Scientific Name-Dropping: Why a Quaker?

Albert Einstein stated in the last year of his life:
"If I were not a Jew I would be a Quaker."*

Intriguing!

The question is why did he identify with the Friends?

It is difficult to answer. There has been a lot written about Einstein’s views on ultimate reality.

Much of it contradictory. Some thinkers claim he was an atheist, others that he wasn't.


Einstein emphasized that he wasn't an atheist,
that atheists had no sense of the "music of the sphere," that they lacked appreciation for the amazing order and beauty and awe of the cosmos. (Photo: A Friends Meetinghouse--by James Turrell, Skyspace Philadelphia)

Einstein said, “...the serious scientific workers are the only profoundly religious people.”

"...rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection."

“In the struggle for ethical good teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is give up the source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast powers in the hands of priests."

At times, Einstein identified as a pantheist, at other times as an agnostic.
"I believe in Spinoza’s God, who reveals himself in the harmony of all being, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and actions of men."

"I’m not an atheist and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages...The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God."

"A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, our perceptions of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which only in their most primitive forms are accessible to our minds—it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute true religiosity; in this sense and in this sense alone, I am a deeply religious man."

But he explicitly rejected organized religion, especially, opposed orthodox Judaism and creedal Christianity, the anthropomorphism of a “personal god,” life after death, etc.

Sometimes Einstein spoke of ethics and meaning, at others insisted that everything--including humans--is determined.

Lastly, came his striking comment, “If I were not a Jew I would be a Quaker.”

Did he identify with Quakerism because of its strong sense of wonder?

He often said that he was "religious" in a noncreedal sense,
making statements such as:

"The religion of the future will be cosmic religion. It will transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology."

"...if I could ask God one question...I would want to know why he started the universe. For once I knew that answer, then I would know the purpose of my own life."

"“Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up."

"But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion."

"To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason."

"I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

“It would not be difficult to come to an agreement as to what we understand by science. Science is the century-old endeavor to bring together by means of systematic thought the perceptible phenomena of this world into as thoroughgoing an association as possible. To put it boldly, it is the attempt at the posterior reconstruction of existence by the process of conceptualization..."

"Accordingly, a religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance and loftiness of those superpersonal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation. They exist with the same necessity and matter-of-factness as he himself. In this sense religion is the age-old endeavor of mankind to become clearly and completely conscious of these values and goals and constantly to strengthen and extend their effect. If one conceives of religion and science according to these definitions then a conflict between them appears impossible."

"For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts. According to this interpretation the well-known conflicts between religion and science in the past must all be ascribed to a misapprehension of the situation which has been described."

"For example, a conflict arises when a religious community insists on the absolute truthfulness of all statements recorded in the Bible. This means an intervention on the part of religion into the sphere of science; this is where the struggle of the Church against the doctrines of Galileo and Darwin belongs."

"On the other hand, representatives of science have often made an attempt to arrive at fundamental judgments with respect to values and ends on the basis of scientific method, and in this way have set themselves in opposition to religion. These conflicts have all sprung from fatal errors."

"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge. In this sense I believe that the priest must become a teacher if he wishes to do justice to his lofty educational mission."

...the "eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility."


Because Friends philosophy and theology are less anthropomorphic?

Because some Quaker leaders have been brilliant scientists?

Because of his admiration for Quaker work for peace,
reconciliation, civil rights, and justice?

For Einstein did state, "If one purges the Judaism of the Prophets and Christianity as Jesus Christ taught it of all subsequent additions, especially those of the priests, one is left with a teaching which is capable of curing all the social ills of humanity."

Also, why did he say he was a “Jew” since he strongly rejected Orthodox Judaism?

Since he wasn’t a believing orthodox Jew, but only one culturally,
was his Quaker statement more of a cultural outlook, too, that he liked the culture and social nature of the Friends?

What do you think?

Fairly recently, out here in California, we read 2 biographies on Einstein in our thinkers’ bookclub. I was, again, amazed by Einstein’s wonder, awe,
and appreciation of cosmic order and beauty,
what he called the "music of the spheres."

