Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Spinoza’s God: Einstein believed in it, but what was it?

prospectmagazine.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 376 posts

Re: Spinoza’s God: Einstein believed in it, but what was it?

#301

Post by Claude_Shannon »

libertine wrote: post #273
pqs wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand the down voting. I also believe that the idea of the Christian god that most (non-Christian) people have is quite naive and distinct to the idea of God in the great Christian thinkers, such those mentioned by the comment.

>people have is quite naive and distinct to the idea of God in the great Christian thinkers, such those mentioned by the comment. But that would mean people would need to drop their condescending sense of superiority over others... come on, don't take that away from people for in their eyes it's an easy win .

In defence, that is not the idea of God many people would grow up with.

I'm a Pole, even during "religion" classes or in church during preparation to baptism, the idea of God they would try to show us WAS the "man in the clouds" one, not philosophical one.

Re: Spinoza’s God: Einstein believed in it, but what was it?

#302

Post by anders_p »

bserge wrote: post #221
anders_p wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its a nice idea. There'd be no ending or beginning to worry about. Everything would be self-contained. But I don't believe that our universe is neither unique, neverending, or cyclical. I believe that our universe is just one of many, that exists on a super-dimensional plane (or substrate - not sure what word to use), where 'universes' continously appear and disappear, like bubbles in boiling water. Every one of thes…

OK, now where did this superdimensional plane come from, how was it formed? Or was it always there and always will be? That's what OP was saying I believe.

I have no idea where that substrate, or whatever, came from, or 'who' created it.

I wasn't trying to answer that.

I'm aware that my comment merely added an additional layer, between us and "the creator"/creation, (however you define that).

My point was more, that I don't believe our universe is unique, as in "alone". But rather that it is just one of many.

That some "God", or event, didn't create a single universe, perfect for (human) life. That's way too antropocentric for me.

Instead I believe that they are plentiful, and by chance one of them happened to be suitable for life as we know it.

We are not here because a universe _was created for us_.

We are here because a universe _could produce us_.

Re: Spinoza’s God: Einstein believed in it, but what was it?

#303

Post by slothtrop »

titzer wrote: post #66
EMM_386 wrote: post #4

I am extremely scientific and I believe in god. Not quite Spinoza's, more of a pantheistic view. If you think about it, the universe is conscious, because our conscious minds are part of it. And it's learning about itself.

> the universe is conscious, because our conscious minds are part of it. And it's learning about itself. Yes, thank you for stating what some might consider a tautology or frivolous fact, but is actually, utterly profound. Generally, people have no trouble believing that they, themselves are conscious. But what part of them is conscious? All of it? Their toes and fingers? Clearly not...they are mechanical, I/O device…

The lit I've come across on the subject of consciousness broadly likens it to something illusory (much like identity), not a thing in itself. I don't imagine a machine is capable of experiencing what could be described as being "thrown into the world". The high self-awareness bringing up the question, "why am I in this body, rather than some place else? How is this special unique experience of now-ness selected for what it is, could it have been otherwise?". Watts nitpicks this idea and says we are "born of the world", not thrown into it.

The most fluffy unscientific notion I could entertain is that consciousness is tapped into, like a well. But I lean toward it being a complete illusion.

Re: Spinoza’s God: Einstein believed in it, but what was it?

#304

Post by slothtrop »

tootie wrote: post #119
Barrin92 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Out of interest, what do you beleive in? not very much, that is to say I'm skeptical of metaphysics altogether. I'm partial to Wittgenstein's attitude, that is to say I think projects like pantheism deflate if you scrutinize them and inquire to what degree they say anything meaningful or well-defined about the world, or if they're really expressions of psychology or linguistics or desire. I do agree with you that a…

I think concepts like Spinoza's or Deism or people who declare themselves "not religious but spiritual" are just having trouble parting with the comfort of religion even though they know there's nothing there.

I don't think I would conflate things like Deism with spiritualism. You can apathetically believe there is a God of sorts and not be in the least spiritual.

Re: Spinoza’s God: Einstein believed in it, but what was it?

#305

Post by tablespoon »

3pt14159 wrote: post #276
kmmlng wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interestingly, this line of thought seems compatible with the description of God in the bible to me. If you put aside all your preconceived notions of some dude in the sky and simply read the bible for what it is, you'll find things like "I am what I am", "I am the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end", etc. The Cristian God is called the Father. And what is a father but a source? The first link in a causal…

I generally don't like discussing religion on HN, so apologies if I decline to respond to a reply, but the description of God in the Bible doesn't really fit with Spinoza's God for the mere fact that evil is wholly set apart. It exists within demons and humans but it does not exist within God. The logic of an entity with infinite attributes being God is true, but just as the natural numbers are infinite but do not co…

> But one of the reasons I don't like talking about religion on HN is that I've found a computer science centric way of thinking about some sub branches of philosophy and theology is a dead end. We're used to dealing with such pedantry and strict logic that I find we over use them in places where they're not nearly as useful as they seem.

And not just that. I feel that many of the habits of thinking that lead to success in software engineering actually have pretty limited applicability, but too many software engineer internet commenters parochially assume those habits are superior and universally applicable. It's hard for me to articulate though, because I have those same habits and it's hard to see outside one's limitations.

Re: Spinoza’s God: Einstein believed in it, but what was it?

