PDA

View Full Version : Religion an Expression of Weakness?



Siebenbürgerin
Friday, May 30th, 2008, 01:50 AM
Here an article about Einstein's views on religion:

A letter being auctioned in London this week adds more fuel to the long-simmering debate about the Nobel prize-winning physicist's religious views. In the note, written the year before his death, Einstein dismissed the idea of God as the product of human weakness and the Bible as "pretty childish.''


Einstein said that "the word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.''

"For me,'' he added, "the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions.''

Addressing the idea that the Jews are God's chosen people, Einstein wrote that "the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them.''


http://www.livescience.com/history/ap-080513-einstein-religion.html

What is your opinion about what he said? Is religion really an expression of weakness? Did you ever ponder and found the doctrines of your religion a little weird or even silly? Or do you think it's only true about Judeo-Christian religions?

Mrs. Lyfing
Friday, May 30th, 2008, 02:10 AM
I am not sure but that is a very good question. Some may view religion as weakness and I can see why, but I am not sure of every persons choice or reasoning for their religion. So with that said, I find religion to be a place for people to find their self excepted and gives them something to believe in. Something to give them inspiration, and so on. I think religion is very tricky and I really am not set in believing or dis-believing in anything, simply because I have no truth to any of it. So, I tend to be open to many ideas seeing how anything must be possible...? :)

Cuchulain
Friday, May 30th, 2008, 02:20 AM
I would consider myself spiritual but do not subscribe to any kind of organized religious views.

I think people take these religion debates to a point of abstraction that is a little silly. People gathering with their neighbors once a week in the spirit of kindness, goodwill and positive energy is a positive thing regardless of the underlying motive. I have attended church functions simply because it is a refreshing break from the rest of the world. Peace be with you.

MockTurtle
Friday, May 30th, 2008, 02:34 AM
Did you ever ponder and found the doctrines of your religion a little weird or even silly? Or do you think it's only true about Judeo-Christian religions?

I think religion seems wierd/silly to some people because they focus too much on the supernatural aspect of it. They focus too much on the "supernatural worldview" of religion and often overlook the very powerful real-world consequences that it's had throughout history. Religion has been one of the most persistent features in human affairs, present to some degree in virtually every society in one form or another; usually, human beings don't develop tendencies this strong unless they are pretty significant.

In earlier ages, religion helped to make sense of an otherwise inexplicable reality. Then, even with the development of modern scientific methods, religion STILL played a dominent role. This is because, more often than not, the "explanatory power" of religion was secondary to the more important issue of identity, both national and ethnic. Looking only at the explanatory nature of religion, as Einstein seems to do here, is actually overcomplicating things a bit.

How do the perennial struggles between Catholics/Protestants, Sunnis/Shi'ites, Twelvers/Ismailis, and so many others make sense from the supernatural perspective? Were the Crusades really about doctrinal beliefs? Might this be more about evolutionary struggle than supernaturalism?

Fafner
Friday, May 30th, 2008, 02:35 AM
I don't know if I would call it preciselly with the word "weakness", because many people feel strong or calm believing in one or more gods.

From my point of view I'd rather define it as "voluntary blindness", and there are different degrees of blindness (fanatism).

However, although I'm not a communist, I think Marx was right when he said: "Religion is the opium of the people" and I think of Religion as "the dogmatization of believes"

If it should be consider a weakness symptom, then I think Religion is only a way of how Fanatism shows up, wich is the real weakness (Political fanatism is as harmfull as well).

Talan
Friday, May 30th, 2008, 05:23 AM
It's easier to ask whether the opposite is true...

GroeneWolf
Friday, May 30th, 2008, 09:36 PM
So Einstein said this? And therefore every non-atheistist is weakling?:rolleyes: We're talking about the guy untill his death rejecatedm qautumphycis right? The guy who tright for as long as possible deney the potential for a Big Bang, because it would keep open the potential for a creatorgod?

Fortis_in_Arduis
Friday, June 6th, 2008, 11:14 PM
I want to order my life so that I can live in peace for as long as possible and I think that most people who are religious subscribe to their religion believing that it will help them achieve this.

Religion made little sense to me, until I met someone who taught me meditation and showed me that peace and love are unlimited and infinite and that human beings can experience peace and love to an infinite degree.

Central to what I believe is that we are souls. We are non-physical beings in the form of a bindu. Knowing this help me tap into that infinite reserve of love and peace, so I become suspicious of religions which do not have this as their foundation, reserve it for a select few, or simply tolerate it. (Knowledge of the soul)

There are Christian groups who are opposed to mysticism and spirituality. How is that right? A good religion will have spirituality as its foundation and then you have the mythology and the rules and regulations so as to enable people to come together and help remind each other live lives of peace, love, bliss and joy.

