>>Am I right in interpreting this to mean that “god is simply a figment of the imagination” <<

Gravitation is differently experienced by a six years old, differently by a construction worker, differently modelled in Newton’s theory (as an instant action at a distance), differently in Einstein’s theory, differently when one considers (hypothetical) gravitons, etc.

Is one right in interpreting this to mean that “gravitation is simply a figment of the imagination”?

Reference:
" 24 April 1929, Einstein cabled Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein in German: "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind." He expanded on this in answers he gave to the Japanese magazine Kaiz&#333; in 1923:

"Scientific research can reduce superstition by encouraging people to think and view things in terms of cause and effect. Certain it is that a conviction, akin to religious feeling, of the rationality and intelligibility of the world lies behind all scientific work of a higher order. This firm belief, a belief bound up with a deep feeling, in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God. In common parlance this may be described as "pantheistic" (Spinoza)".

.

Dear George,

.
It’s nice to hear from you again.

You ask :

« Is one right in interpreting this to mean that “gravitation is simply a figment of the imagination”? »

As the little scientific knowledge I possess is fairly basic and a bit shaky, please correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that the force of gravity is a natural phenomenon of which nobody in his right mind doubts the existence. If he did so, it would be a conscious act, perhaps in order to commit suicide - not because he doubted the reality of gravitation.

Also, as I understand that it is a physical phenomenon, I feel sure that qualified physicists are capable of analysing its effects scientifically, detecting its presence and measuring its force. Indeed, I understand that there is a consensus within the scientific community that gravitation is not considered a simple hypothesis, concept or “revelation”, but rather a well-known law of nature.

The same thing cannot be said of “God”.

The different concepts you mention are simply various attempts to explain the phenomenon of gravitation. They do not question its reality.
.

On the basis of our present knowledge – unless, of course, Yuyutsu comes up with something I ignore – I think the best explanation is that “God” is a figment of the imagination. But, naturally, I am speaking for myself. I know that you have your personal reasons for your religious beliefs and, no doubt, Yuyutsu has his. Peter Sellic must also have good personal reasons for practicing his religion.

In other words, as I have no personal reason to adopt religious belief, I see “God” as a figment of the imagination. Whereas all three of you probably have very good personal reasons to believe in “God” and do so even though you may never “see” him, or as Yuyutsu might say: even though he may not exist.

That said, one should never underestimate the power of human imagination and inventiveness. Here is just one example among many others :

http://www.strandbeest.com/

.

.

Dear nicknamenick,

.

If Spinoza’s pantheism equates to “chance and necessity” (which I sincerely doubt) – then why not ?

.

Yes why not? God wrote on Moses' stone tablets like the Caesars. Capt Cook was in Botany Bay , they say , why not?

Dear Banjo,

>> It’s nice to hear from you again.<<

Thanks.

>>but rather a well-known law of nature.

The same thing cannot be said of “God”.<<

I agree. Laws of nature are not supposed to depend on the observing subject. Not so when considering Reality as such (not merely as what science can explain) that includes also the subjects, as individuals or as a communities.

>>The different concepts you mention are simply various attempts to explain the phenomenon of gravitation. They do not question its reality.<<

I mentioned different “attempts to explain” the experience that Newton saw as the action of gravitation. So are various religions and their rationalisations (theologies) attempts to explain those experiences that various people (not all, especially not in the contemporary West) in various cultures and at various stages of maturity found as "real", i.e.pointing to something beyond the person making that experience. An average person centuries before Newton would not understand what "phenomenon of gravitation" and its “reality” was supposed to mean (although they understood that unsupported objects would fall to the ground).

Western Europe, apparently on its way to islamisation, is a good example of what happens if a culture sees its own religious roots as merely figments of imagination thus creating a religious vacuum that another culture, another religion, is filling in. From the point of traditional West its fate is not that unlike that of a person who considers gravitation a figment of imagination and jumps out of a tenth floor window.