#306

Post by nxmnxm99 »

giveexamples wrote: post #193
nxmnxm99 wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve never understood this argument. What else would god “care” about, if not the only truly sentient creature that we know of? Trillions of light years of pointless rock with a few Apes in the middle who can contemplate God. Seems pretty damn special fo me.

Look at your kitchen sink. On that metal lives a billion bacteria cells. Maybe some of them are even sentient. Do you even care to find out? Not really - its far beneath you. Humans are infinitely inferior to a god. We are no different to a moving rock.

We are the only creature we know of that's capable of reasoning about our own existence and understanding our potential creation. That is a scientific fact of which there is no counterevidence.

To deny that in an effort to refute the potential existence of God is to cut off your nose to spite your face.

Re: Spinoza’s God: Einstein believed in it, but what was it?

#307

Post by beecafe »

nxmnxm99 wrote: post #306
giveexamples wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look at your kitchen sink. On that metal lives a billion bacteria cells. Maybe some of them are even sentient. Do you even care to find out? Not really - its far beneath you. Humans are infinitely inferior to a god. We are no different to a moving rock.

We are the only creature we know of that's capable of reasoning about our own existence and understanding our potential creation. That is a scientific fact of which there is no counterevidence. To deny that in an effort to refute the potential existence of God is to cut off your nose to spite your face.

This statement can also be taken as one as a limitation of our understanding of the internal lives of other creatures. And there's nothing scientific about it.

Re: Spinoza’s God: Einstein believed in it, but what was it?

#308

Post by nxmnxm99 »

diskzero wrote: post #199
omarfarooq wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In terms of the Islamic tradition, Allah [lit. The God] is both transcendent and immanent. Quran 50:16 states that Allah is closer to man than his jugular vein and Quran 2:115 states that wherever you turn, there is the Face of Allah. Now to answer why He cares, the Quran states that He specifically created mankind to know Him. And indeed, the recurring injunction in the Quran is to remember Allah, because you alread…

This is a tangent, but I don't have many opportunities to speak to people knowledgeable of Islam. Is there a concept of original sin in Islam? Do we need to seek forgiveness or salvation?

Nope. The Islamic approach is to optimize to our maxima. Essentially our core purpose is to strive to "find/discover/understand" God through manifesting different values (the 99 names of Allah). The various prophets (Jesus) are those among us who came closest so that understanding and manifestation.

Re: Spinoza’s God: Einstein believed in it, but what was it?

#309

Post by seigando »

robbiep wrote: post #264
seigando wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe that dog wasn't indifferent to yours.

That isn’t an answer to the question and doesn’t in anyway nullify the broader concept of nature as indifferent - animals are merely part of nature and my experience from truly being in raw primal nature is that, of course things react to you, as you are also in nature, but in those circumstances the forces of survival outweigh any anthropomorphism that humans would normally attribute to the interactions we more norm…

My point is that when you pair a certain perception with a certain experience, it's possible for things to seem one way or the other.

Some people are very stuck in their perceptions.

Re: Spinoza’s God: Einstein believed in it, but what was it?

#310

Post by badinfo »

Bobylonian wrote: post #164
badinfo wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spinoza's God is interesting not because it's a competitor to the Christian God or Thor or whatever, but because it's a rarely-explored aspect of Einstein's belief system (and confusion) about the origins of, well, everything. Questions of religion vs science plague proper scientists too, Einstein among them, and nobody really has a clear answer about how to proceed. It's the sort of inquiry that is itself perhaps a…

>>> Questions of religion vs science plague proper scientists too, Einstein among them This is something you are making up, because in his own words Einstein clealry states opposite of your claim: "I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far a…

You can't just take one quote out of context and use it to paint Einstein as altogether disinterested in religion -- he wasn't.

To him, there was a difference between believing in Your Own Personal Jesus™, or some variation of Abraham's fickle, meddling god (as in Judaism, Christianity, Catholicism, Islam), vs contemplating religion as a social/moral force and a line of philosophical inquiry about the origins of structure and organization in the universe. The whole point of him mentioning "Spinoza's God" is to underscore that difference.

Einstein wrote about religion on more than one occasion, and his views weren't as straightforward as "religion is dumb, I don't think about it." Far from it; he recognized the universe as something inherently profound and beautiful and drew from it a philosophical sense of spirituality. No one is accusing him of being a Bible thumping Jesus lover, but he was definitely interested (on the side) on questions of spirituality, purpose, etc.

More info in the wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_vi...

Or this blog: http://www.faculty.umb.edu/gary_zabel/Courses/Parallel%20Uni...

I'm not saying this to defend Christianity; I think it's an absurd religion. Just pointing out that Einstein, like many scientists, thought about these questions frequently. Why wouldn't they? Religion can be approached scientifically too, and many practicing scientists are religious -- to a lesser extent than the general population, usually, but far from zero %. Three random data points, lots more if you search for them: https://phys.org/news/2015-12-worldwide-survey-religion-scie... https://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/ https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.118...

My own personal take is that Einstein recognized the limits of our understanding and drew peace and inspiration from the boundless complexity yet to be understood. He found it powerfully spiritual, but he did not attribute it to a "personal" god the same way a follower of the Abrahamic religions would. Nonetheless he was interested in these questions, even if he didn't have the answers and didn't believe the Christians did.

Post reply on HN