Einstein On God: Does God Exist?

Not a philosopher but a very interesting man who did not conform to ideas, and of course was an extremely open minded person - this being the basis of his discoveries and detachment from scientific conventions at the time. Einstein's scientific ideas are perhaps a testament to his creativity and ground-breaking principles, and this blog post will be used to analyse Einstein's quotes about God and his ideas surrounding the unified field theory which I feel may be helpful when talking about this topic. Differing from previous posts about Kant's ideas on morality and Aristotle's motifs surrounding the Unmoved Mover, this post will be centred around Einstein's quotes.

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists," said Einstein when addressing the question of whether or not he believed in God. He goes onto say that he does not believe in a personal God, far from it and, similar to Kant, I think it would be fair to say that the word 'God' represents something that does not have a name, a type of force rather than something tangible or ominous. This is not to say Einstein was an atheist, he indeed came out and said he was "annoyed" at the use of his words in defending the argument that God did not exist - it would perhaps be more apt to consider Einstein as agnostic.

So why did Einstein not believe in a personal God? The thoughts of Einstein on God were numerous, and there are many reasons why Einstein did not believe in a personal God, however I like the idea that scientific research is based on the premise that everything lives and functions within the laws of nature, this meaning that the idea of prayers influencing events or outcomes doesn't really work. Einstein was primarily a man of science but was influenced as a child by the Bible and Jewish teaching, he even went as far to believe that Jesus irrefutably existed. He said that "no one can read the Gospels without feeling the presence of Jesus," and that myth could not contain such life.

With this in mind, Einstein respected the historic presence of theology and religious figures, but he believed that the future of human thinking must fundamentally change if the race was to survive. He believed that the rigours of science could not be handled by any of the current religions, and the only one that could perhaps take on the pragmatic research into scientific principles was Buddhism, although to say Einstein was a Buddhist would be very incorrect - Einstein did, however, believe in the harmony and connection of all living entities and universal matter.

Einstein spent the last 30 years of his life searching for a unified field theory, one that would combine general relativity and quantum mechanics. Unfortunately Einstein's attempts were largely fruitless but taking into account the cosmic religious feelings Einstein would get from contemplating the universe, his hunt for a unified theory, in my opinion, was Einstein delving into his own personal beliefs, searching for something that would justify his feelings towards thinking there were some underlying force within the universe - a creator that would dispel ideas of there being a God-inclined beginning.

In conclusion, Einstein did not believe in God, in particular a personal God, but he did feel strongly that we were but schoolboys in trying to increase our knowledge of the universe. He believed that we would never know why the universe came into being, but the concept of a God, an influence would perhaps be a better word, was not one he would dispel. Einstein's search for a unified field made more sense than anything else in his belief that there was an underlying and fundamental principle or force connecting us all, and this would have obviously had a role to play in the forming of the universe as we know it - something that similarly parallels Aristotle's ideas.

I hope you have enjoyed reading this post and I hope you will also have reason for further reading on Einstein's incredible wisdom. Please share this post where you can as it is the only way I can get more coverage, and I also welcome your comments on this topic, so please, leave a comment below. :)

Kant On God: Does God Exist?

Another one in the philosophers on God series, if you missed the last one then click here for Aristotle's intriguing take on God.

Kant, to put it shortly, rationalised that God must exist, he put this rationality down to how morality effects the average human being, and used this idea to explain how without justice for one's actions in life, there must exist an afterlife of some sort where justice is redeemed. This is a surprisingly simple concept but Kant came up with the idea very uniquely and this post will try to analyse the flaws and benefits of this way of thinking.

Firstly, it is perhaps short-sighted to say that Kant believed God to exist, as his moral argument is more of a reason to believe that an afterlife exists, but more importantly, an afterlife that is based on justice of what decisions you have made in your Earthly form. So where I have said previously that the rationality of Kant is to say that God must exist, this in fact refers to God as a judgement or dependable afterlife.

The basis of the Kant on God argument resides within morality, the argument being that we make moral decisions because it is rational to do so, and the only way for those decisions to be rational is if they lead to ultimate consequences and implications.If we look more specifically at giving to charity as an example we see that, on a personal level, we feel as though we ought to give to charity. If we ought to do something then that is the perfect reason within itself to do something, such as giving to charity, this making moral decisions rational decisions. Furthermore, when confronted with a decision to make, the moral reason for making that decision will always be the more important of a basis on which to make that decision, therefore moral decisions are completely rational.

Moving on from this, it is possible to surmise that when having to choose between a morally correct outcome and a morally bereft outcome which benefits us more, we will still, in most cases choose what is morally correct. If there were no consequences for choosing the immoral path, which benefits us more, then we would rationally pick the immoral choice ahead of the moral decision - this being the fundamental principle behind Kantian logic.

It is plain to see that justice for making moral decisions does not lie in this lifetime; bad people do well and good people will sometimes do badly, therefore the logical and most rational conclusion is that justice is done after we die, by God or in another life. Kant used this argument to suggest that the most logical religion is the Christian ideology of being judged by God; placed in hell or in heaven. The whole idea is that we have a reason to do good things and we naturally move towards them, in other words we know the difference between right or wrong. However, because there are no obvious consequences in this life, therefore these must be atoned by something else after our time.

