3 ms·
Just started to check it out. I'm looking forward to reading the rest of the book. I've found the common atheist arguments (ie.. people start wars in the name
by dpweb 11y ago
Just started to check it out. I'm looking forward to reading the rest of the book. I've found the common atheist arguments (ie.. people start wars in the name of religion, therefore religion is bad) usually pretty weak.
The first part looked interesting. I wanted to see exactly what he is attacking, and it seems to be specifically the idea of the supernatural. He notes that Einstein has been misrepesented as a believer (didn't know that - so I learned something already!).
However, I would expect a physicist, engaged in deep study of the physical world - to deny the existence of the supernatural. Doesn't accepting that kinda ruin the whole basis of their life's work? Dawkins mentioning Einstein didn't believe proves nothing. Einstein not believing something doesn't make it false.
Ultimately, what it comes down to, at least for me is - we know little about the origins of the universe, not to much about even our own minds, and nothing outside of our consciousness.
- catawbasam 11y agore "Doesn't accepting that kinda ruin the whole basis of their life's work?" Not for Newton, Pascal, Maxwell, Planck, Heisenberg, John Lucas, John Eccles, or John Stewart Bell -- all religious. There is also a group who aren't religious but see reason to believe in a universal consciousness, e.g. Bohm, Schroedinger, and Penrose. Biologists seem to be more prone to deny the supernatural, presumably due to the culture wars surrounding the teaching of evolution.