Sedecrem

I am a strong Atheist and Scientist, and would like Theism to be eliminated. I wanted to get peoples thoughts on the position of the so-called Science vs Religion debate.

It seems that science now has enough evidence to win the war but Theism still persists. What is is about Theism that allows it to survive in an age where Science has disproved (a debate topic on its own) all of it's claims? By rights Theism should no longer exist, it no longer offers anything to the world or society. It simply does more damage than good.

I would like to hear peoples thoughts on this subject. I am inclined to think that Theism persists in those who haven't had their consciousness raised to consider what it is they are truly doing, in those who are too undereducated to know better or in those who persist in the face of this adversity because they have been taught since birth that blind faith is a virtue and are in too much of a child like mindset (or trapped in their societal upbringing) to consider reason.

What do you think?

__________________
Faith is the surrender of Reason, that which separates us from the primates.

'Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?'
Douglas Adams

tecoyah

In my experience, those who reach a certain level of consciousness no longer feel the need to eliminate theist practices, as they usually understand the dynamics behind faith, and the place it has in spiritual growth. Everyone takes a different path, and religion is a large part of it for many.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

filtherton

I don't think that science will ever "disprove" theism, since proof- in any sort of absolute sense- isn't something science is really capable of. More generally, i don't think science can be the catalyst for any sort of obsolescence when it comes to theism- the two can essentially occupy mutually exclusive areas. The pursuit of scientific knowledge and the pursuit of spiritual knowledge don't necessarily take someone to the same places, and it could be argued that they can't.

Also, i don't think that it's is necessarily accurate to claim that theists are only theists because they simply haven't thought about it. On its face it betrays a lack of knowledge of how theist beliefs are created.

Science is a useful tool, but that is all it is. It says nothing absolutely definitively about anything.

n0nsensical

To borrow my own post from the other thread
I take a humbler approach to the 'evidence'. We don't actually know much about the fundamental nature of the universe beyond our models for the behavior of matter and energy. I don't believe there is any evidence specifically precluding the existence of a 'supreme being' or other religious concepts even if it doesn't fit with traditional views of 'God'. But there are many such views, and it doesn't mean that the current crop of believers in any given faith are correct. But the bottom line to me is belief is just as (un)supported as disbelief. I see both views as a matter of faith, an entirely separate concept from science. Science is based in reason and logic, but faith cannot be as we simply lack the base of evidence on which to support any argument.

Truly a lot of harm has been done in the name of God. But harm has been done in the name of science as well. Neither is intrinsically good or bad but it's what we do with it. I would say theism still has plenty of good to offer humanity, just maybe not in many of its currently popular (particularly radical and fundamentalist) forms.

__________________
"Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance. It is a species of intemperance within itself, for it goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A Prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded." --Abraham Lincoln

asaris

I've often said in these forums that the accusation that theists must be stuck in some sort of childish mindset is, at best, rude and bigoted. I'm not the stupidest person in the world, and very well educated, and I'm still a theist. I've met people far smarter than I am who are also theists. We could be wrong, but we're not wrong merely out of childishness or parochialism, and to accuse us of that simply reveals your own ignorance.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

Baraka_Guru

This is an important point, though I don't necessarily agree that it is childishness that leads one to this view.

Also, where do we draw the line between theism and religion? (Not all religions are theistic at their core; consider Buddhism.) To suggest something like theism needs to be eliminated smacks of thought control and/or oppression. This position is also unnecessarily confrontational and militant. To suggest that the only problems in the world are caused by theists is also a false view. Some great problems have arisen out of godlessness--sometimes under the facade of godliness.

But in direct response to the OP, I find it hard to accept a position suggesting that science has proven all of its claims. This can be a dangerous view, as science is not as concrete as people would like it to be. Alchemy was once a science, as was social Darwinism and eugenics.

If anything, we should try to look at the bigger picture and instead see how science interacts with theism. (They do on many levels.) Theism is not a denial of science, and science does not abhor theism. No. It takes individuals to do these things. Some of the greatest minds in history weren't only devout followers of God, some were also polytheists. If anything, theism should be regarded as philosophy. I would be wary of atheistic scientists who would do away with philosophy altogether. This would require erasing history and human knowledge.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Plan9

Why attempt to get rid of that which you personally don't believe?

"Ban the tooth fairy! Science has proven that parents leave the cash!"

The most scientific approach would be to leave all option open for everyone.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

Ustwo

No, theism won't ever be gone unless we somehow evolve away from the instincts which cause us to seek intent behind all actions.

