Atheists reaction to Einstein Quote is good?

[Heyo]

Why do you think that he was not a strong mathematician?

Evidence please.

Much of the mathematics of GR was provided by Emmy Noether. Einstein recognized her as "the most important woman in the history of mathematics".
"Noether's theorem explains the connection between symmetry and conservation laws." - Emmy Noether - Wikipedia

 

[pearl]

He was an atheist, because he rejected the gods of theism. But he didn't dismiss the idea of some impersonal, universal force behind the way the universe works - by that is not "God" in the way religions insist.

Would you say that is the God of the Pentateuch stripped of its anthropomorphism?

 

[KWED]

I don't know about 'apologists', but scholars certainly do.

What do you mean by "scholars"? Historians? Theologians?

To quote a professor of theology at Boston College on sacramentality.
For anything--any person, place, thing, event, any sight, sound, taste, touch, smell--anything that exists can be sacramental if one views it in its rootedness in the grace of God. So, how many sacraments are there? How many things are there in the universe?
. Grace is here. What is needed is someone to see it. What is wanted is the beholder. The entirety of Catholic liturgical life--indeed, of Catholic spiritual, intellectual, and ethical life--is geared toward producing sacramental beholders, people who see what is there in its full depth.
And I suggest to you that sacramental beholders are what Catholic universities and colleges are supposed to be producing.
Before I move on to my second point, I must clarify this statement about Catholic education with the help of one of the most remarkable Catholic intellects of this century, Frederick von Hugel. Von Hugel, who despite his Austrian name was an Englishman, was invited to address a group of religiously interested students at Oxford in 1902. In the course of his talk, he referred to the person whom he regarded as the most extraordinary example of asceticism in the century that had just ended. It must have startled his hearers to learn that von Hugel's example of asceticism, which most of them undoubtedly associated with fasting, penitential discipline and mortification, was Charles Darwin. And why Darwin, of all people? Because, Baron von Hugel said, Darwin had been willing to submit his wonderful intellectual powers and his great energy over a long period of time to the patient and painstaking observation of the development of barnacles, to the shapes of pigeons' beaks and the varieties of organisms. For asceticism is not about self-punishment; it is the gradual stripping away of the self so that one can see what is there. Not to see what one would like to be there, or what one hopes is there or fears is there, or what one has been told by others is there, but to see what is, in fact, there.
</offices/mission/meta-elements/pdf/catholicism/himes_living.pdf>

Bit of a stretch to call von Hugel "an Englishman". He was born to an Austrian father and a Scottish mother, in Italy, and didn't move to England until he was fifteen. But anyway...
Not sure how that example shows a defender of religion holding up Darwin in the way they often do with Einstein - ie. using his (supposed) words to imply their work points towards the existence of god. There, von Hugel is simply saying that Darwin adopted positions based on evidence rather than dogma or wishful thinking or the opinions of others - which would help explain why he lost his faith in later life.

 

[KWED]

Would you say that is the God of the Pentateuch stripped of its anthropomorphism?

No.
Unless by "stripped of its anthropomorphism", you mean "indistinguishable from nature just happening".

 

[pearl]

Bit of a stretch to call von Hugel "an Englishman". He was born to an Austrian father and a Scottish mother, in Italy, and didn't move to England until he was fifteen. But anyway...

Yes, I am aware of this, just didn't see the importance of including it, but it is stated in the original article;
Von Hugel, who despite his Austrian name was an Englishman, was invited to address a group of religiously interested students at Oxford in 1902.

 

[KWED]

Yes, I am aware of this, just didn't see the importance of including it, but it is stated in the original article;
Von Hugel, who despite his Austrian name was an Englishman, was invited to address a group of religiously interested students at Oxford in 1902.

Well, that quote is wrong. He had an Austrian name because his father was an Austrian aristocrat, and he wasn't "an Englishman", but Austrian himself, only taking British citizenship at the outbreak of WW1, aged 62. The quote gives the impression that he was English from birth and the Austrian name a bit of an oddity. That is not the case.
A more accurate wording would be "Von Hugel, an Austrian who spent most of his life in England"

 

[wellwisher]

So far, I've yet to see a mathematical
argument that sheds any light on gods.
So what if some scientists believe or
disbelieve in them? Just their opinions.
My advice:
Don't take opinions as gospel.

