Religion general
Zincy 
In Vino Veritas
@Cirrus Light
I’m not sure what part of academia you’re in, but a majority of scientists aren’t “fedora-tipping atheists”. Unless your primary interactions with the community are Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson. Most are secular, but many just keep their faith separate. I’ve seen many atheists, Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc. And this isn’t small sample sized portions, I’m talking national conventions. Hell, at the last convention I was at I attended a symposium on interfaith relations and the scientific community.
If you want to say “the physics community” then I’ll admit I don’t have a lot of contact with them so you may be able to have a point there. But don’t drag the whole of academia in. Psychologists, statisticians, engineers, biologists, anthropologists, and a few other disciplines are a lot more diverse than you give them credit. I have regular interactions with members of each (conferences, symposiums, clubs, blogs, etc.)
I’m not sure if you’re stereotyping, projecting, preaching or a combo of all three. Hell, a Mormon should know better given how your lot get stereotyped as weird, polygamist, greedy fucks with magical underwear.
I’m not sure what part of academia you’re in, but a majority of scientists aren’t “fedora-tipping atheists”. Unless your primary interactions with the community are Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson. Most are secular, but many just keep their faith separate. I’ve seen many atheists, Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc. And this isn’t small sample sized portions, I’m talking national conventions. Hell, at the last convention I was at I attended a symposium on interfaith relations and the scientific community.
If you want to say “the physics community” then I’ll admit I don’t have a lot of contact with them so you may be able to have a point there. But don’t drag the whole of academia in. Psychologists, statisticians, engineers, biologists, anthropologists, and a few other disciplines are a lot more diverse than you give them credit. I have regular interactions with members of each (conferences, symposiums, clubs, blogs, etc.)
I’m not sure if you’re stereotyping, projecting, preaching or a combo of all three. Hell, a Mormon should know better given how your lot get stereotyped as weird, polygamist, greedy fucks with magical underwear.
Cirrus Light 
Sciencepone of Science!
@Zincy
7am post after dealing with a chat that is nearly unanimously against me in this for hours. Remembered a cosmologist that made unfavorable comparisons in-between String Theory and religion in a conference. That’s all. No need to go throwing in that last sentence.
7am post after dealing with a chat that is nearly unanimously against me in this for hours. Remembered a cosmologist that made unfavorable comparisons in-between String Theory and religion in a conference. That’s all. No need to go throwing in that last sentence.
Eeveeinheat 
@Zincy
The only reason the majority are not atheist is because the majority of people on Earth are religious. That makes it really hard for someone to shake off their programming, even if you are secular. Because it doesn’t have much to do with intelligence, although that can help.
The only reason the majority are not atheist is because the majority of people on Earth are religious. That makes it really hard for someone to shake off their programming, even if you are secular. Because it doesn’t have much to do with intelligence, although that can help.
Zincy
In Vino Veritas
@Cirrus Light
Hello Pot, my name is Kettle. Regardless of your mood, which as you know I had no way of knowing about, calling them all “Fedora Tipping Athiests” and invoking the fat, stupid, neckbeard stereotype opened you up for a little crow thrown your way. Considering I am a scientist such a comment was an attack aimed squarely, if unintentionally, at me. Or are you the only one allowed to get a little racy when peeved?
Hello Pot, my name is Kettle. Regardless of your mood, which as you know I had no way of knowing about, calling them all “Fedora Tipping Athiests” and invoking the fat, stupid, neckbeard stereotype opened you up for a little crow thrown your way. Considering I am a scientist such a comment was an attack aimed squarely, if unintentionally, at me. Or are you the only one allowed to get a little racy when peeved?
Whatevo
Arch-Rarifag
I think we need something we can all agree on:
Atheism is the easiest religion to troll
Atheism is the easiest religion to troll
Cirrus Light
Sciencepone of Science!
@Zincy
You know I’m a scientist, too, right?
It was/is(?) my perception that many, if not most cosmologists and astronomers are atheists, but I’d be glad to hear otherwise. Perhaps it’s just the scientist atheists are the most vocal, giving them a very elevated vocal minority status.
