Evolution and religion , a hundred years ago

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by VJ
Einstein was such a knee-jerk secularist, he manipulated his own theory in order to prove that the theory of an infinitely old, stable-sized universe was true. Then he was pwned by Lemaître in the 20s.

That's a pretty distorted view of what happened.

[beingofone]

Are you asserting that he's wrong on Einstein's belief in god? Because he isn't.

I am not asserting anything for the second time hence the quote.

I will assert that my postings have stalkers who disagree regardless of validity just because I posted it makes it wrong.

Real open minded learning and exchange of ideas going on there. If my tactics seem crude - well wake up and smell the coffee.

You can at times learn the most from someone you disagree with - of course it does take experience with objective observation to learn the value of open minded debate.

[RGBVideo]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
That's a pretty distorted view of what happened.

... times two


Why contribute at all when you can just proclaim your superiority by ?

[Solomwi]

Originally posted by aneeshm



The idea he tries to convery is simple - that instead of denying evolution as degrading to man , accept it as something that uplifts ( maybe you find it difficult to grasp what he is saying because he is speaking with the premise that man is God ) . He is not arguing against evolution in the first place ( maybe you assumed that , being religious , he was arguing against the TOE and trying to legtimise his own creation myth ? ) .

Well, except that I neither found it hard to grasp nor assumed anything about it. Regardless of his conclusion, he arrives at it using a version of a flawed creationist argument. His rationale is just as flawed, as I pointed out. Care to address the substance of my post, rather than tell me I don't get it?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by beingofone
I will assert that my postings have stalkers who disagree regardless of validity just because I posted it makes it wrong.

You poor, persecuted soul.

The fact is that Einstein wasn't saying what the quote you gave implied. Since religious types have been making wildly erroneous claims for ages as to what Einstein did and didn't believe, it's only fair to keep pointing this out when people abuse his words in an attempt to add some sort of scientific legitimacy to their beliefs.

Why contribute at all when you can just proclaim your superiority by ?

What else needs to be said in response to a blatant mischaracterization of the situation? What did you contribute, besides a false impression of what happened?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Mr. Harley
I think what is happening here is that there is the routine confusion between "fundamentalist" and "Religious Rght". Spiffor very nicely describes those on the Religious Right, which includes a very high per centage of Southern Baptists. Since the Southern Theological Seminary is right here in Louisville, and one of my coworkers graduated from there - believe me folks, Spiffor hit the "Religious Right" definition very nicely (BTW Spiffor are you originally from the USA?). The Religious Right can also include some extremist Catholics, like my father, Evangelical Christians, and some Methodists.

Jon Miller is talking about Religious Fundamentalism. I have had many friends who are Religious Fundamentlists, but none who were members of the Religious Right. Jon is, from his posts, a devout Religious Fundamentalist (redundant terminology?), which is why while I may disagree with him at times, I've noticed that in general he is one of the more polite people here. Of course a Religious Fundamentalist complaining about his lack of success with the ladies...

...

wtf?

why'd you change your name?

[Mr. Harley]

Jon - you and I have had exchanges about abortion, and we definitely disagree over large areas of the debate. You've never been rude or hot to me - it depends on how it's presented. You've never initiated name calling with me - and neither has BK, though he and I have gotten heated but civil (and he's accused me of setting him up - which I did on the abortificants issue. ).

Aneeshm - interesting concept and I understand your point. The Old Testament religions tend to quote the part about man being given dominion over the Earth. It's a totally different approach, which is why a Jewish heretic gave us Christianity, and a Hindu heretic gave us Buddhism. :duck and run for cover:

[RGBVideo]

What else needs to be said in response to a blatant mischaracterization of the situation?

You are free to correct me, I'm always to eager learn new

"quick" edit, finally accomplished after 4 server timeouts:
Einstein manipulated his own calculations, because he wanted to go with the prevailing wisdow, the "everyone knows" of the era, that universe was infinite and stable. When Lemaître finally presented his own theory privately to Einstein, he backed off immediately and applauded Lemaître's theory. How can you not call it pwnage?

[beingofone]

The fact is that Einstein wasn't saying what the quote you gave implied.

You must be slow or just plain dense, go back and read my post and quote where I made a single conjecture, implied meaning, or assumption.

If you cannot then you might want to have the presence of mind to admit "gee I might be listening challenged."

Try this exercise - "I should really try to grasp what the other person is saying instead of inventing strawmen so I can feel superior when I thrash a figment of my creative imagination."

[Boris Godunov]

This proposal caused a sharp reaction from the scientific community of the time. Eddington found Lemaitre's notion unpleasant. As for Einstein, he found it suspect, because, according to him, it was too strongly reminiscent of the Christian dogma of creation and was unjustifiable from a physical point of view. The debate between cosmology and religion took the form of a polemic that would last several decades. In this debate, Lemaître would be a fundamental actor who unceasingly tried to separate science from faith.

However, in January 1933, Lemaitre and Einstein, who had met on several occasions - in 1927 in Brussels, at the time of a Solvay congress, in 1932 in Belgium, at the time of a cycle of conferences in Brussels and lastly in 1935 at Princeton - traveled together to California for a series of seminars. After the Belgian detailed his theory, Einstein stood up, applauded, and said, "This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened".

The basics are true, but the depiction of Einstein as a "knee-jerk" secularist isn't justifiable. His objections to the expansion model was primarily because of the physical properties. Once Lemaitre convinced him of the physics, he was won over quickly.

And he didn't "manipulate" his own theory, he added the cosmological constant as a means of explaining the failure of the universe to contract upon itself. Introducing such hypotheses to explain factors thought to be otherwise inexplicable is pretty common in scientific thought. That's what theoretical science is about.

