EEVblog + The Signal Path Discussion

[nctnico]

One thing people should not forget is that today's common religions have been designed to be crowd control tools.

[mtdoc]

Can you point to a reference of these tens of millions? Regardless, lets assume 30 Million.

World population ~ 7.5 Billion
Atheists ~ 300 - 400 Million
The people you are talking about ~ 30 Million.

That would make ~ 0.5% of religious population of the world to fall in your category. Whoever these people are they don't "govern" any country neither. For all practical purposes we should focus on the remaining 95.5% for sociological discussions.

Its not that I think what you are saying is wrong, it just is not the concern of most people.

Good question. And now that I've looked it up, I vastly underestimated the numbers. There is some variation depending on the source but this Pew research report comes from a reputable, neutral source. Its numbers:

Buddhists - 488 million
Taoists - More than 8 million.

Those are the only "religions" (really more philosophies) whose precepts I am familiar enough with to state with certainty that they reject the personal God of Judaism/Christianity/Islam.  Their precepts are almost identical to the panthiest god concept that Spinoza elucidated to Western minds.

But in addition I believe there are other, admittedly smaller religions with a similar non-personal god foundation. In addition, one could argue that Hinduism - a religion with a very large following (1 Billion!)- does not adhere to a personal god.

Also, you must realize that there are many millions world wide who do not identify with any particular religion - who may call themselves at times "agnostic", who find the precepts of Judaism/Christianity/Islam ridiculous, yet who profess to have non-religious but "spiritual" beliefs in something beyond the physical universe.  The exact numbers of these are for obvious reasons impossible to quantify.

This whole topic can (an should IMO) be discussed in a intellectually sound, non- ideological manner, as it is in many philosophy and academic venues.  Einstein himself did this regularly - as his numerous writings on the topic demonstrate.   Unfortunately highly emotional religious and athiest zealotry seems to rear it's head whenever the topic is brought up or when Einstein's name is used to advance one's cause.

[hamster_nz]

Also, you must realize that there are many millions world wide who do not identify with any particular religion - who may call themselves at times "agnostic", who find the precepts of Judaism/Christianity/Islam ridiculous, yet who profess to have non-religious but "spiritual" beliefs in something beyond the physical universe.  The exact numbers of these are for obvious reasons impossible to quantify.

This whole topic can (an should IMO) be discussed in a intellectually sound, non- ideological manner, as it is in many philosophy and academic venues.  Einstein himself did this regularly - as his numerous writings on the topic demonstrate.   Unfortunately highly emotional religious and athiest zealotry seems to rear it's head whenever the topic is brought up or when Einstein's name is used to advance one's cause.

Discussing the quotes of a dead man is just about as good as quoting bits of any religious text - you can always cherry pick and/or recast the writings to support own world views, and the original author doesn't have a chance to correct any possible misinterpretation.

How about this Einstein quote:

I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

That clearly looks like him saying he is not religious. It sounds like he used "God" as a metaphor.

Being completely non-religious myself, I am constantly amazed at these sorts of discussions about the existence/non-existence of a God, and if so which one is correct one. They seem to all say that they are "the one true religion", and all the others are wrong. So my odds are on that they are all wrong.

What I find more interesting is if other peoples believe that their consciousness/spirit carries on after their death (to an afterlife, heaven/hell, reincarnation), which is really what it is really all about in the end. Discussing "What has a spirit and why? Do dogs have spirits and not ants?" is far more interesting than "which flavor of God exists".

I feel it would be rude to comment and not state where I stand. My own view is that what was created can be destroyed, and death is final. Most people find this view bleak and unpalatable, but it is most likely the true one.

[EEVblog]

I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

That clearly looks like him saying he is not religious. It sounds like he used "God" as a metaphor.

That is precisely how he used it.
Unfortunately religious and or "spiritual" people like to claim Einstein as supporting them in some way, in a pathetic and desperate appeal to authority. As if what Einstein thought mattered a rats arse.
Atheists like to shoot down that connection very quickly, and rightly so. And you'd be very hard pressed to find a genuine atheist who uses Einstein as some appeal to authority like the religious people are so desperate to do.
The religious people do it all the time, claiming Einstein and any other scientist they can get their hands on, like Francis Collins. It's laughably embarrassing.

