Agnostic.com
You must be a member to visit this group

11 13

In this age of instant information, it’s easy to fall down the google rabbit hole. Example: I wanted to know what Einstein meant when he said he believed in the god of Spinoza. Wikipedia (not perfect, I know) provided this answer: [en.m.wikipedia.org]

Now I must find information on Newton’s “First Cause, the French “Man Machine”, and Shelley’s “The Necessity of Atheism”

The one thing about diving down a rabbit hole, you won’t find Alice but you’ll find an endless trove of more information!

HelenRoseBuck 6 July 19
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

11 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

This is why I blow off those who tell me provide links and so-called proof. No. If the listener thinks I make a certain point it is their job to research it to their satisfaction. This is how philosophy works (or doesn't, as the case may be). Proof is a concept of Justice, not a coping mechanism, which itself is an outgrowth of interaction. Base one's actions on kindness and Justice is not needed.

1

It seems to be going around...
Interesting that Sagan also made reference to the god of Einstein and Spinoza.

[agnostic.com]

.

skado Level 9 July 20, 2021
0

And sometimes its a good movie, and sometimes I kick myself for not pushing the "delete"

2

Part of this is the information age where everything out there wants a click or like and some of the rest of it is in how your browser is set up and reacts. If you look this all up will you be more informed? Maybe so, and maybe not. You may have also gotten away from your very first question.

0

actually wickipedia is not a valid resource for research too many inaccuracies

she knows

This can be said of any reference other than one's own mind. When nothing has ultimate validity then everything is a guess.

4

It is an issue which a lot of people have spent a lot of time on. But consider for a second that. Firstly Einstein may not have been all that familiar with Spinoza himself. And secondly that he may just have made it up as an easy dismissive answer, to what he thought of as a boring and pointless question.

In other words, that even if you are a world renowned genius, it does not mean that everything single thing you say, is of great cosmic importance, and the result of deep long thinking. Especially as having a reputation for being a world renowned genius, gets you repeatedly pestered with what, you yourself, regard as trivial vexing questions, so that having an easy dismissive answer for fools, so that you can then move on, is handy.

3

It's the god you're having when you're not having a god.

3

This is why I enjoy working at a liquor store in one of the bad parts of town. You never know where the experience will take you. Google is just a non-alcoholic trip.

6

In my mind the God of Spinoza is nature and simple indifferent cause and effect with no mind, no ambition and no “plan” of any kind but constantly changing. Spinoza would disagree, but I think most people would think of it that way.
Spinoza was a philosopher so there’s way more to it but functionally I see no contradiction between the end result of my definition and his but my definition is simpler and less confusing since he talks about substance mind and infinity so as far as I’m concerned he over thought the concept, an occupational hazard in philosophy.
That’s why you never hear about Spinoza unless you’re a philosophy nerd or someone is talking about Einstein. Einstein made Spinoza famous, it would have been better had Einstein just been honest and come out as the atheist he was.

I do not interpret him as an Atheist. He seems to be more of a Deist, in my book, with a loose concept of what God was to him.

@rainmanjr You may be right, but since neither his belief nor anyone else's belief actually has anything to do with reality I find it easier to just assume he was an atheist, not that it matters but if he wasn't an atheist then I may be compelled to analyze irrelevant bull shit, this way I don't have to give it a second thought which is healthier.
It's like the stupid arguments of what the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the constitution, when in reality what they had in mind is irrelevant, it's our constitution to interpret based on the needs of modern life today.
Einstein was correct about relativity, it may not be the whole story but it got us most of the way there. Why would anyone give a flying F about his ideas on God?
There are of course historians that want to get a holistic sense of the man, I can understand that, but I'm not that interested in biographical history, I read the biography of Wernher von Braun who was a hero to me when I was ten, only to realize he was an amoral Nazi asshole even though the book went beyond whitewashing his indifference to human suffering and his assistance to Nazi Germany.
Frankly the worst part of history is the people, the only portions I'm personally interested in are the facts and implications of their discoveries, the people themselves are irrelevant.

4

You’re not pulling ME into that hole with the link; I have spent too many a day in that trap.

3

I sometimes go down the rabbit hole. I don't like search results from yahoo.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:610500
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.