George,

Coincidently, I was reading a biography of Einstein when this thread began.

Einstein did experience opposition, suspicion and ridicule in the twenties from different quarters. From "Einstein - A Life in Science":

"...not everyone was happy with Einstein's theory. Opposition to it in the early 1920's fell into four categories: ignorant ridicule, philosophical incomprehension, resentment by other physicists and political opposition.
First there was the harmless jibes of the non-scientific media who found the whole idea of relativity alien to what the man in the street would call "common sense".....The second category comprised a number of philosophers around the world who did not understand the basic precepts of relativity, and endeavoured to create their own interpretations which they then demonstrated to be false...The third group was...made up of experimental physicists who, to a greater or lesser extent, resented the sudden fame of a theoretical physicist whose ideas they saw as a flight of fancy....[But] the only dangerous and completely unreasonable opponents of relativity were those motivated for political reasons...the first attack came from a group who euphemistically called themselves the "Study Group of German Natural Philosophers". They were a bunch of anti-Semitic fanatics with an eye for personal gain and self-publicity. Their apparent leader was a man called Paul Weyland....As an anti-Einsteinian, Weyland had influential friends and through these contacts and the sheer venom of the group's attack on Einstein, he presented a very real threat...The activities of the Study Group of German Natural Philosophers would have been almost laughable in other instances. But in the climate of growing anti-Semitism, they made Einstein's life very uncomfortable for a period..."

Einstein bemusedly wrote in an article for "The Times':

"....By an application of the theory of relativity to the taste of readers, today in Germany I am called a German man of science and in England I am represented as a Swiss Jew. If I come to be regarded as a "bete noire" the description will be reversed, and I shall become a Swiss Jew for the Germans and a German man of science for the English."

Dear George,

You wrote:

“However, besides the mathematics, is it not also because Einstein - unlike Dawkins - never claimed that the scientific theories he was the author (or supporter) of somehow led to the conclusion there was, or was not, a God; not even indirectly by associating his gravitation theory with such basic questions that - if at all satisfactorily answerable - lie outside the competence of physics?”

To the best of my knowledge Dawkins has never claimed that his scientific theories led to the conclusion that there is no God. In “The God Delusion” Dawkins makes clear he refers to God as a supernatural being. As a scientist Dawkins does not deal in truth but in falsifiability. Any scientific theorem is only held provisionally. It must be abandoned when there is evidence it is not valid in all cases. Dawkins contends that neither the existence or non-existence of God can be proven. However, he also contends that the probability of the existence of God is small. He avoids making a conclusion. However, he does not bring his scientific theories into play in guessing at that probability.

Dawkins does bring his scientific theories into place in denying the literal truth of the Bible. That is a position that some religious believers share.

He titles Chapter IV of “The God Delusion” “Why there almost certainly is no God.” In “The God Delusion” Dawkins deplores the fact that there is such ignorance of the Bible that people are unaware of biblical and religious references when they run across them in literature. Dawkins is outraged that religious beliefs are pushed on little children who are not old enough to make reasonable judgment. I feel the outrage is reasonable.

One of the posters asked that a book on Creationism be read before Creationism be criticised. However, Creationism rests on the belief that the Biblical account of Creation is valid. If one rejects the basic premise on which a work is based it is a pointless exercise to read the work with the purpose of evaluating the validity of its argument.

continued

continued

It works both ways. People sometimes attack religion by equating fundamentalism with religion. People attack Dawkins and other atheists on the basis of reading attacks on them rather than reading what they wrote.

I have no argument with people who subscribe to some faith because they are convinced that it is true if they do not claim there is evidence to support their faith when none exists.

Immanuel Kant examined the proofs for God’s existence and found them all of them fallacious. He wrote that he was morally certain there was a God. From the Collier Macmillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

“… the belief or faith Kant proposes as a replacement for discredited metaphysical knowledge can neither be strictly communicated nor learned from another. It is something that has to be achieved by every man for himself”

Josephus wrote: He [Jesus] was able to accommodate gentile Romans, Assyrians, Samaritans and Africans etc in his Church.

Dear Josephus,

I just did a search in the four Gospels and found no mention of Assyrians. Please cite where Jesus accommodated these disparate peoples you cited above.

Paul threw the new sect open to all, but I don’t think Jesus ever made an explicit appeal to non-Jews according to the New Testament.

>>Paul threw the new sect open to all, but I don’t think Jesus ever made an explicit appeal to non-Jews according to the New Testament.<<

When I read this I immediately thought of this sketch from That Mitchell & Webb Look. I think you'll like it david f.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-nh7xOjkSs

Cheers,

Tony

Returning for a moment to the original topic (yeah, I know, how boring), I'd like to make an observation.

"While OK to inform Tom Cruise, after beating various arguments to within an inch of their lives, that Scientology is a load of bullsh!t, it's another thing altogether to accuse him of being irrational should he continue to accept that eons ago a galactic warlord called Xenu brought aliens to our planet, placed them in volcanoes and then vaporized them with bombs, causing their souls (aka thetans) to disperse and attach to us humans."

I have been puzzling over the author's intent in this paragraph. It appears to be a defence of Tom Cruise's belief system, advising us that we should accept that he is perfectly rational in holding to his beliefs, however difficult for us everyday folk to accept.

Presumably, the author feels the same way about God authorising Moroni to apprise Joseph Smith of the location of information regarding his relationship with America, and Jesus' visit there.

Not forgetting Jim Jones and the Peoples Temple, of course.

Or the Zion Full Salvation Ministry, the Church of Bible Understanding, the Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments of God, Heaven’s Gate, the Children of God, Branch Davidians etc. etc.

I guess my point is, at what point does the author expect us atheists to suspend our addiction to logical explanations - or "literalism" as he sneeringly describes our innate disability to experience the "sensing of the answer in one's bones".

Where, to employ the phrase du jour, should we draw the line?

Jesus makes appeals to people of faith no matter their nationality Luke 4: 24 - 30. Naaman the Syrian and the widow of Zarepath neither were Jews but Gentiles considered by Jews as antagonists which stirred up the crowd at Synagogue; that they wanted to stone him.

In his parting words he authorises his disciples to go into all nations Matthew 28: 16 - 20.