Looking for intent is good for survival but allows us to believe some really stupid things.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Jinn

It's an interesting point, yet I personally believe that there is a link between ignorance and religion. That's not to say that I believe that all religious individuals are "stupid", but believing in a mythical creature proscribed by a book means that either (a) the person does not understand critical thinking, or (b) choses not to exercise it in respect to one or two things.

Some of the most "book smart" people I know are religious. I believe religion and intelligence co-existing in a brain only happens in one condition; b. In the case of b, they're well-educated individuals who understand how to think critically, and choose not to (for whatever reason).

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

filtherton

At some point in all sets of ideas critical thought breaks down- everyone chooses not to exercise it with respect to one or two things.

Ustwo

I'm not sure about that.

I am undoubtedly wrong about things, at least one or two, yet I never put my metaphorical hands on my metaphorical ears and do the intellectual equivalent of nah nah nah nah I don't hear you.

I may weigh some evidence higher than others, but I have logical reasons for it. If the evidence turns out to be wrong, its wrong, but its not for lack of critical thinking.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

filtherton

One doesn't need to put their metaphorical hands on their metaphorical ears to believe in the existence of god- for that to be necessary there would need to be some sort of proof that there did not exist a god- and that probably isn't possible.

Also, there are perfectly logical reasons to believe in the existence of a god- the concept of logic only speaks to an argument's consistency, not it's ability to withstand scientific scrutiny.

Ustwo

Faith in gods existence is by definition is taking off your critical thinking hat.

If you are an intelligent person, and believe in god, at least a god in anything beyond the most basic, no matter what your reasons, you took off your critical thinking hat and said 'it is because it is'.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Plan9

...

How is logic any different than religion, again? I'm confused.

Although I'm about as religious as a Britney Spears' underwear drawer, I see religion as a way to deal with logic other than "shit happens."

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

Willravel

No.

MSD

From what I've seen, I'm fairly sure that the tendency to be religious is, at some level, based on physical structures in the brain. I am certain that my brain is not "wired" for religious belief, but I'm quite certain that others (like my mother) are. I don't think that denying scientific evidence based on religious faith is rational, but on the other hand, I don't think that someone who accepts science and still believes in God is harming anyone, even himself.

filtherton

It is only so if you define it as such, in which case, i would be interested in reading your strict definition.

It is possible to use critical thinking to come to conclusions unsupportable by objective evidence. Everyone does it all the time, including scientists- string theory is a good example.

One might use their critical thinking abilities to come to the conclusion that the humanity's ultimate potential will come to fruition through some sort of libertarian utopia. Another person might use their critical thinking abilities to come to the exact opposite conclusion. Neither conclusion is really all that testable, but that doesn't mean that critical thought must have been lacking in their formulation.

albania

I think that the answer is probably no. For one I know plenty of intelligent people, that is people who have some natural talent in their ability to think, that are religious and sometimes very much so. On that front at least anecdotally I would say that being intelligent does not necessarily preclude one from being religious.

However, I think more convincing is the argument that religion is a living type of thought. One that evolves and some ways resembles an organism; this idea is directly related to the very popular(well at least among some circles) concept coined by Richard Dawkins called a meme. Just by the sheer number of people that believe in religion, it should be clear that only an ideological revolutionary event comparable to a 10km wide asteroid hitting the earth could wipe out religion. The truth is the scientific revolution has had it’s chance to completely wipe out religion but the best it could do was carve a niche out and coincide with it. As an aside France is a really interesting case for this; see the French revolution and the policies associated with religion and look how a couple of hundred years later the religion meme makes it’s way back in the different form of Muslim immigrants. There is a really interesting discussion of what this entails by Daniel Dennett(I believe I’ve already advertised him back in one of the threads about atheism). Anyway I don’t recall how much he discusses religion as an evolving phenomena in this video, but he does try to introduce discussion on how religion could be shaped(from an evolutionary standpoint) just like a farm animal to meet our needs. It's long and I think he builds up to the things that are relevant to the discussion. IMO, it's worth the look, plus, I think he has a really interesting point to make about skyhooks(idk if it’s a term he coined) which is somewhat tangentially related to this:

<embed style="width:400px; height:326px;" id="VideoPlayback" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=2393547403945995297&hl=en" flashvars=""> </embed>

Elphaba

An author that has my respect and has been generally acknowledged for his intelligence and great breadth of knowledge chooses to identify himself as a Christian. He spoke recently that our concept of a god is likely to be so much smaller than what may be the truth. He posed the proposition that "god" is *all* that there is. As difficult as that concept may be to comprehend, I think there is much for the "intelligent" person to consider.