I do know notable exceptions, though. Roger Penrose, Einstein being somewhat pantheistic… But you don’t hear about that so much as Dawkins, Hawking, and the big media buffs Tyson and Bill.
And not too long ago I remember reading about a black scientist who commented on if he’s faced discrimination for being black, and his response was he’d faced more discrimination for being (conservative/Christian) than for being black - though I can’t remember which of the two it was.
You know I’m a scientist, too, right?
It was/is(?) my perception that many, if not most cosmologists and astronomers are atheists, but I’d be glad to hear otherwise. Perhaps it’s just the scientist atheists are the most vocal, giving them a very elevated vocal minority status.
I do know notable exceptions, though. Roger Penrose, Einstein being somewhat pantheistic… But you don’t hear about that so much as Dawkins, Hawking, and the big media buffs Tyson and Bill.
And not too long ago I remember reading about a black scientist who commented on if he’s faced discrimination for being black, and his response was he’d faced more discrimination for being (conservative/Christian) than for being black - though I can’t remember which of the two it was.
Scrabbleman 
[screams in German]
I tend to keep my religion and sciences separated from each other. Religion is a personal thing and I can barely care about a person’s name, let alone their religion.
Random-Rambling 
tinyurl.com/dymbb3a
@Eeveeinheat
Though he is quoted as saying “God does not play dice with the universe.”
However, this does not mean he believes in God (he has admitted to being agnostic) or in destiny.
What he meant was that however this universe was created (or whoever created it), it all fits together pretty tightly and perfectly; just about everything can be predicted/explained by science in some way.
Clearly, there is something at work here, beyond our current human comprehension, that keeps everything in line.
Though he is quoted as saying “God does not play dice with the universe.”
However, this does not mean he believes in God (he has admitted to being agnostic) or in destiny.
What he meant was that however this universe was created (or whoever created it), it all fits together pretty tightly and perfectly; just about everything can be predicted/explained by science in some way.
Clearly, there is something at work here, beyond our current human comprehension, that keeps everything in line.
Eeveeinheat
@YetAnotherBrony
Instead of trying to say what he said, here are his exact words on the matter:
Albert Einstein letter
Also, “I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.” – Albert Einstein
This quote is most telling, I feel. It explains he feels the universe itself is a kind of God, but only in the sense that it is everything. Harmonic. It’s not the same type of God that religious people believe in. It doesn’t care for humans or souls. It just is. Not even a being or entity, just the sum of everything. More a way of looking at things than a statement of truth. That still makes him an atheist in the modern sense, as he didn’t believe in any true God that is a singular or multiple being.
Instead of trying to say what he said, here are his exact words on the matter:
Albert Einstein letter
Also, “I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.” – Albert Einstein
This quote is most telling, I feel. It explains he feels the universe itself is a kind of God, but only in the sense that it is everything. Harmonic. It’s not the same type of God that religious people believe in. It doesn’t care for humans or souls. It just is. Not even a being or entity, just the sum of everything. More a way of looking at things than a statement of truth. That still makes him an atheist in the modern sense, as he didn’t believe in any true God that is a singular or multiple being.
Scrabbleman
[screams in German]
@Eeveeinheat
That’s one of the ways I believe in God. It makes more sense to me.
That’s one of the ways I believe in God. It makes more sense to me.
Zincy
In Vino Veritas
@Eeveeinheat
I’ve always been partial to the “god is a force of nature” idea. Even a god should exist within the boundaries of reality.
I’ve always been partial to the “god is a force of nature” idea. Even a god should exist within the boundaries of reality.
Random-Rambling
tinyurl.com/dymbb3a
@Eeveeinheat
I thought that was more “deist” than “atheist”.
The most well-known form of deism is that there is a God, but He’s like this “great watchmaker”, who lets the universe run and do its own thing with little to no interference from Him.
Atheism posits that God never existed in the first place.
I thought that was more “deist” than “atheist”.
The most well-known form of deism is that there is a God, but He’s like this “great watchmaker”, who lets the universe run and do its own thing with little to no interference from Him.