It should be obvious what comes first, and that should be meditation which leads us towards silence. This activates the knowledge.

I think that Einstein knew his place, he was not a spiritual guru, but a materialist, so nothing that he says will be knowledge as such, just worldly knowledge, which is useless without spiritual knowledge.

parrhesiast
Saturday, June 7th, 2008, 12:20 AM
I don't know if I would call it preciselly with the word "weakness", because many people feel strong or calm believing in one or more gods.

Believing things that make you "feel strong or calm" is practically a SYNONYM for "religion." Adding the word "weakness" at that point is mere redundancy.

Fafner
Saturday, June 7th, 2008, 05:48 AM
Believing things that make you "feel strong or calm" is practically a SYNONYM for "religion." Adding the word "weakness" at that point is mere redundancy.

I don't think so. Many people "believe" in those gods just to have a scapegoat, because sometimes, blaming someone else gives an inner tranquility.

Besides that, I explained my views about religion as a "dogmatization of believes"; I think you can believe in something without making a cult of it. I believe, for example, in my closest friends and I don't see that as a religion because I don't worship them and I don't pay any kind of tribute.

It's like the concept of "faith". I don't think it is an exclusive religious word. Many times there is the mistake of thinking that you can only have faith if you are a follower of certain religious doctrine.
I see "faith" as a synonym of "hope", and as far as I know, anyone can have hope without being a religious person.

CrystalRose
Saturday, June 7th, 2008, 07:33 AM
i think people use religion to confess and as soon as they leave church are complete hypocrites. i also feel that religion gives people false hope and detours them from reality.. eventually leading to presidents like obama. weakness, yes. I’d rather be aware of what’s going on around me then sticking my head in a bible/book that’s been re-written several times. :p

Soldier of Wodann
Sunday, June 15th, 2008, 01:57 AM
http://www.livescience.com/history/ap-080513-einstein-religion.html

What is your opinion about what he said? Is religion really an expression of weakness? Did you ever ponder and found the doctrines of your religion a little weird or even silly? Or do you think it's only true about Judeo-Christian religions?

Modernistic garbage. Religion is only as he described when it is materialized and theisized by subversive elements (of which, he belonged to the strongest one, the Jewish influence). In the ancient world, the religious, the pious, the Aristos, those who embodied the traits of the Gods, were the leaders of the world. And the weak, lower class sub-Plebians who worshiped materialistic and depraved fertility or sex Goddesses were the weak. I think it is clear to which class the feeble, 'scientific', materialistic class to which Einstein belongs corresponds to.

SwordOfTheVistula
Sunday, June 15th, 2008, 08:06 AM
In the ancient world, the religious, the pious, the Aristos, those who embodied the traits of the Gods, were the leaders of the world.

Yes, because they used religion to keep the lower classes in line


And the weak, lower class sub-Plebians who worshiped materialistic and depraved fertility or sex Goddesses were the weak.

Those were less developed societies. As societies developed, religion became more complex to deal with more complex human interaction. Those 'who worshiped materialistic and depraved fertility or sex Goddesses' eventually developed more complex pagan religions, most of which were replaced by monotheism at some point to give the religions more order. As science developed, less things needed to be explained by religion, so religion became more esoteric, to the point where we are at now, where many people (especially the more educated/elite) are atheist or secular, and religion is mainly used by those who need help dealing with emotional issues. For example, death of family/friends remains a traumatic event for many people, so the concept of 'heaven' endures as a way for people to deal with their feelings by rationalizing that 'they are in a better place now'

Bärin
Sunday, June 15th, 2008, 08:07 AM
I do agree that the Judaic-Christian religions are expressions of weakness. Just look at Chrstianity with its turn the other cheek and tolerate everyone philosophy. I do find the docrine of an omniscient and omnipresent "God" silly, not to mention the idea of a "chosen people".

Soldier of Wodann
Sunday, June 15th, 2008, 08:22 AM
Yes, because they used religion to keep the lower classes in line

What? The Religion of the upper class has always differed from that of the lower class. The early un-IE religious practices of the Plebians were hated and despised, not to mention in many cases banned, by the Aristocracy of Rome. These ignorant pseudo-Historical Marxist ideas are way too typical among atheists. Really old. If you want to bash Christianity, feel free. But don't group that shitty egalitarian garbage in with true, Traditional ideals.