The math concept of infinity has never proven with hard evidence. It is a mathematical limit, that requires faith. since hard proof is lacking. Infinity also describes the classic nature of God; larger than large and smaller then small. Infinity is where math intersects religion, through the charisma of faith.

Math can be used to prove one of the miracles in the NT. The one I have in mind is when Jesus had a single loaf of bread and a single fish and was able to feed thousands.

Mathematically, this can be done if Jesus divided the fish and the loaf of bread by 1/1000. Or 1/(1/1000)=1000. Jesus then had 1000 fish and 1000 loaves of bread. I am not exactly sure how that math miracle works, in practice. But division by fractions can be used to multiple things. Math says this is possible. 1/0.001=1000.

Another cool one is the square root of a negative number. This results in what are called imaginary numbers. These numbers are not connected to tangible things from this universe, but exist in the math beyond the material limits of our physical universe. They have use in applied science.

Physics and Beyond: “God does not play dice”, What did Einstein mean? (stmarys.ac.uk)

.

At the time of Einstein, the Age of Reason was being challenged by the new Age of Casino Math; statistics. Subjectivity was being added to reason due to the concept of odds. Instead of there being a logical explanation for everything, now the universe was being based on odds and the same math that was used by casino for dice and cards; luck instead of rational sequences.

Einstein was not thrilled by the change, but rather he still wanted to believe in a fully rational universe that could be explained with simple and elegant math like E=MC2. He did not see God and the universe designed in the image of a gambling casino. He did not think that God would play dice, while forming the universe. This model would have God wanting there to be light, so he threw the dice and it came up 3 instead of 7, so he had to settle on let there still be darkness until the next throw.

That was more the nature of God's idiot savant half brother, worshiped by the Atheists. He could do anything like God; finite odds, but not always on time or on budget. Rather he would make things happen based on odds and fate. Half the time, he was half in the bag, random walk. and would fall where change occurs.

Now much of science, uses the same math. This science math is not only used by casinos, but also by pollsters and politicians. Science now contains the black box of subjectivity; consensus of science. Science used to be about facts, that all can see and agree, and now it is just based on collective opinion like choosing an elected official. Einstein's Relativity was a fact of nature and not just a consensus of science based on cards and dice.

 

[Revoltingest]

The math concept of infinity has never proven with hard evidence.

Duh!
It's a concept.
It's useful in math, ie, modeling the real world.
But there is no physically "proving" such an idea.
There's no need to.

Math can be used to prove one of the miracles in the NT. The one I have in mind is when Jesus had a single loaf of bread and a single fish and was able to feed thousands.

Mathematically, this can be done if Jesus divided the fish and the loaf of bread by 1/1000. Or 1/(1/1000)=1000. Jesus then had 1000 fish and 1000 loaves of bread. I am not exactly sure how that math miracle works, in practice. But division by fractions can be used to multiple things. Math says this is possible. 1/0.001=1000.

Math can even be used to model mythical reality.

Another cool one is the square root of a negative number. This results in what are called imaginary numbers. These numbers are not connected to tangible things from this universe, but exist in the math beyond the material limits of our physical universe. They have use in applied science.

Physical reality can be modeled using imaginary numbers.
Even we lowly engineers learn & use them.
(I don't anymore though.)

 

[stevecanuck]

And yet on this forum we daily see the same carefully rehearsed but often ill considered arguments, trotted out with tiresome regularity by the usual suspects. That smacks of ideology to me.

Just a tad short on detail there.

 

[pearl]

The quote gives the impression that he was English from birth and the Austrian name a bit of an oddity. That is not the case.

Nitpicking? The focus of the article was not a biography on Von Hugal, only his admiration of Darwin.

 

[KWED]

Nitpicking? The focus of the article was not a biography on Von Hugal, only his admiration of Darwin.

If the author is wrong about such a fundamental attribute of the subject, how can we trust anything else he says about him? The essay is clearly slapdash and poorly researched.
One would think that a "professor of theology" might pay a little more attention to their work.