Atheism posits that God never existed in the first place.
Eeveeinheat
@Zincy
More like nature is God. Remember: this kind of God has no power. No consciousness. No plan. It just is. It’s not even an entity, but everything. More a way of thinking than actually stating something supernatural.
More like nature is God. Remember: this kind of God has no power. No consciousness. No plan. It just is. It’s not even an entity, but everything. More a way of thinking than actually stating something supernatural.
Eeveeinheat
@YetAnotherBrony
But it’s not a God by any religious definition of the word. No afterlife. No souls. No plan. No hyper consciousness. Just a reality that exists, and you can think of it as a kind of God if you want.
But it’s not a God by any religious definition of the word. No afterlife. No souls. No plan. No hyper consciousness. Just a reality that exists, and you can think of it as a kind of God if you want.
ЅℰℒᎯℙℋℐℰℒ 
Pomegranates :P
I think it’s because science can’t quite explain everything in this universe. Probably never will. That’s one reason why religion is still relevant.
Scrabbleman
Doesn’t sound too bad.
I mean, my personal opinion is that eternity sucks. The things that don’t last are usually the most precious.
[screams in German]
@YetAnotherBrony
But it’s not a God by any religious definition of the word. No afterlife. No souls. No plan. No hyper consciousness. Just a reality that exists, and you can think of it as a kind of God if you want.
Doesn’t sound too bad.
I mean, my personal opinion is that eternity sucks. The things that don’t last are usually the most precious.
Cirrus Light
Wiki article *
Einstein Himself *
All sources cited here
I particularly love his “parable of the library”. It’s darned true. It’s just frightening when you try to consider how weak our mortal comprehension is.
After all, we construct these models to try to understand the universe better, but all they do is predict numbers that correspond to measurements. Reality itself remains beyond our direct comprehension - we just learn to predict certain numbers of it. Theories aren’t the universe. Gravity isn’t actually some sheet nor is it a set of equations. It’s something that can be described by those equations, to some impressive degree of accuracy, but its’ not those equations. Gravity just kind of is.
Same goes for light, electromagnetism, time - all of it.
Sciencepone of Science!
Einstein stated in his final letter: ‘I am not an atheist.’,[19] explaining at one point: “I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal god is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.”[1] According to Prince Hubertus, Einstein said, “In 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 really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.”[20]
Wiki article *
Your question is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza’s Pantheism. I admire even more his contributions to modern thought. Spinoza is the greatest of modern philosophers, because he is the first philosopher who deals with the soul and the body as one, not as two separate things.
Einstein Himself *
Einstein said in correspondence, “[T]he fanatical atheists…are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against the traditional ‘opium of the people’—cannot hear the music of the spheres.”[24][25] Although he did not believe in a personal God, he indicated that he would never seek to combat such belief because “such a belief seems to me preferable to the lack of any transcendental outlook.”[26]
All sources cited here
I particularly love his “parable of the library”. It’s darned true. It’s just frightening when you try to consider how weak our mortal comprehension is.
After all, we construct these models to try to understand the universe better, but all they do is predict numbers that correspond to measurements. Reality itself remains beyond our direct comprehension - we just learn to predict certain numbers of it. Theories aren’t the universe. Gravity isn’t actually some sheet nor is it a set of equations. It’s something that can be described by those equations, to some impressive degree of accuracy, but its’ not those equations. Gravity just kind of is.
Same goes for light, electromagnetism, time - all of it.
Eeveeinheat
@Cirrus Light
Einstein truly is a genius. I agree with everything he said. I do think the confusion lies in how people think of the term atheist, though. His thoughts on the matter seem to be difficult to transcript, and he even states this. I don’t even think there is a true word for what he thought, as it’s not quite the same as Spinoza’s view, an atheist view, or a theistic view. It’s more like the universe and the concept of God are one and the same to him, which changes it from a supernatural question to a natural question. He’s an atheist in the sense he rejects all religious Gods as childish (meaning no religious person can claim he is “on their side”), yet he thinks it’s also childish to claim something higher couldn’t exist. That’s what he means when he says he isn’t atheist. The same thought pattern I fall into.