I think that there is something far larger than our current conceptions of a god. The theists may sense that "something" and will not willingly throw their beliefs aside if they become a minority. For myself, I attempt to be respectful of all beliefs.

__________________
"You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

tiger777

The reason why religion still exists is because humans generally tend to follow their traditions. Therefore when a great deal of people are religious and have been for thousands of years and their parents tell them to believe in their religion etc, there's a high probability that child will follow in line. Also I don't think countries have sufficient teaching in areas such as logic, reason and critical thinking. They generally just try to feed you information and promote memorizing things rather than teaching the concepts behind them so you can logically come to conclusions of your own.

Also another problem is it is impossible to prove if God exists or does not exist. Independent reality isn't available to us since everything is subjective to us because we are stuck with the limited sensory ability we have. Objects come to us purely from our senses we would have no knowledge of them without our ability to perceive them. Just as when we listen to our ipod, the music comes from our ipod, it isn't the actual music it's just reenacting the event that it recorded with it's limited capabilities. Thus the true nature and reality of everything we observe and experience will forever be hidden from us because we are a slave to our senses. In the empirical world scientific explanations are the highest truth we can achieve. They don't necessary entirely explain everything but they are the best thing we've got to work with. Imagine we are a baseball mitt and there are balls flying around everywhere, we don't catch them all, some pass by our grasp due to the fact that our mitt isn't infinitely large, there are certain things we cannot catch due to our limited capabilities to do so.

Ustwo

I'm afraid this is just trying to find a place for god while being able to ignore the entire concept.

God/Gods have always been attributed to do things like change the seasons, make the sun rise, bring fertility, and such.

Science comes along and says 'umm not so fast'.

This then supersedes science by saying well 'god is the gravity, god is the sun, god is the rain, god is the, well everything, so god is all.'

But once you remove any real actor part on god, god just 'is' you have really eliminated the need for god. The universe would not change if the 'all god' became a 'no god'.

In a more devout time someone with this theory of sorts would be lumped in with the atheists. An all god isn't a loving god, caring god, or even vengeful god, its a meaningless god.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

jorgelito

There is no logic in theism, that is exactly the point. That is why it's called faith. They are two separate animals. I'm not so sure why people are so quick to assume that religious people are stupid, or unscientific or somehow inferior. Newton, Einstein, and countless other scientists were/are religious.

I don't think tradition is the answer either. My father is a top scientist in his field. Not one you would call stupid or dismiss. He converted to Catholicism even though no one else in the family was at the time. The other scientists in my family are Buddhist, Muslim, Christian (including Baptist, Evangelical, non-denominational) and yes, atheist as well.

Many of the doctors and lawyers, engineers and other 'intelligent" scientists I know are religious. Heck, my doctor and dentist are Jewish.

No, religion and science are not mutually exclusive.

Baraka_Guru

Would you say there is no logic in ethics as well?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

filtherton

Logic just speaks to the consistency of an argument. That's it. This means that there is logic in theism. There is logic in everything. When someone says that there is no logic in theism, what they're really saying is they reject the bases for the theist position. It is somehow a lot more desirable to dress this disagreement up as the result of some sort of conflict between superior and inferior logical capacities- but that isn't its true nature.

jorgelito

Good question Baraka.

Cop out answer: I don't know.

Short answer: Yes, I believe there is some sort of logic to ethics.

Filth, I am a little confused by your response, I think you may have misunderstood me. You may have to dumb it down for me if you don't mind.

My basic argument is I feel there is a clear separation between Faith and Science. That they can co-exist.

filtherton

It was more of a semantical quibble than anything. I agree with you on the relationship between faith and science.

cheetahtank2

First of all. Why? Not believing in something is no good reason to simply not want its existence why eliminate something that makes other people happy? That being said i am seeing a fine line that isn being recognized and that is the difference between Organized religion and theism. You can believe in a god without believing in a specific religion and everyone seems to be completely grouping those 2 things together. I agree that religion should be abolished but I also know that it never will. I feel it should be because since the begging of religion and civilization really religion has been the root cause for most of the wars in the history(not all). However, some people need to believe in something powerful and above them which is why religion will never die. Religion isnt all bad either it can teach some very good morals and lessons that can turn peoples lives around this why many help groups aer religiously based (AA and all such groups). So it wouldnt be best if atheism or thesim were eliminated the best option would be to have them in harmony with each other.

Ustwo

This discussion has really ventured into deism not theism.

A born again christian is a theist, as is someone who thinks god made the universe and left it on its own. A all theist is, is someone who believes in god a deist thinks of god as more of a force.