[mtdoc]

It's laughably uninformed to say that Einstein only used the word god only as metaphor.  The continued tactic of conflating religion with god is a sign of a lost argument.

Once again, Einstein in his own words:

I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals..'' My religiosity consists of a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we can comprehend of the knowable world. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.

and

I believe in Spinoza's God, Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and doings of mankind.

There are many, many more direct quotes where he uses the term "God" not as metaphor but as reference to something transcendental.

Again, he specifically said that while he did not believe in a personal god and found the teachings of Judaism/Christianity/Islam "childlike" he specifically favored that view over the athiest view saying:

"such a belief seems to me preferable to the lack of any transcendental outlook."

It's unfortunate that some chose, either due to lack of education regarding the broad meaning of the word "God" or due to their own agenda, conflate god with religion and presuming that all religions and non-religious people conceptualize god in the same way the followers of  Judaism/Christianity/Islam do.

And you'd be very hard pressed to find a genuine atheist who uses Einstein as some appeal to authority like the religious people are so desperate to do.

I would think not since Einstein specifically opposed the athiest ideology!  If religious people do, that's not justified either since he specifically was opposed to the religions he was familiar with (Judaism/Christianity/Islam).

Personally, my interest is not in any specific ideology and trying to argue that one is the "right" one is foolish. I am interested in the topic of religious and non-religious thinking as it pertains to both the physical and the transcendental. I find Einstein's views in this area incredibly interesting and hate to see them misrepresented.

He wrote extensively on this topic and if someone is truly interested I highly recommend Einstein and Religion: physics and theology.  which is published by Princeton University press where he worked and where his papers are archived.

If you have an argument with Einstein's views just say so. Insisting that when he says "I believe in Spinoza's God" he was using the term as metaphor is not factually correct.

[hamster_nz]

It's laughably uninformed to say that Einstein only used the word god as metaphor.  The continued tactic of conflating religion with god is a sign of a lost argument.

So, just to have look at Spinoza's God I read a few bits on it (interesting fact - this was around the same time that the first element was discovered):

In propositions one through fifteen of Part One, Spinoza presents the basic elements of his picture of God. God is the infinite, necessarily existing (that is, uncaused), unique substance of the universe. There is only one substance in the universe; it is God; and everything else that is, is in God.

Proposition 1: A substance is prior in nature to its affections.

Proposition 2: Two substances having different attributes have nothing in common with one another. (In other words, if two substances differ in nature, then they have nothing in common).

Proposition 3: If things have nothing in common with one another, one of them cannot be the cause of the other.

Proposition 4: Two or more distinct things are distinguished from one another, either by a difference in the attributes [i.e., the natures or essences] of the substances or by a difference in their affections [i.e., their accidental properties].

....

Proposition 14: Except God, no substance can be or be conceived

Looks like a philosopher thinking so hard he found an internally consistent delusion to follow. I will file it away beside with Unicorns, Leprechauns and Capricorns in my "folklore and mythology" section.

I don't think I was actually discussing if Einstein believed in God a (either a Theistic God, Henotheistic God, Deistic God, Abstract God, or Humanistic God, whatever) , just that an appeal to authority for the existance of God using quotes of (very great) somebody who has been dead for 60 years is of little value.

But granted, his writings do seem consistent with having a belief in an Abstract God - belief that the underlying order of the universe is 'devine', but not belief in a God with a will, emotion and morality.

[Fungus]

To me Einstein used the word "God" as a tool, he really meant "nature".

"God does not play dice" == "Nature does not play dice".

etc.

"Nature" was the thing he admired and was in awe of (as are most atheists).

PS: http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/05/god_for_weasels.html

[mtdoc]

an appeal to authority for the existance of God using quotes of (very great) somebody who has been dead for 60 years is of little value..