He was wrong, and he quickly admitted he was wrong and rightly called his previous position a blunder. It had little to do with him being a "knee-jerk" secularist, but rather him (and the bulk of other scientists) needing more convincing to give up what was, at the time, the most commonly-held belief.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by beingofone
You must be slow or just plain dense, go back and read my post and quote where I made a single conjecture, implied meaning, or assumption.

If you cannot then you might want to have the presence of mind to admit "gee I might be listening challenged."

Try this exercise - "I should really try to grasp what the other person is saying instead of inventing strawmen so I can feel superior when I thrash a figment of my creative imagination."

So what was the point of the Einstein quote? Do tell, because it's increasingly looking like it was pointless.

Here's your response to Bill, after he pointed out Einstein's true beliefs:

You know what I tire of - people who think Einstein was not bright enough to speak his own mind and have to reinterpret what he said because he was challenged when it came to communication skills.
That way he always says what you want him to say instead of what he actually said.

The implication given here is that you are saying it is Bill who is distorting Einstein's position. Otherwise, this statement makes little sense. I'm prepared to believe you're just making a bunch of irrelevant and meaningless statements, but it looks much more like you're trying to weasel out of your getting schooled on Einstein's beliefs.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by VJ
When Lemaître finally presented his own theory privately to Einstein, he backed off immediately and applauded Lemaître's theory. How can you not call it pwnage?

I dealt with the other stuff, but this is silly. So "pwnage" is rationally presenting one's view and having them change their mind? Nope, that's not what pwnage means.

If Einstein had continued to refuse to see Lemaitre's logic and disagreed with him to the end of reason, but Lemaitre was able to convince the scientific community otherwise and thus embarrass Einstein, that would be pwnage. Einstein realizing his error and--happily--changing his view isn't being pwned. Otherwise, you'd have the belief that everytime someone changes their mind on something they've been "pwned."

[RGBVideo]

And he didn't "manipulate" his own theory, he added the cosmological constant as a means of explaining the failure of the universe to contract upon itself.

Yes, the constant which he made up from where? Out of thin air AFAIK. Sounds like artificial manipulation to me.

Introducing such hypotheses to explain factors thought to be otherwise inexplicable is pretty common in scientific thought. That's what theoretical science is about.

Umm, no. Making up stuff in order to avoid a certain conclusion is a big no-no.

The whole "inexplicable" thing is exactly my point: Since the prevailing wisdom had been since mid-18th century that the universe was stable and infinite, Einstein didn't dare to believe to the conclusions of his own theory so he made up an artificial value to upkeep an obsolete world view which suited the secularist values of the day.

Otherwise, you'd have the belief that everytime someone changes their mind on something they've been "pwned."

Which is pretty much the common usage of the word today in the off-topic. But you're correct, it isn't the original or true meaning of the word, and I won't abuse it anymore

It had little to do with him being a "knee-jerk" secularist, but rather him (and the bulk of other scientists) needing more convincing to give up what was, at the time, the most commonly-held belief.

We must have different definitions of "knee-jerk" then, since I believe that whenever a scientist refuses a theory since it's against the commonly-held beliefs (not facts) of the time, he's automatically opposing it because of some knee-jerk reasons.

[beingofone]

So what was the point of the Einstein quote? Do tell, because it's increasingly looking like it was pointless.

That it takes the passion of a religious zealot to find truth in science or life and existence.

But don`t let that little setback slow you down - I am sure you can spin this statement back into a strawman with linguistic gymnastics and a touch of denial.

The implication given here is that you are saying it is Bill who is distorting Einstein's position.

And there you go, simple as that. It was me distorting Einstein`s view all along. It has to be to fit into your fantasy.

Otherwise, this statement makes little sense.

Of course it does not make any sense at all. It has to fit into your preconceived idea of what I mean't.
It must fit the strawman profile, it could not possibly be a neutral statement that seeks congruity and reconciliation. It has to be a statement that makes you feel superior by attacking poor misguided me.
After all I am a Christian and all Christians have an agenda that must be discredited.

I'm prepared to believe you're just making a bunch of irrelevant and meaningless statements, but it looks much more like you're trying to weasel out of your getting schooled on Einstein's beliefs.

You should really take a step back and look at our exchanges Boris.
It has to be meaningless statements because I have no where to hide from your searing gaze. I am caught red handed in my underhanded trickery and am just simply at a loss for words.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by VJ
Yes, the constant which he made up from where? Out of thin air AFAIK. Sounds like artificial manipulation to me.

The whole "inexplicable" thing is exactly my point: Since the prevailing wisdom had been since mid-18th century that the universe was stable and infinite, Einstein didn't dare to believe to the conclusions of his own theory so he made up an artificial value to upkeep an obsolete world view which suited the secularist values of the day.

We must have different definitions of "knee-jerk" then, since I believe that whenever a scientist refuses a theory since it's against the commonly-held beliefs (not facts) of the time, he's automatically opposing it because of some knee-jerk reasons.

You're ignoring that Einstein's objections were also based on physical grounds. The red shift had yet to be observed, so there was no physical proof at that time that the universe was expanding. Absent that proof, Einstein believed that something had to be preventing the universe from collapsing, since his calculations showed it should be. Hence his hypothesis of the constant. His dismissal of Lemaitre's view was based on their being, as far as he saw, no physical evidence supporting it.

Later on, Hubble's observations allowed Lemaitre to resubmit his theory. Many scientists then accepted that the universe was expanding, but refused to believe in a beginning. Einstein, however, realized Lemaitre was correct and changed his view. Hardly the actions of a knee-jerk secularist (since he could have taken camp with those continuing to deny a beginning, were he such).

Einstein was wrong, he admitted it and life went on. But characterizing him as some sort of rabid anti-religionist is also wrong.