The problem with the Kant on God argument is that it does not address social implications. I think it is fair to say that we make a lot of our decisions based on what is socially acceptable, and it is also fair to say that what is socially acceptable has changed dramatically over the years, for example gay marriage, sex out of wedlock and divorce are all common themes within our current cultural narrative in the Western world, however this does not mean that those decisions are morally wrong - far from it.

This means that what is right or wrong changes based on what is correct within present society, and is not down to a fundamental or ultimate moral compass that exists ubiquitously throughout the world, therefore the idea of judgement is not one that would really make sense, unless the Bible were correct. If it were then the reckoning is coming! - but hasn't yet...

The idea also fails to address bad decisions that do have consequences within this life, for example, someone who serves jail time for murdering someone, in our lifetime, pays for their sins, so what effect would that have on any ultimate judgement? The concept Kant has put forwards is complex in many ways but it is impossible to address all of these points from the human perspective in my opinion. If you'd like to know more about Kant then here's a great website for you to read up on him - Kant Philosophy

So what do you think about this theory? Do you think Kant makes sense here? Have I overlooked something? Let's talk about it, I would love to discuss this topic because I'm a massive fan of Kant, so let's have it out! :) Comment below.

What Philosphers Have To Say About God - Aristotle

Philosophy tackles the big questions and there's no bigger discussion to be had than whether or not God exists. This is a tough question and many philosophers, and perhaps everyone on the planet, has pondered over whether or not there's a big man hiding about in the clouds and looking down on us. Furthermore, questions regarding omniscience, nature, motives and power all branch from the single question of whether or not God exists, but I doubt we'll be able to provide that question with an answer in this blog post - there's no harm in seeing what some of the great philosophers have to say on the subject though!

Let's kick off with the father of all philosophical teachings, Aristotle. Aristotle had an idea about God, upon looking at the world he realised that everything was transient. What this means is that everything around us, including ourselves, is constantly changing and is impermanent, from the stars and planets to the hairs on our head, everything is in a constant state of flux. However, all change is eternal, there is no evident beginning or end as time is infinite, this means that there can never have been a first change, because the first cause of change must have been set off by a chain reaction itself.

Okay, so this is starting to get a little complex, let's break it down. Imagine an infinite line of dominoes, no end and no beginning. The dominoes represent life and as they fall they cause the one in front to fall also, creating a chain reaction that allows the continuous and eternal flow of falling dominoes. However, the dominoes need to have been pushed to fall in the first place. The problem is that whatever was to push the dominoes would have had to have had a reason to push the first domino, meaning that the cause would have had to have been caused in the first place. Aristotle believed that this was not possible, that life was not an eternal chain reaction of events, and there must therefore be something he called a 'Prime Mover'.

As there is not a constant chain of cause and effect, Aristotle surmised that everything is being acted upon in order for it to be constantly changing, but without changing itself. The only way that this was possible was there to be a Prime Mover, something that was not made of matter, as matter can be acted upon, and something that was already all it could be, thus having no potential to change. The Prime Mover is something that causes all change/movement. The Prime Mover must have been the first and eternal substance that exists perennially in order for it to be the cause of all change, but at the same time it cannot have acted upon anything, which means the Prime Mover causes change by attracting everything to itself.

Think about a bowl of milk, confined in a permeable glass box which allows cats to smell the liquid. The bowl of milk does not change, but cats can see it and are drawn towards it, the bowl having caused the cats to want to drink it. The Prime Mover is like a bowl of milk, although it's not made of matter, so the reason behind its attraction is a desire to imitate the Prime Mover, causing everything to move or change. Aristotle called the Prime Mover, God.

So what does this mean exactly? Did God create human beings in order to want to imitate him? No, not exactly. In order for God to exist eternally without changing, God cannot know anything but itself, therefore it would have to be perfectly unaware of all change, because this would cause God to change. Therefore, God has no will and is not to be confused with any religious deity, 'God' is just a word to describe the indescribable, but at the same time, Aristotle argued that God had to exist as a motivator for existence, causing things to change and exist materially.

This doesn't answer any questions, but it does give us a different perception of God. My take on Aristotle's theory is that God is a force, not a being or anything material, Aristotle thought that God had to exist as a force of attraction, otherwise there would be no cause of change or existence. God can be very much likened to gravity, attracting things to large masses but without ever changing as gravity is a constant unalterable force. In other words, God is a life force, something that unifies everything without actually acting upon anything. If you want to read up on Aristotle's ideas then there's a good book on Amazon or you can have a read on this website to get a more rounded view of everything we've discussed here - a good source for general philosophical teachings.

If you've enjoyed this post let me know below (I've also got a post about what Kant's thoughts on God were). Perhaps you feel I've misinterpreted some of these ideas, or maybe you agree, whatever your thoughts, pop them below for all to see. Until next time. Ciao!