Deism is where worldly men (and for some reason its always men, I'm sure there are strictly deist women out there, but oddly I've never read anything about one) go rather than face atheism.

They are educated and intelligent enough to see the whole flowing robes vengeful yet loving, all knowing all doing god as the mythology it is, but its hard to completely give up what you were brought up as, and the concept that something has to be the cause of existence.

Personally I think its pretty weak, just pull the trigger, and quit trusting your 'gut' that wants to believe and go with what you are afraid is true.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

cheetahtank2

That is what i was trying to say about the fine line being crossed great example though and a much better way of expressing it.

Sedecrem

Hello all,
It seems i have opened a can of worms here and I would like to make some comments on quite a few of your posts however I will make them to you guys generally instead. So lets start at the beginning shall we?

filtherton

You mention the non-overlapping magisteria (that science and religion can occupy separate areas). Science deals with what exists based on evidence. If one then suggests that a God or Gods exist than that places the claim within the realms of science.

In regard to a later post, give me one logical reason or argument that can show that god exists.

Also: string theory is a theory that is highly debated in science and is mostly kept to the outskirts. String theory does sometimes seem illogical and that is why i dislike it. Because some scientists think this way with a lack of proof does not show that non-critical thinking can lead to truth.

Again: Theism is not consistent and its claims are indeed illogical.

n0nsensical

You seem to talk of belief and unbelief as both areas of faith. Faith relies on belief, science is based on logic, evidence and reasoning, there is nothing faithful about it.

Baraka_Guru

I must apologize that i said that science has proven all of it’s claims, mistake by me in the writing of my first point. I was trying to say that science, through the presentation of evidence, can show an alternate hypothesis to be so unlikely that it is essentially (though not) 0. I do accept that one can neither definitively prove nor disprove anything, however through evidence we can be pretty darn sure. I would not like philosophy to be done away with however philosophy and theism are completely different things. Theism makes claims that, see non-overlapping magisteria above, are within scientific realms. To me that is not philosophy. For your comment on Buddhism i would like to say this. Buddhists do not believe in a personal god but they believe in a god nonetheless and i would like therefore to include it in the category of theism. I realize that it has another name however i cannot think of it at the moment.

Crompsin

It is not about getting rid of it because i don't believe in it. My problem is that religion is taught as fact, unarguable fact. While the child eventually can discover the truth of the tooth fairy most children never discover the truth of theism.
In regard to a later post, logic involves thinking and reasoning, one plus one equals two, while religion involves the lack thereof, two plus two equals five if big brother says so.

Ustwo

You are a highly intelligent person and reading through these posts i can only congratulate you on your thinking and knowledge, well done.

MrSelfDestruct

How can someones religious belief that is only moderate harm someone? When someone is taught that unquestioning faith is the highest virtue than extremist activities are one of the only eventual conclusions. As for physical structures in the brain, how does that explain ‘conversions’ from faith to faithlessness.

Elphaba

Do we really need god if he is everything and impersonal, would that not be the same as having no god at all?

Tiger777

Brilliant.

jorgelito

You are misconceived to think that Newton and Einstein were religious however you are right to comment that logic and faith are quite different. Faith cannot exist to someone who has had their consciousness raised and if it does they choose it to be that way.

cheetahtank2

You are an optimist and not a realist. When people say, there must be something more to life they are grasping to irrational hope. Morals can be shown to be a Darwinian trait and do not come from religion, if you think they do you should read the old testament closely and find that the Abrahamic God is one of the cruelest characters of fiction ever conceived.
Reading on i found the word i was looking for in regards to Buddhism, deist or deism. Thank you Ustwo. Deism is a hypothesis that is pointless. If i were to say that (random example) beyond our planet there was another world on which lived a race of creatures that controlled our lives and made themselves invisible to us i would be making a pointless hypothesis. It has no evidence and creates more questions than it answers. The same is true with an impersonal god.

I hope these will get people thinking. Sorry if i have misread a post and made a comment based upon such a misconception. If i have been unclear please tell me and i will elaborate.

Look forward to reading more

Sedecrem

__________________
Faith is the surrender of Reason, that which separates us from the primates.

'Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?'
Douglas Adams

n0nsensical

There is nothing scientific about unbelief. Lack of evidence for God != evidence for lack of God.

__________________
"Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance. It is a species of intemperance within itself, for it goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A Prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded." --Abraham Lincoln

allaboutmusic

Surely it follows that you are placing faith in logic. What if logic has some flaw that we are simply too limited (as humans) to realise? For the purposes of this argument, you have faith that logic is the only way to truth.

