I saw this quote years ago and pretty much got that all religions and faith are pretty much crap.

"The gods can either take away evil from the world and will not, or, being willing to do so, cannot; or they neither can nor will, or lastly, they are both able and willing.

If they have the will to remove evil and cannot, then they are not omnipotent.

It 2300 hundred years later -- what has changed?

I didn't realize the belief-status of Einstein was actually up for debate. Wasn't this closed years ago?

Jim,
Who says they/he/she is/are omnipotent or benevolent in the first place?
Also, this statement, “a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish”, has not faired well. Although the stories and their lessons appear to be fable, the events described appeared to have actually happened.

Love Al, he was smokin' hipster who had a fabulous gift with subatomic particles, but this...

> "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."

... is a contradiction in terms. There's no finer "differential quality" in human beings than mentality.

They did happen Rusty, but religion is all in the interpetaton of what happened. Years from now, when Bible 2.0 comes out, there will be a story about how a great many people were wiped out by water because of the wrath of god in Dec 2004. They will describe a great earthquake in China to punish them for their actions in Burma. Burma will have suffered the cyclone for some other wrong of theirs.

I don't know why Einsteins views on religion would surprise anyone. Religion was pretty much invented to explain what we could not know and sooth our fear of what we could not avoid, mortality. Therefore, everything from the alignment of the stars to the extremes of weather and oddities of the planet were all explained by some god or another. As we learn more about our world through science, then we don't need to explain wierd things with made up gods anymore. For someone like Einstein who had such an unbelievable grasp of the physics of the heavens and earth, to the point that he could prove his theories with experimentation, there was no mystery to him that was unexplainable, only ones we had not figured out yet. I wholly understand this in him.

As far as god goes, well, if that's what you want to believe and it makes you a better neighbor, more power to you, I'll support it. If your god turns you into some kind of finatic that blows up things and kills or tries to dictate terms in my life in any way, well, you're going to get your nuts stomped on.

be excellent to each other.
- bill, or was it ted?

On thing is probably true, Al knows if he was right or not by now... other than that, I've never had much of a reason revere Al as many seem to. He was a human just like me. Insightful, and flawed. In some ways amusing, and in others probably not. I hear he didn't get on well with the quantumn people, and probably would have hated superstring theory. What is important isn't what his opinion on religion was, because that was for him alone. What is important is that he thought about it himself and had his own opinion, for himself. If he hadn't been famous for unrelated reasons, we wouldn't be having the conversation...

Who says they/he/she is/are omnipotent or benevolent in the first place?

Depending on which half of the bible you read, God (or god or the gods) are the omnipotent creator of all that we behold or the benevolent god that gave us his only son to take away our sins. Why does he have only one son, can't create more?

We were created in his image and therefore should be perfect. That we are neither perfect nor omnipotent leads us to where we are. He/She/It is not the hot shot that he's supposed to be.

Bikerken,
Duhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Don’t lecture me on religion. I was pointing out an error in his statement.
Religion is philosophy and so what is wrong with that? So I disagree with your statement, As we learn more about our world through science, then we don't need to explain weird things with made up gods anymore. In the beginning this was true, 10,000 years ago. But over the past four hundred years religion is more about why we are here, what is our purpose and where do we go from here. Philosophical questions.
It is only when folks force their views on others that religion becomes so onerous. Of course when the previous statement happens religion becomes a government or political party. Isn’t that what folks object to?
Also, there was no mystery to him that was unexplainable, only ones we had not figured out yet, is a stretch. Is that why he would not accept Heisenberg uncertainty? Is that why he said God dose not play dice with the universe? How do you think he would feel about Chaos theory? So I am more aligned with SwissArmyD on this issue.
Jim P,
Depending on which half of the bible you read.... what please give the verse that tells us God (or god or the gods) are the omnipotent creator of all that we behold? Also, where is the benevolent part listed? The part that says God will help all folks since he is so good? You contradict yourself here; we were created in his image. This is actually in the Jewish/Christian scripture. So if we are created in his image, why wouldn’t God get angry? He would have the same qualities you or I have.
I have conversed with many Jews who do not believe in the devil, it is a one God system isn’t it? In that case, the devil would just be Gods bad side. He would always have that internal fight that plagues us all, that daily tussle between good and evil.
So I reject your omnipotent/perfection argument. He/She/It is not the hot shot that you think he/she/it is supposed to be.

Rusty, I never meant to lecture you, I was just stating my point of view. I really don't care what your view of religion is. Like I said, if you're a good neighbor, I'm ok with it. I was simply stating what I thought were the origins of religion to begin with. As far as it being philosophy, I would be a lot of very religious people would disagree with you on that, because they believe god is an actual being and philosophy doesn't really cover that, but that's up to them.

As for Einstein, I don't think it's a stretch at all to say the man believed we could answer many of the great questions of the universe, we just had to keep trying. He was not of the mindset that some curious thing could only be the work of god. If you want to argue that, go dig the old bastard up, open a bottle of schnapps, and have at it.

