0
   

George Washington's Religious Principle vs. Albert Einstein's "Religion"

 
 
Reply Fri 14 Oct, 2016 02:20 am
Washington in his Farewell Address said "Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

That is, in Washington's view, without religious principle, American people cannot be united as one.

Similarly, Einstein once said "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

But Einstein was never religious, for he denied a personal God. His religion is a devotion to science.

So what is the religious principle mentioned by Washington? He referred to "the benign Parent of the Human Race" in his first inaugural address. Yet he didn't mention God in his second inaugural address at all. It is very unusual for a President of United States to omit His Almighty in a presidential inauguration. It is reasonable to guess that his religious principle is a religion-like devotion to the Constitution, which had the place of God in his second inaugural address.

Thus, both Washington's religious principle and Einstein's principle of religion may be one thing. This one thing is for the happiness of humankind.

I appreciate your opinion on this issue.

 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Oct, 2016 08:16 am
@oristarA,
Quote:
Similarly, Einstein once said "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

But Einstein was never religious, for he denied a personal God. His religion is a devotion to science.
As much as I admire Einstein, that always struck me as wanting to have it both ways. Unless you're joking, you shouldn't invoke spiritual values if you don't believe in spirit.

I understand the reluctance to invoke 'God', it's been pretty dirtied up by charlatans, but if you're going to take a stand - Take a Stand.
giujohn
 
  3  
Reply Fri 14 Oct, 2016 09:56 am
God does not exist. God is an impossibility. And I think that science has pretty well proved that. There is nothing after you die so what you make of your life is mostly your own responsibility. You shouldn't need the crutch of religion in order to lead a positive and productive life in modern day Western Society.
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Oct, 2016 10:05 am
@Leadfoot,
Give us the definition of your spirit in the first place.
dalehileman
 
  0  
Reply Fri 14 Oct, 2016 10:29 am
@giujohn,
Quote:
God does not exist
John the apodictical existential pantheist won't go quite that far. It's apparent to us that the Universe is a single, finite, natural phenom; and that eventually it will be realized that calling it God is a perfectly natural conclusion, just as its denial
giujohn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Oct, 2016 05:19 pm
@dalehileman,
There are fundamental laws that lend to the exsistance of this universe. One of them is Heisenberg's indeterminacy principle. If an if an omniscient being existed it would violate Heisenberg's principle and therefore the universe could not exist. The mere fact that the Universe does exist proves that an omniscient being does not. You can't have both at the same time. It's the age old question...can God create a rock so big that he can't lift it?
dalehileman
 
  0  
Reply Sat 15 Oct, 2016 10:55 am
@giujohn,
Quote:
You can't have both at the same time
Sure you can

Thanks John. The pantheist might see Her as a "being," but the problem here is that our language is so anth...phic
giujohn
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Oct, 2016 01:01 pm
@dalehileman,
No, you can't. If you were able to violate Heisenberg the universe would go poof.
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Oct, 2016 01:52 pm
@giujohn,
John doesn't it depend on defs, like what's a "being,"

Quote:
...violate Heisenberg....
To sdave gthe lazy slob (me) the trouble of Googling could you summarize it in a short sentence of everyday words placed in typical order

Thanks John
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Oct, 2016 11:04 am
@oristarA,
Quote:
Give us the definition of your spirit in the first place.

Not 'mine' mate, I'm just a fan.
giujohn
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Oct, 2016 11:18 am
@dalehileman,
An omniscient being or entity or whatever you'd like to call it would have the ability to know where every single solitary subatomic particle is in the entire universe at any time. Knowing the exact position and velocity of even one particle is impossible because the more you know about 1 the less you know about the other so if you were to know it would violate Heisenberg ...chemistry wouldn't work and the universe wouldn't exist...poof!

And if God is Not omniscient it's not worth even mentioning.
dalehileman
 
  0  
Reply Sun 16 Oct, 2016 01:07 pm
@giujohn,
Quote:
An omniscient being...would have the ability to know where every single solitary subatomic particle is...
Glue thanks for the expl. However, She can't ha ve that ability else there couldn't be free will

Quote:
...position and velocity...the more you know about 1 the less you know about the other...would violate Heisenberg ...chemistry wouldn't work......poof!
Thank you John most kindly for explaining that. But would this be true in my pantheistic Universe?

Quote:
And if God is Not omniscient it's not worth even mentioning.
Oh but Giu I'd disxgree, I think the idea's intriguing. Let's hear more from Mna, Con, Oss, etc

PS Just noticed it isn't "Glu.."
giujohn
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Oct, 2016 01:51 pm
@dalehileman,
U R right...having free will = no god.
dalehileman
 
  0  
Reply Sun 16 Oct, 2016 04:08 pm
@giujohn,
But John that's not what I said

You hafta explain in just a bit more detail

Thanks
giujohn
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Oct, 2016 05:26 pm
@dalehileman,
Uh sorry I'm not about to give a Quantum physics lesson from my smart phone...check out the internet.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Oct, 2016 05:47 pm
@giujohn,
Oh yeah, QM explains everything...
giujohn
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Oct, 2016 07:30 pm
@Leadfoot,
Yes...yes it does!
0 Replies
 
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Oct, 2016 09:54 pm
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
Give us the definition of your spirit in the first place.

Not 'mine' mate, I'm just a fan.


Are you telling us that you are spiritless?
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Oct, 2016 10:44 am
@oristarA,
Sorry, I didn't know you meant my personal spirit. I thought you meant the spirit.

Definition of my spirit is - a piece of God's spirit. (same as yours btw).

As far as technical details of what 'spirit' is, I don't know, I can recognize its existence though. Just like most people are 'fans' or 'users' of the internet but know none of the technical details about it.

I'm interested in what spirit actually is though, and it will be one of the first questions I'll ask when the time comes.
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Oct, 2016 09:15 pm
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:

Definition of my spirit is - a piece of God's spirit. (same as yours btw).

As far as technical details of what 'spirit' is, I don't know, I can recognize its existence though.


By religious tradition, God's spirit is omniscient. You've simply denied the omniscience of God by saying you don't know what 'spirit" is since your definition of your spirit is a piece of God's spirit.

A piece of a man, even a cell of a man, contains the complete genetic information of the man. By the same token, a piece of God's spirit contains the complete information about God.

You proved God's not omniscient, thus you've proved God is nonexistent.
 

 
  1. Forums
  2. » George Washington's Religious Principle vs. Albert Einstein's "Religion"
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/03/2020 at 11:52:58