I absolutely agree.  Any attempt to "prove" the existence or non-existence of God is folly and appealing to authority to do it is double folly!

Personally I consider myself a Dudeist and if you disagree with the tenets of Dudeism I say:

[hamster_nz]

PS: http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/05/god_for_weasels.html

+1  Yes - exactly that!

[EEVblog]

But granted, his writings do seem consistent with having a belief in an Abstract God - belief that the underlying order of the universe is 'devine', but not belief in a God with a will, emotion and morality.

In today's practical word that's effectively lumped in with "spirituality", and for all practical purposes becomes "I don't believe in god" to Joe Average. You might as well say you believe in the flying spaghetti monster as the creator of the universe.

Let's not kid ourselves, the countless problems in the world related to "religion", and the reason why it's even worth debating, is almost 100% due to belief in a personal god, and a holy book which is the word of/inspired by (depending upon how wishy-washy you are) god (and almost exclusively the Abrahamic gods) . Nothing else is worth debating in terms of "religion".

If you want to debate the creation of the universe, the origin of life etc that does not involve any of the existing organised religions, then that is a different argument entirely, and to intermix the two is a mistake and entirely unproductive for a discussion on the role and effect of religion in society (which is at the heart of our discussion in this video in general). To debate the meaning of the word religion in this context is folly, and this is why I will not engage mtdoc on it.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

Let's not kid ourselves, the countless problems in the world related to "religion", and the reason why it's even worth debating, is almost 100% due to belief in a personal god, and a holy book which is the word of/inspired by (depending upon how wishy-washy you are) god (and almost exclusively the Abrahamic gods) . Nothing else is worth debating in terms of "religion".

I can only speak for the Catholic Church in Spain and Germany which is what I have seen and know. This here has nothing to do with the preachers and Billy Grahams of the USA or the ayatollahs, that's cringeworthy and embarrasing. It's something both serious and lightweight, like a background task to remind us of simple silly little things in which we trust such as "thou shalt not murder" and "thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" or "Thou shalt not steal" etc. Nowadays only (mostly) elders still go to the churches on Sundays, and they do so because of custom and tradition and mainly to see and perhaps chat with one another.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, and you simply sound like an strident fool pretending that there is. And if you think they take the words of the Bible literally, even more fool yet.

So WRT to this religion, nowadays, and here, you're making much noise about nothing, I would say.

[TheAmmoniacal]

Ah yes, we all know how innocent the Catholic Church is.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

"Do as I say, not as I do "

[Fungus]

I can only speak for the Catholic Church in Spain and Germany which is what I have seen and know. This here has nothing to do with the preachers and Billy Grahams of the USA or the ayatollahs, that's cringeworthy and embarrasing. It's something both serious and lightweight

Apart from the 0.7% of tax revenue that gets passed to the church, all the public money that gets spent when the pope visits, the pedophile thing.

to remind us of simple silly little things in which we trust such as "thou shalt not murder" and "thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" or "Thou shalt not steal" etc.

Do you need reminding of that? Isn't it common sense in a society?

Nowadays only (mostly) elders still go to the churches on Sundays, and they do so because of custom and tradition and mainly to see and perhaps chat with one another. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that

You can do that in a bar over un par de cervezas y unas bravas.

(and there's no need to listen to a sermon or pass around a collection plate).

So WRT to this religion, nowadays, and here, you're making so much noise about nothing, I would say.

Wouldn't you prefer to promote critical thought among the people and evidence-based government instead of the current situation in Spain?

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

Isn't it common sense in a society?

Not the "Thou shalt not steal" it seems. Seguro que sabes xq lo digo...

[xrunner]

Isn't it common sense in a society?

Not the "Thou shalt not steal" it seems. Seguro que sabes xq lo digo...

Right, but we don't need religion to agree that stealing will not be tolerated in societies. We just need to agree to live under common sense laws, which most societies do. To then attribute these common sense ideas to invisible deities is an extra unnecessary step.

[Fungus]

Isn't it common sense in a society?

Not the "Thou shalt not steal" it seems. Seguro que sabes xq lo digo...