By the way Rusty, religion as philosophy, that is pretty much the way I view it. I don't believe that god is some actual being and heaven is some actual place. I think it's all teachings that tell us how to treat our fellow man and I'm cool with that. But that's not what the Assembly of God, or the Baptist, or the Catholics or any other organized religion with the possible exception of Buddism teachs. To them, all of those stories are like yesterdays newspapers. They are still looking for Noahs ark. When you tell a story about a man bringing two of every creature on earth into a boat, it can be taken literally or symbolically. I tend to fall on the symbolic side.

I can't find omnipotent but as per Merriam Webster Dictionary Almighty has virtually the same meaning.
Genesis 17:1 Genesis 35:11 Revelations 19:6 all contain "God Almighty".

Benevolent also not used directly that I can find but "God is Love" John 4:16.

The logic used is quite sound that it is impossible for the world to be as it is and the creator (if such exists) to be both omnipotent and benevolent.

Bikerken,
This is you correcting me then informing me about what religion is.
They did happen Rusty, but religion is all in the interpretation of what happened.
I do care about your view, which is why we are on a blog.
As far as it being philosophy, I would be a lot of very religious people would disagree with you on that, because they believe god is an actual being and philosophy doesn't really cover that, but that's up to them.
Well, they must have skipped all of the excellent writings of the church giants. I recommend they get the Britannica great books serious. Have them start with Aquinas. Or, they can easily Google all of the classic arguments made by Rabies and Christians alike. There are/have been many between the Church/Synagogue leaders during the last four hundred years. I believe the record is clear here. So I stand by what I wrote. Perhaps the folks you refer to spend their time listening to local preachers. (Not exactly giants in Christian thought.). Of course there is a dearth of Islamic writings since Islam is the direct word of God and therefore can not be analyzed.
I can see from your later comments that we are in agreement here.

Vlad,
Thanks man. Should have know Jim P was going to wimp out on me. Of course Almighty is similar; 1often capitalized : having absolute power over all 2 a: relatively unlimited in power b: having or regarded as having great power or importance 3: MIGHTY —used as an intensive
— al•mighti•ness noun
Of course having power over all, assuming all is Humans, goes along fine with what I am saying. There is nothing to say that God dosn’t have emotion. An Emotional God could mess some folks up. Notice the definition has this; relatively unlimited in power which is not all Powerful.
Of course love is defined as; 1 a (1): strong affection for another arising out of kinship or personal ties (2): attraction based on sexual desire : affection and tenderness felt by lovers (3): affection based on admiration, benevolence, or common interests b: an assurance of love 2: warm attachment, enthusiasm, or devotion 3 a: the object of attachment, devotion, or admiration b (1): a beloved person : DARLING —often used as a term of endearment (2)British —used as an informal term of address4 a: unselfish loyal and benevolent concern for the good of another: as (1): the fatherly concern of God for humankind (2): brotherly concern for others b: a person's adoration of God5: a god or personification of love6: an amorous episode : LOVE AFFAIR7: the sexual embrace : COPULATION8: a score of zero (as in tennis)9capitalized Christian Science : GOD
And Benevolent as; 1 a: marked by or disposed to doing good b: organized for the purpose of doing good 2: marked by or suggestive of goodwill
So, God could be both Almighty and love while still allowing bad things to happen. Once the fruit was taken from the knowledge of life we had free will. If man has free will God can not interfere with what we do. Besides, God is like us according to the bible.
Therefore, the logic used is quite sound that it is possible for the world to be as it is and the creator (if such exists) to be both omnipotent and benevolent.

Rusty -- I'm curious. If you take the writings in the bible (etc.) to describe a philosophy and not literal facts (I'm a little unclear where you stand), does "the fruit taken from the knowledge of life" mean to you when we came to be? I have a hard time imagining any humans in history, no matter how far back, or how they got here, to just blissfully go along with a test pattern in their head. We have brains designed for thinking. That is of course, unless you literally believe we started out in the garden of eden.

Hey moreta,
Does "the fruit taken from the knowledge of life" mean to you when we came to be? No but it would be close to that time.I.E. right after creation. Thanks for asking, I was just relating how bible stories coincide with philosophical thought. This is the same type of philosophical thought that produces the notion that God cannot be omnipotent and all loving if we are to believe what we see in the world today.
There is also a philosophical argument about if we are predestined to live out a life which is totally controlled by what we experience in our environment, or if we actually have free will. I will not go into that, but if we do have free will many biblical writers have stated that the time we received free will was the time described in genesis. The idea goes that God could limit his other gifts, sight, hearing etcetera. But when it came to free will, God had to give us the whole enchilada. So if we have free will, God can not intervene. If God can not intervene, since none of us are predestined, then God can be omnipotent and all loving.
P.S.“In the view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views.” (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, 2000)

What the hell's free will?