We all exercise faith at some point. When you sit on a chair, you don't think about it - you simply have faith that it will support you. Of course, logic is involved too. It is a chair, from my experience other chairs have supported me in the past, it follows that this chair is likely to support me. Etc.

Can you scientifically prove that your significant other loves you? Sure, you may look for evidence, but to some extent you have to trust that they do. That involves faith. Or would you argue that love is a construct and due to its intangibility does not exist?

It seems to me that you are viewing the world through the eyes of logic the same way a theist might view the world through the eyes of faith. He/she thinks that you are missing the point by only seeing things through logic and not with faith, and you think he/she is missing the point by only seeing things through faith and not through logic.

Sedecrem

Humans thoughts are at their core based upon logic and reasoning. logic is in turn based on evidence, mountains upon mountains of evidence. faith does not enter into it.

As for the chair, i am not putting faith in it as i have evidence to provoke logical conclusions. i think you are maybe confusing faith, decision making without evidence or against evidence, and your chair faith, looking at the evidence, not being sure about the outcome but deciding on the best possible alternative based on the evidence. your chair faith is essentially logic.

I do however agree on your last sentence regarding the sum up of the debate, quite well done. it then comes to evidence supported logic vs non-evidential faith.

__________________
Faith is the surrender of Reason, that which separates us from the primates.

'Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?'
Douglas Adams

Terrell

I could care less whether theism lives or dies, so long as those who are believers don't try to force me to adhere to, or pay for, their religious beliefs. IF they can learn to live and let live, without interference in my life or choices, I can live with them.

filtherton

That's only if you accept the proposition that science is capable of explaining everything, i.e. that the realms of science are infinite, a proposition which has just as much a basis in science as a belief in god.

Axiom: The machinations of the universe are too complex to have come about on their own

Logical Conclusion: There must exist some creating diety

I'm not saying it's compelling, but it is logical.

String theory is exceedingly logical. It's all math. I think if you are going to frame your argument from a scientific perspective you'd benefit from refining your word choices. The word logical has a specific meaning and that meaning isn't "someone who comes to the same conclusions about the nature of existence as me". Logic concerns itself with the relationships between a series of statements and has nothing to do with whether the underlying assumptions of those statements are scientifically valid.

Furthermore, if you are going to allude to the concept of "critical thought" you should define it precisely, otherwise you aren't really making a "scientific" argument. I asked ustwo to do this above, but he apparently got too busy.

Only if you use your own definitions of the words theism, consistent and logic.

n0nsensical

They clearly have a lot of faith in their definitions.

Atheism is logical because it is and it makes sense because it does. Just look at all the evidence.

__________________
"Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance. It is a species of intemperance within itself, for it goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A Prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded." --Abraham Lincoln

filtherton

I would appreciate more definition in their definitions.

allaboutmusic

Faith is not necessarily without evidence. Many devoted theists will readily tell you about how God (or their idea of God) has saved them, brought them through situations where they feel they would otherwise be able to cope, or their faith came out as a result of some other experience. Sure, you could argue that they are deluding themselves, but as far as THEY are concerned (whether you agree or not), there has been evidence to support their faith.

(I'm not necessarily taking sides here, I just love debate and discussion)

By the way, does anyone else find it ironic that we are debating logic vs faith in a logic-based format?

jorgelito

This has been a great thread, thank you starting it/


Can you clarify please where I am misconceived in regards to Newton and Einstein's religious belief?

Newton was very religious as well as Einstein (he was also Jewish, a religion)

tiger777

Do more research before you start name dropping. Clearly if Einstein believed in some type of supernatural power it wasn't any God in any religion I've ever seen. It's clear many people misunderstand what Einstein is meaning when he uses the oh so loaded word God. He appears to use it to try to encompass the seemingly intelligent properties of the universe, the order and various universal laws that allow for life on earth to prosper.

"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts."

'The desire for guidance, love, and support prompts men to form the social or moral conception of God. … The man who is thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of the law of causation cannot for a moment entertain the idea of a being who interferes in the course of events. … A God who rewards and punishes is inconceivable to him … .'

'During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution human fantasy created gods in man's own image. … The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old concept of the gods. … In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God … .'

'Certain it is that a conviction, akin to religious feeling, of the rationality or intelligibility of the world lies behind all scientific work of a higher order. This firm belief, a belief bound up with deep feeling, in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God. In common parlance this may be described as "pantheistic" (Spinoza).'

And this came from a Christian site I think, so there! As for Newton you're correct he was religious.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...1/einstein.asp