential nature that was expressed thereby causing things to come into being. But as to the last part about the Spinoza universe including everything, period, yes, I agree.--Percy

How are you defining divine?--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.