"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 languages. The child knows someone must have written these books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. 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. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's pantheism, but admire even more his contribution to modern thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and body as one, not two separate things."
G.S. Viereck, Glimpses of the Great(Macauley, New York, 1930)In April of 1929, Cardinal O'Connell, Archbishop of Boston, admonished the members of the New England Catholic Club of America not to read anything on relativity because it "befogged speculation producing universal doubt about God and his Creation... cloaking the ghastly apparition of atheism."
New York Times, 25 April 1929, p.60 Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein of the Institutional Synagogue in New York cabled Einstein simply, "Do you believe in God?"Einstein replied: "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."
So Einstein was, in fact, a deist. Not an atheist. Not even a "practical atheist" as so many atheists try to claim. Einstein always fought the label of atheism and made a sharp distinction between his disbelief in a personal god and atheism:"Speaking of the spirit that informs modern scientific investigations, I am of the opinion that all the finer speculations in the realm of science spring from a deep religious feeling, and that without such feeling they would not be fruitful. I also believe that, this kind of religiousness, which makes itself felt today in scientific investigations, is the only creative religious activity of our time. The art of today can hardly be looked upon at all as expressive of our religious instincts."
Einstein's theory of relativity was, as we now see in hindsight by biographical scholars, based on religious concepts. For example, in Spinoza's Ethics he declared, "God is immutable or all his attributes are immutable[like space]," and "an extended thing are God's attributes." In accordance with Spinoza, Einstein interpreted the term "endure" in the verse "the Heavens endure from everlasting to everlasting" in the sense of immutable existence.What happened next? Einstein made what he called the "biggest blunder" of his career. In 1917 he modified the relativity field equation by introducing an additional term, the so-called "cosmological constant," in order to obtain a static unchanging universe. He essentially ruled out Big Bang 'spread' stating that the universe was somehow made and is stationary, excluding the orbits of galactic masses.Steady expansion of the universe was only discovered in the late 1920's at the Mount Wilson Observatory. Nevertheless, Einstein was still kicking himself. Instead of trusting his gut instinct he tinkered with the formula to allow for religious ideas from his beloved Spinoza.See what not trusting your instincts will do?
Young Earth Creationists state that our universe is only 6,000 years old. Oh wait. They changed their mind a few years back and added four thousand to that. So make that ten millenia. This number is based on some sort of pseudo science and literalist interpretation of the book of Genesis. Their data changes every few years to keep up with the twists and turns real science.
According to YEC's dinosaurs were friendly and played with Adam and Eve. Carnivorous dinosaurs only became meat eaters after The Fall. Sharp horns and teeth were previously only used for play or mating displays. Another theory is that God miraculously changed all the newly damned carnivore's teeth to go from being flat to suddenly fitting the carnivorous profile(sharp canines and sharper front teeth for tearing) we now recognize.
Since the Big Bang theory was proposed, examined, and had entire new branches of science(stellar radiation, etc) submit information concerning the age of galaxies and stars farther away from us as well as the MOVEMENT of these formations, we've come a long way. Scientists now believe the earth is around 4.6 billion years old and have fossil records to support this claim. Not that YEC's care much. Their method of 'debunking' geological science is pointing at the Bible and then plugging their ears. You could try discussing archeological finds with a Young Earther but you'd get nowhere fast.
Scientists start by looking at what IS instead of what is written about the past. They go from zero and build their case based on what they see right in front of them. If what they find happens to coincide with historical writings then that's great! It's an amazing piece of history which was written about by humans in the past and celebrated as such. But if what they find in a laboratory contradicts what is found in an archeological record then the facts as they found them are published and that's that. The lab scientists let the other historians fight it out.
Earthcentrism(our planet being the center of the universe or at least the beginning of anything worthwhile) is an egotistical idea which has been molded over time, though not by much. Literalists have taken to flouting interpretations of the book of Genesis without anything at all to back them up, making for some pretty messed up rhetoric to feed to the common masses. Let's examine a few arguments:
Philo Judaeus(Philon the Jew) wrote, initially quoting Genesis in his tract On the Account of the World's Creation given by Moses(De Opificio Mundi), "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." "Beginning should not be conceived in a chronological sense for time cannot be before there was a world. Time began either simultaneously with the world or after it. For time is a measured space determined of the world's movement, and since movement could not be prior to the object moving ... it follows of necessity that time also is coeval with or later born than the world."
That is the earthcentrism I am speaking of. Everything good or worthwhile revolving around what's going on with Earth. All the other planets and stars are trivial. Right? Why can't time be before our planet existed? As you can see Philo created some weak rhetoric. All you have to do is ask the very opposite questions he is proposing and his argument falls apart like a house of cards.
We're essentially talking about Schrodinger's cat; "An observation being made can only then be measured." But humans and the mighty microscope are not the end all. Just because we didn't witness it doesn't mean that it doesn't hold value. The cat is both alive and dead based on WITNESS to the box opening. God being the one who crammed the cat in the box and opened it afterward gives us the story. Or is it a prophet writing down the words of God? And how do we stretch God's "days" out through 4.6 billion years or even a mere thousand years? We don't have a witness. Not one. Because we were not in existence yet. That is the paradox.
Augustine of Hippo, for all his wishy-washy and confused religious leanings, had at least enough sense to ask the right questions. "If God made heaven and earth in some beginning of time, what was he doing before he made heaven and earth? And why did he suddenly decide to make what he had not previously made through eternal time?"
In other words, why did God suddenly decide to create our cosmos? Augustine asks why while Einstein asks how. Religion and science meet.
Though Augustine couldn't have known it at the time this is what science proves thus far-
Big Bang's proposed explosion date: average of 13.5 billion years ago.
Geology's date for the Earth's "birth": 4.6 billion years ago
= BIG DARN GAP!
By the time of Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century, the issue was once again up in the air and this time moderation prevailed. In Aquinas tract De aeternitate mundi which summarized the 'beginninglessness' of the world he declared, "We hold by faith alone, and it cannot be proved by demonstration, that the world did not always exist... the reason being that the newness of the world cannot be demonstrated by the world itself."
At least the word 'faith' was used in its proper context. Science was in no position to sway anyone at that time. Too many questions and not enough technology to run with ideas. And poor Galileo learned the hard way through house arrest that even leaps in scientific achievements with the telescope were not allowed. The Church was too egotistical to allow reason to prevail.
If you only have science to give age to something in a local region then how do you compare it to anything else outside your region if you don't have the tools to study this farther region? What is your solid point of reference? Until we began dating our own sun and closest stars within our own galaxy and then began reaching beyond, we really had no hope of being objective on the matter of age at all. Our point of reference(Earth) was too close. Too young. And far too changeable with its layers and weather and erosion.
Einstein, at least, was remembered fondly by the Church. Even with as much as the man was dragged into dialogues about religion he managed to stay true to himself. Pope John Paul II said in November of 1979 at the Pontifical Academy meeting held in honor of the centenary birth of Einstein,
"On the occasion of this solemn commemoration of Einstein, I would like to confirm again the Council's declaration on the autonomy of science in its function of searching for the truth inscribed during the creation by the finger of God. Filled with admiration for the genius of the great scientist, in whom is revealed the imprint of the creative spirit, without intervening in any way with a judgment on the doctrines concerning the great systems of the universe, which is not in her power to make, the Church nevertheless recommends these doctrines for consideration by the theologians in order to discover the harmony that exists between scientific truth and revealed truth."
By dousing a good fifty percent of the Church's arrogant attitude much was gained. Science flourished.
Einstein relegated his personal religion to being defined as "awe." And honestly, isn't that a safer path to take when we are still such a young species?