What appealed to Albert Einstein in Quakerism,
contrary to his very negative views of all other religions?

--
*Quotes are from various sources on the Internet, from books including
Einstein: The Life and Times by Ronald Clark
Einstein: His Life and His Universe by Walter Isaacson,
The World As I See it,
Albert Einstein: Ideas and Opinions
Einstein and Religion
etc.

*This isn’t an appeal to authority—except in a bit of questioning. Besides, what his philosophical views of reality aren’t necessarily more valid (and to be followed) just because he was a brilliant physicist. Views outside of one's profession aren't valid or invalid just because one has said them.


Questions in the Light,

Daniel Wilcox

Is the Scientific Method the ONLY Way to Know Reality?

Richard Dawkins tells the story of a conversation with his 6-year-old daughter about wildflowers: She said their purpose was, “To make the world pretty and to help the bees make honey for us.”

In contrast, Dawkins emphasized to her that wasn’t the wildflowers’ purpose, but it was rather to copy their DNA.

In response to Dawkins' negation of teleology, the journalist Jay Ambrose alludes to Ray Bradbury’s speculative dystopia, Fahrenheit 451, and states that the danger of Dawkins’ one-sided view of reality is that Dawkins' "...crusade is not just against religion as such. It is against the brash recognitions of the non-literal, the poetic, of an astonished imagination.”1

First a caution: It seems that Ambrose is short-changing Dawkins with an overstated broad brush, for Dawkins has written many passages in his works where he extols the imagination and the arts and even has an autobiography entitled An Appetite for Wonder.

And Dawkins' huge tome on evolution, The Ancestor's Tale, which traces the history of life back about 2 billion years references and uses the literary structure of Chaucer's famous classic The Canterbury Tales. Dawkins has a strong love of music and other forms of beauty.

But Ambrose does have a point in that Dawkins tends to emphasize the view that only science as understood by atheists has any insight into reality. Dawkins admitted during an interview that ethics are only “subjective,” personal preferences, and are probably "misfirings" (his word) of evolution.

In the interview, Dawkins even said that opposition against rape is only a subjective preference!


Ambrose continues, “While science is a marvelous avenue to an ever-expanding awareness, it has limits. Life and the universe are larger than science, and there are other ways of knowing.”

But are there other ways of knowing? Or is science the only way like Dawkins and some other scientists claim?

Unfortunately, contrary thinkers like Ambrose fail to mention that in most other ways of “knowing” there isn’t any hard method to ascertain was is real and true versus what is false, illusionary, or downright pernicious.

In so many ways, aesthetics, philosophy, and the other humanities, even the great stories of historic human imagination (the ancient “myths)--these methods are ways of perceiving, not knowing.

Creative perceiving is important and these other ways do often help humans to what seem to be deeper and higher levels of understanding. But there is no hard probability of finding actual reality in such other fields because they lack a reliable objective method of testing.

If in doubt, read through the history of philosophy or even worse theology. Such disciplines use complex thinking, are employed by brilliant thinkers, yes, by amazing geniuses who reason for various abstract views.

But so many of their conclusions contradict each other.

One philosopher despite his technically difficult prose totally contradicts another philosopher's erudite writing. So even though they avoid logical fallacies, and their reasoning is superb, they don't agree about reality. And there is no hard evidence supporting either, usually.

How then are we to know which view of existence is correct and right?

In contrast, 100 years after Albert Einstein’s famous theory of relativity, more and more discovered evidence is showing a high probability that it is true.

And, though there have been significant revisions and adjustments (such as genetics) in Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, natural selection also has been confirmed, most recently by the Human Genome Project.

This is so much so that nearly all biologists declare, not only is evolution a proven theory, it is hard fact.

Still, this dissenting voice by Ambrose has significance. The fact that evolution is true doesn't prove that other endeavors of humankind such as ethics and aesthetics and philosophy are delusions or only fluff.