Those were less developed societies. As societies developed, religion became more complex to deal with more complex human interaction. Those 'who worshiped materialistic and depraved fertility or sex Goddesses' eventually developed more complex pagan religions,

Says who? What is that based on? They devolved from that point. The moment they began practicing foreign, Near Eastern (often Semitic) cults their complexity devolved, ultimately culminating in victory of Christianity, probably the most simplistic and unevolved religion ever practiced on a large scale. Another example is the downward spiral of Hinduism. It was, initially, a very complex and esoterically based idea (not even a religion or philosophy in its true sense), but as time went on it devolved, like all IE traditions.


most of which were replaced by monotheism at some point to give the religions more order.


You say that as if the (traditional) Aristocracy had any part in those religions. They arguably did not, until foreigners began becoming leaders of Rome.


As science developed, less things needed to be explained by religion, so religion became more esoteric, to the point where we are at now, where many people (especially the more educated/elite) are atheist or secular, and religion is mainly used by those who need help dealing with emotional issues.

The more 'educated' also happen to be indoctrinated at just about every false, Marxist idea that their sick, over payed degenerate professors instill into them. Please don't pull that "educated people are always right" bullshit, they tend to be the most mentally far off, by far.


For example, death of family/friends remains a traumatic event for many people, so the concept of 'heaven' endures as a way for people to deal with their feelings by rationalizing that 'they are in a better place now'


That is only a practice among foreign, non-Aryan religions. Ancient Aryan beliefs are totally devoid of this idea. They only upheld a 'better place' for those who were among the greatest of the world, thus giving no solace to Plebians and the like.

MockTurtle
Monday, June 16th, 2008, 07:36 AM
I do find the docrine of an omniscient and omnipresent "God" silly, not to mention the idea of a "chosen people".

Well, perhaps it seems "silly" to you, but it has managed to keep one particular tribe together for thousands of years. Not only that, it has motivated them to compete successfully with much larger populations, and also to practice some of the most astonishing eugenic policies in human history.

To me, something like this doesn't strike me as very silly at all; it strikes me as evidence of a tremendous instinct for self-preservation.

SwordOfTheVistula
Thursday, June 19th, 2008, 10:30 AM
Study finds intelligent people less likely to be religious:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2111174/Intelligent-people-%27less-likely-to-believe-in-God%27.html

Professor Richard Lynn, emeritus professor of psychology at Ulster University, said many more members of the "intellectual elite" considered themselves atheists than the national average.

A decline in religious observance over the last century was directly linked to a rise in average intelligence, he claimed.

But the conclusions - in a paper for the academic journal Intelligence - have been branded "simplistic" by critics.

Professor Lynn, who has provoked controversy in the past with research linking intelligence to race and sex, said university academics were less likely to believe in God than almost anyone else.

A survey of Royal Society fellows found that only 3.3 per cent believed in God - at a time when 68.5 per cent of the general UK population described themselves as believers.

A separate poll in the 90s found only seven per cent of members of the American National Academy of Sciences believed in God.

Professor Lynn said most primary school children believed in God, but as they entered adolescence - and their intelligence increased - many started to have doubts.

He told Times Higher Education magazine: "Why should fewer academics believe in God than the general population? I believe it is simply a matter of the IQ. Academics have higher IQs than the general population. Several Gallup poll studies of the general population have shown that those with higher IQs tend not to believe in God."

Reynard
Monday, March 2nd, 2009, 09:26 PM
Depends on the religion.

Your religion should align you with the divine and help you achieve peace in times of trouble. Not cowering in fear of some stupid Desert god.

Its also well documented that those with a religion tend to live happier lives and suffer less from depression.

So whatever your beliefs, if they provide a positive in your life then it is good. If every sunday you find yourself grovelling it is bad.



Odin Hail!

michael
Friday, March 6th, 2009, 08:40 AM
I have posted this response elsewhere on this forum but it also fits here.

I class myself as Paleo-Pagan, that is to say pre pagan.

The sun rises in the east and sets in the west. There is an essence that trickles through everything but it is not defined in any book or indeed person. I have felt the energy in a river stone or the presence of something that on occasion has guided my thoughts and led me to a small truth of knowledge or a spark of enlightenment.

My instinct is a guide and together we set our course on a path of greater understanding.

My opinion is that far to many people are prepared to be led by a ring in their nose than to have the where with all to ask questions and make decisions for themselves.

Religion is not the ultimate answer. It can be a guide to enlightenment but NOT a crutch.

Sissi
Wednesday, January 27th, 2010, 04:58 PM
Interesting question that. However, it could be turned around and asked another way: is religion an expression of strength? The more fanatic you are, the more ready and decided you are to suffer the unimaginable in the name of your god. People refused to admit whitchcraft, repent and recognize a different god, nailed themselves to crosses to feel the sufference of Jesus, and so forth.

Chlodovech
Wednesday, January 27th, 2010, 06:04 PM
I find this question so cliche - and annoyingly arrogant - that I want to turn it around: are areligious people control freaks?