.

Dear George,

.

You wrote :

« I am not a philosopher to critically evaluate Kant. I only know that he believed in God, afterlife etc, … pre-theists like Einstein and Spinoza (at second thought I think I should have called them quasi-theists) … »

Judging from their writings, as I indicated in my previous post, I tend to see Einstein as a deist and Kant as an agnostic, i.e.,"a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God" (OED).

This is indicative of the difficulty of categorising people according to their religious beliefs and personal convictions. We have ample evidence of this here on this forum.

Apparently, there is no consensus on the religious beliefs and personal convictions of such well-known figures as Einstein and Kant. We all have our opinions on the matter. Each category claims them as one of theirs – and they all point to authentic, published evidence (or, at least, their interpretation of it) to support their claims.

Here is some documentation on the subject :

Einstein :

http://owlcation.com/humanities/Einsteins-Religion-Theist-Deist-Pantheist-Humanist-Atheist

http://www.hillmanweb.com/reason/inspiration/einstein.html

Kant :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant

http://archive.org/details/religionwithinb00kantgoog/page/n3

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_agnostics

.

Dear Saltpetre,

If I understands you properly, you are questioning the need for mythological, anthropomorphic or rational (systematic theology) “models” of the Spiritual, Divine (or transcendent Reality as I called it), provided by religion. This is not what the article was about, nevertheless I concede that this is a common expression of contemporary existential skepticism.

Why is there any need at all for religion - whether primitive, mystical or with a sophisticated theology - given its many negative applications throughout human, especially Western, history? The answer is that it has had also many positive applications. A knife can hurt you - the more the sharper it is - even stab you to death, but it can be also useful, again the more the sharper it is. [And e.g. Christianity has proven itself to be very “sharp”]. The pluses and minuses put together, one could not imagine life without knives. Western Europe, where I now live, is an example, where the denial of its explicitly Christian roots is, in my opinion, not leading to a religion-free society, but to the arrival of Islam in its public square in competition with a plastic replica of Christianity (most of the populists fighting “islamisation” in defence of Europe’s “Christian tradition” are areligious).

Dear Banjo,

Wikipedia about Kant:

“The nature of Kant's religious ideas continues to be the subject of philosophical dispute, with viewpoints ranging from the impression that he was an initial advocate of atheism who at some point developed an ontological argument for God, to more critical treatments epitomized by Nietzsche, who claimed that Kant had "theologian blood" and was merely a sophisticated apologist for traditional Christian faith.” Hence, in my language, he was a pre-theist, not a theist.

Wikipedia about Einstein:

“Einstein stated that he had sympathy for the impersonal pantheistic God of Baruch Spinoza's philosophy. He did not believe in a personal God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings, a view which he described as naïve.” Hence, in my language, he was a pre-theist, not a theist.

Dear George,

Thank you for your consideration and your patience.

You know, I can't help wondering if God may have departed the scene, in favour of more promising or hopeful endeavours. After all, from early relayed 'accounts', God intervened to assist Moses to 'save' His People, and convinced Noah to save his family and various species (perhaps leaving dinosaurs behind), and even sent His Son to offer much needed guidance, but now, when many things have gone quite badly awry, nothing, a vacuum.

I have to wonder why some (or all) of those who would lead others astray, who pretend to have been given 'insights' - or who pray on the weak and those seeking reassurance - have not simply been struck dumb, or otherwise had their abuse of position, or their lying for personal glory or gain, revealed for what it really is.

Still, I guess 'free will' is one explanation: humanity has been left to sort out its future, and let the bricks fall where they may.

Things of course may not yet be sufficiently off-track to warrant intervention, and it is also possible that we need to be careful what we might wish for.
Or, the future may be written.

Either way, my 'faith' in humanity's evolution towards 'perfection' is rather strained.
I will be satisfied to save what I can.

.

. Dear George,

.

Re : Wikipedia about Kant and Einstein :

I am very wary about labels – particularly when they apply to religious beliefs and personal convictions.

We are all persuaded we know exactly where we stand so far as our own beliefs and convictions are concerned, but others often see us differently. Even the common definitions of labels evolve and change with time. Language itself is evolutive. So who is right and who is wrong ?

I like to consider myself as an ordinary person. But judging from the discussions on this forum, a number of others see me differently. I obviously represent different schools of thought for different people.

I have to admit that they all may well be right, without exception. After all, perhaps that is because I am an ordinary person with my paradoxes and contradictions – just like everybody else – and it is so difficult to be original !

.

Dear Saltpetre,

>>You know, I can't help wondering if God may have departed the scene, in favour of more promising or hopeful endeavours. After all, from early relayed 'accounts', God intervened to assist Moses to 'save' His People, and convinced Noah to save his family and various species (perhaps leaving dinosaurs behind), and even sent His Son to offer much needed guidance, but now, when many things have gone quite badly awry, nothing, a vacuum.<<

Unless you mean it as sarcasm, this is simply questioning why the Bible was written this way and not that way. You can ask such pointless questions about any text, sacred or not.

>>Still, I guess 'free will' is one explanation: humanity has been left to sort out its future …<<

Not only humanity but every individual - I see you answered your own question. Free will allows you the option of not believing (in an existence beyond the material) as well as behaving immorally (against accepted e.g. “natural law, and/or against your conscience). In case of humanity this freedom includes the option to commit suicide, but Christians believe God will find a way to prevent it without violating the free will of individual persons. At least this is how I see it.

>> my 'faith' in humanity's evolution towards 'perfection' is rather strained. <<

It depends on how you look at this evolution. Think of it as a movement upwards along a vertical spiral positioned in an xyz coordinate space: The “optimist” projects the movement onto the z-axis and sees a steady progress upwards; the “pessimist” projects it onto the xy-plane and sees it as a futile circular movement without any progress.

Dear Banjo,

I can tell that authors of mathematical entries in the Wikipedia are professional mathematicians. Not being a professional philosopher, I can only believe that similarly authors of philosophical entries are professional philosophers.

Dear George,

I'm sorry you appear to have misinterpreted my post.
No sarcasm, no joking, no intent to mislead.
I am as I state, and I believe only what I actually say I do.

I have to believe if God created humankind (and it cannot really be 'in His own image', can it) that this encompasses all of humanity, beautiful, ugly, brilliant, challenged, strong, weak, black, white, red, yellow, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Jew, Arab etc.

I expect there would be religious charlatans in every arena, but life is difficult enough for so many that they deserve better than to be led astray by persons in, or held to be in, authority.

In politics we see many examples of those thinking only of themselves, but we have come to expect this; but religious leaders who purposely lead their flock astray and into unconscionable attitudes must surely deserve a special place in hell.

I was serious when I suggested God may well have taken His leave to focus on more promising fields, for the current path of Man (and man's inhumanity to man) appears surely to approximate some of the worst scenarios recounted in bible texts.

I am not trying to test or rebut your faith or beliefs, but am only relaying my own perceptions which give me cause to question our teachings and expectations.

Man is fallible, I am fallible, and will continue to do the best I can, and to question.

Faith has failed many - as revealed here in recent Royal Commissions - with many hurt, betrayed.
There is much to answer for, here, and probably throughout the world. In our case Christian leaders have been the ones found most wanting.

There is also good example here of Muslim 'teachers' betraying folk.

A 'universe' of misdeeds, 'faith' notwithstanding.

My faith in 'natural evolution' (beyond the first cellular 'life' in the primordial 'soup', and perhaps that first dual-celled bacterium (whose DNA apparently appears in all life on Earth) remains unswayed.
(Scientists may 'create' life, but only using a 'living cell' as 'host'.)

My best to all.