Right, but we don't need religion to agree that stealing will not be tolerated in societies. We just need to agree to live under common sense laws, which most societies do. To then attribute these common sense ideas to invisible deities is an extra unnecessary step.

That rule isn't one of the Ten Commandments anyway, it's one of The Mosaic laws.

The Ten Commandments are here: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2034:10-28

No mention of killing or stealing, just some stuff on blood sacrifices and cookery.

[mtdoc]

Let's not kid ourselves, the countless problems in the world related to "religion", and the reason why it's even worth debating, is almost 100% due to belief in a personal god, and a holy book which is the word of/inspired by (depending upon how wishy-washy you are) god (and almost exclusively the Abrahamic gods)

I absolutely agree. As I stated earlier in this thread, the amount of mayhem, torture and death in human history that is attributable to religious beliefs is staggering and it continues.  But as you say it is the Abrahamic religions Judaism/Christianity/Islam which have been responsible for this.  That excludes the religious beliefs of about 2 billion people.

If you want to debate the creation of the universe, the origin of life etc that does not involve any of the existing organised religions, then that is a different argument entirely, and to intermix the two is a mistake and entirely unproductive for a discussion on the role and effect of religion in society (which is at the heart of our discussion in this video in general).

I agree, but it's important to realize that despite what some may think, the majority of Christians, esp Catholics, do believe in evolution. (note I am not defending those religions, only pointing out facts). Here are the numbers for the US:



I find it depressing that a full third of the US population are creationists

To debate the meaning of the word religion in this context is folly, and this is why I will not engage mtdoc on it.

In my view, that was never up for debate. FWIW I fully accept the standard dictionary definitions of the word religion. My earlier comments were meant only to point out the fact that it is not synonymous with the word "god".

And - as always I appreciate the forum you provide to engage in such free spirited discussions. 

[Brumby]

Isn't it common sense in a society?

Not the "Thou shalt not steal" it seems. Seguro que sabes xq lo digo...

Right, but we don't need religion to agree that stealing will not be tolerated in societies. We just need to agree to live under common sense laws, which most societies do. To then attribute these common sense ideas to invisible deities is an extra unnecessary step.

That rule isn't one of the Ten Commandments anyway, it's one of The Mosaic laws.

The Ten Commandments are here: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2034:10-28

No mention of killing or stealing, just some stuff on blood sacrifices and cookery.

?

My Google-fu puts the ten commandments at Exodus chapter 20.

[Fungus]

The Ten Commandments are here: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2034:10-28

?
My Google-fu puts the ten commandments at Exodus chapter 20.

That's what they want you to believe, sure... 

The place it actually says "Ten Commandments" is Exodus 34:28.

[xrunner]

https://youtu.be/I48hr8HhDv0

[EEVblog]

Let's not kid ourselves, the countless problems in the world related to "religion", and the reason why it's even worth debating, is almost 100% due to belief in a personal god, and a holy book which is the word of/inspired by (depending upon how wishy-washy you are) god (and almost exclusively the Abrahamic gods) . Nothing else is worth debating in terms of "religion".

I can only speak for the Catholic Church in Spain and Germany which is what I have seen and know. This here has nothing to do with the preachers and Billy Grahams of the USA or the ayatollahs, that's cringeworthy and embarrasing. It's something both serious and lightweight, like a background task to remind us of simple silly little things in which we trust such as "thou shalt not murder" and "thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" or "Thou shalt not steal" etc. Nowadays only (mostly) elders still go to the churches on Sundays, and they do so because of custom and tradition and mainly to see and perhaps chat with one another.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, and you simply sound like an strident fool pretending that there is.

Wow, the ultimate straw man, well done 
People go to church to be social, therefore organised religion causes no major problems in society! 

And if you think they take the words of the Bible literally, even more fool yet.

Latest figure is still 24% of US citizens:
http://www.americanow.com/story/religion/2017/05/15/americans-who-believe-bible-literal-word-god-record-low
A small drop from 28% a few years ago:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/170834/three-four-bible-word-god.aspx