The truth could be BOTH AND, not either or. (Watch out for the either/or fallacy!)

After all Dawkins and other atheistic scientists are often guilty of overstatement, which isn’t scientific in itself, but rather a rhetorical device.

from Ambrose's article:
“Guy Montag, ultimately turns to books. He finds a famous poem, “Dover Beach,” that he reads to others.

Without faith, it says, there is “neither joy, nor love nor light,/Nor certitude, nor peace, nor help for pain.”

“Words like these awaken him [even though they are poetic, not scientific, not factual]...”

“We today are still free…”

That is partially because of philosophy, the Enlightenment ought of rights, and aesthetics. While in contrast, in the last 100 years, scientists have often used the hard scientific method to bring into existence horrific inventions and to deny even basic ethics.

Some such scientists now even deny we humans have any choice at all, but instead claim all of us humans are “puppets” and that our sense of self, our consciousness is an “illusion,” and that even if time and the universe came again a “trillion” times, nothing could be changed, not a single finger move.

We better "get back" (alluding to Joni Mitchell’s famous song) to Bradbury and others including Howard Zinn who are concerned with goodness and truth and justice as well as science.
--

"But you know life is for learning

We are stardust
We are golden
And we've got to get ourselves
Back to the garden

And everywhere there was song and celebration
And I dreamed I saw the bombers
Riding shotgun in the sky
And they were turning into butterflies
Above our nation

We are stardust
Billion year old carbon
We are golden
Caught in the devil's bargain
And we've got to get ourselves
back to the garden"

"Woodstock" by Joni Mitchell


That 6-year-old child had an important point.


BEAUTY!

In the Light, the Good, the Beauty,

Daniel Wilcox



1 "Ray Bradbury's Lessons for Today" by Jay Ambrose

Is the Universe Pointless?

Physicist Stephen Weinberg wrote, “The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless.”

In contrast, consider this: "The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems wondrous."

Such contrary views of existence.

Weinberg's comment reminds one of other scientists who claim homo sapiens are "bags of chemicals" and "puppets," etc.

But check out the contrary views of scientists such as English astronomer and physicist Arthur Eddington, evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky, cell biologist Kenneth R. Miller, French astronomer and physicist Georges Lemaitre, etc.



Also, consider Albert Einstein's wonder at the cosmos and its "radiant beauty":
"A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man."

"The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness."
Albert Einstein, The Merging of Spirit and Science






In the Light,

Daniel Wilcox

The Negativity of Non-Theism

Here's why it is highly improbably I would ever become a non-theist, why it seems the term is a negation not worthy for anyone to identify with, even those who do sincerely think the universe is purposeless.

#1 What counts in life is to define oneself by clear positive statements, not primarily by negative assertions of what one is not. The astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson has a good example of this. In a lecture he explains why he doesn't call himself a non-theist:

“I don't play golf. Is there a word for non-golf players? Do non-golf players gather and strategize? Do non-skiers have a word and come together and talk about the fact that they don't ski. I don't--I can't do that. I can't gather around and talk about how much everybody in the room doesn't believe in God.” (http://www.haveabit.com/neil-degrasse-tyson/92001)

Such a good example of whimsical satire by Tyson! I used to play basketball every day, but eventually quit. Do I focus on the quitting, belong to ex-basketball.org;-)?

Seriously, while it is true, that there are life views and actions which are destructive that need to be opposed, we humans shouldn't define ourselves by our negatives—by not being or not doing.

Islam has slaughtered hundreds of thousands of innocent people in recent years, but do I strongly categorize myself, define who I am by saying, “I’m a Non-Muslim?” No.

So even though much of religion, theism, is delusionary and destructive why emphasize to others the negative, your whole identity as “not theist”?

Huh?


Stand, instead, for what you are, for what is true.

#2 Speaking of “what is true…”: Ethics, aesthetics and seeking the ultimate meaning and purpose of existence is vastly important to me. In contrast, in the last 150 years nearly all of the non-theists, instead, have emphasized there are no standard ethics or universal aesthetics or object truth outside of the necessity (or chance) of natural selection, which they state is "without purpose or meaning."