Yet, I still call myself an atheist. Why? Because all religion based Gods are false. And those are all that matter. Anything else is just nature.
Einstein truly is a genius. I agree with everything he said. I do think the confusion lies in how people think of the term atheist, though. His thoughts on the matter seem to be difficult to transcript, and he even states this. I don’t even think there is a true word for what he thought, as it’s not quite the same as Spinoza’s view, an atheist view, or a theistic view. It’s more like the universe and the concept of God are one and the same to him, which changes it from a supernatural question to a natural question. He’s an atheist in the sense he rejects all religious Gods as childish (meaning no religious person can claim he is “on their side”), yet he thinks it’s also childish to claim something higher couldn’t exist. That’s what he means when he says he isn’t atheist. The same thought pattern I fall into.
Yet, I still call myself an atheist. Why? Because all religion based Gods are false. And those are all that matter. Anything else is just nature.
Cirrus Light
Sciencepone of Science!
@Eeveeinheat
I’ve always thought of God as a being who has perfect harmony with the universe. In some descriptive senses it’s similar to Eastern religions like Buddhism, but pragmaticism and such keeps me from going full monk, though with Mormon missions and rules it’s perhaps not too dissimilar…
It’s interesting to see what different ways people approach God within this one denomination of Christianity.
@Zincy
Which leads me to this on thoughts of God. A fascinating dialogue, in my opinion, is in the Old Testament when Abraham speaks with God and talk about the destruction of Soddom (iirc), and it’s the exchange of “Will you destroy the city if there’s 100 righteous people in it? Surely not, be it far from God!” And God replies he would not. Abraham keeps lowering the number until he reaches 1, or a few, iirc.
But the interesting thing is that there’s this assumed thing that there’s things God would and wouldn’t do. This implies that God can’t just do whatever and write the rules to match his whims. Rather, his actions are subject to rules, or laws. In fact, many times in the Old Testament it talks of God being bound when you do certain things - take up certain laws he’s offered.
I’ve always thought of God as a being who has perfect harmony with the universe. In some descriptive senses it’s similar to Eastern religions like Buddhism, but pragmaticism and such keeps me from going full monk, though with Mormon missions and rules it’s perhaps not too dissimilar…
It’s interesting to see what different ways people approach God within this one denomination of Christianity.
@Zincy
Which leads me to this on thoughts of God. A fascinating dialogue, in my opinion, is in the Old Testament when Abraham speaks with God and talk about the destruction of Soddom (iirc), and it’s the exchange of “Will you destroy the city if there’s 100 righteous people in it? Surely not, be it far from God!” And God replies he would not. Abraham keeps lowering the number until he reaches 1, or a few, iirc.
But the interesting thing is that there’s this assumed thing that there’s things God would and wouldn’t do. This implies that God can’t just do whatever and write the rules to match his whims. Rather, his actions are subject to rules, or laws. In fact, many times in the Old Testament it talks of God being bound when you do certain things - take up certain laws he’s offered.
Eeveeinheat
@Cirrus Light
I can’t see there being an actual being. Same as Einstein. It’s just not simple enough, and the universe enjoys simplicity. Simple in terms of logical progression, not ease of understanding. I admit it might be possible, as I cannot discount anything, but it just adds another layer to the universe that is unnecessary. Why not cut out the middleman and have the universe and God be one in the same? So close in fact that God doesn’t even exist in the way you are thinking of it.
I can’t see there being an actual being. Same as Einstein. It’s just not simple enough, and the universe enjoys simplicity. Simple in terms of logical progression, not ease of understanding. I admit it might be possible, as I cannot discount anything, but it just adds another layer to the universe that is unnecessary. Why not cut out the middleman and have the universe and God be one in the same? So close in fact that God doesn’t even exist in the way you are thinking of it.
Interested in advertising on Derpibooru? Click here for information!
Help fund the $15 daily operational cost of Derpibooru - support us financially!