According to biologist Richard Dawkins, altruism is likely a “misfiring of evolution.” (http://www.philosophicalinvestigations.co.uk/index.php/ethics/41-natural-law/452-extract-richard-dawkins-on-the-lust-to-be-nice?start=1)

In contrast, I’m intellectually convinced that ethics are as objective and real as math. Let’s say the human species is wiped out by a huge catastrophe. Would mathematics cease to be real in the cosmos? Would the natural regularities of nature such as gravity cease? No.

If there was an alien species on some distant planet on the far side of the Milky Way who was also conscious and rational and purposeful like humans, that species would have the same ethical standards—commitment to equality, honesty, fidelity, courage, compassion, justice, mercy, etc. and would oppose intolerance, persecution, rape, rapine, slaughter, and cruelty.

At least I sure hope so.

#3 Not only does such a view negate all universal ethics and aesthetics, many non-theists are so demeaning of what the human species is about.

For instance, the non-theist Sam Harris says human beings are “puppets,” that even each person’s sense of “I” is an illusion. He and two other non-theists commentators claim it’s “tumors all the way down,” meaning every human being has no more choice than a criminal who murders because a tumor is pressing down on his brain. (The Very Bad Wizards Interview #1: Episode 59 Tumors All the Way Down, samharris.org)

Other non-theists have characterized the human species as "bags of chemicals," "meat puppets," etc. Then there's Francis Crick's infamous description of the human species:
[Science has shown you that] "'you,' your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. as Lewis Carroll's Alice might have phrased it: 'You're nothing but a pack of neurons.'" (http://www.todayinsci.com/C/Crick_Francis/CrickFrancis-Quotations.htm)

Caution! This is not a denial that Harris’ (or Dawkins' or Crick's) hypotheses could be correct. I’m only pointing out that unless overwhelming evidence is found that humans are “puppets,” that our sense of “I” is an illusion, and that ethics are only evolutionary adaptions of a purposeless regularity in nature, then I will continue to hold the human species as valuable and creative and purposeful.

#4 Generally, nontheists are too sure there is no ultimate meaning to existence, adamantly sure. For this reason, Albert Einstein said he wasn't a non-theist.
He wrote, “I’m not an atheist…there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatic, and it springs from the same source…They are creatures who can’t hear the music of the spheres.” (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, 200, p. 214)

#5 Furthermore, so many public nontheists are strident “in your face,” “know-it-all” arrogant, dismissive of anyone who disagrees with them, even rude, vulgar, and intolerant. Sounds pretty much like what non-theists accuse theists of being doesn't it?
(CAUTION: There’s no reason non-theists couldn't be more open and attentive. In fact, some fine non-theists are measured and considerate.)

In contrast, our goal in life could instead be-- to be courteous, tentative, open, tolerant, attentive, a good listener, decent, etc.

To sum up:
Theism (from Greek “theos” god) is “…the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world.” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)

Non-theism (from Latin “non” not) means “not” or “no” god.

That means in order for me to become a non-theist, I would have to agree there are no objective values (beyond,transcendent of the human brain and natural selection), no true universal ethics, no objective aesthetics, no ultimately real meaning and purpose for the cosmos. There would be no objective basis for equality and human rights, because there is no “equality” in the nature. Because in non-theism, of course, “human rights” are only a social construct, or worse are only an illusion/delusion caused by the determinism of the cosmos.

Since I am convinced by reason, experience, and emotion down to my inner marrow that equality, fidelity, honesty, and compassion are objectively true, and that slaughter and rape and torture and dishonesty are truly and universally wrong and that they cause untold suffering and pain and death, it would take a herculean change of my whole worldview for me to embrace the outlook that so many non-theists hold overtly.

NO.


Good and evil aren't relative.





Honesty or compassion are as real as 2+2=4 or the Theory of Gravity.

In the Light,

Daniel Wilcox