I’ve been reading The Portable Atheist lately, and i’m enjoying it quite a lot. It’s basically collection of writings from throughout history on the topic of non-belief.
At the risk of igniting a new string of impassioned comments, i’d like to just point out a couple of things i saw in the text:
1. Albert Einstein called belief in a personal god “childish”.
2. Sigmund Freud, the father of psychology, called people who believe in a god “illusioned”, and suggested that they could also be referred to as delusional.
Wednesday, September 16th, 2009 10:32 am • books, religion
RSS 2.0 feed •
leave a comment •
trackback
September 17th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
Emphasis on PERSONAL. Einstein said “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.” Of course, Einstein also didn’t believe in a random universe, where God “plays dice.” He’s kind of got that going against him.
Sigmund Freud isn’t the father of psychology in the sense the term is usually used (that’d be Wundt, though he’s not alone) – you could call him the father of psychoanalysis if you want, though. I think you meant that he’s an ‘important figure’ in psychology, but in reality, he’s kind of a hack. Most of his theories have been debunked.
I’m just saying: don’t accept or flaunt a great man’s opinion if his opinion has no more authority than yours. I would especially warn against it if the man wasn’t as great as you thought (Freud’s theories were wrong, and unlike many scientific theories, didn’t help build other ones. Einstein was kind of a jerk to his family).
I CERTAINLY wouldn’t use these statements to make any sort of case!
September 19th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Um… Sigmund Freud was a nutcase. Just sayin’.
September 29th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
I agree totally with D&. Einstein was one smart dude, but he doesn’t know any more or less about God than you or than the Pope or than Hitler or me.
Pulling out quotes from someone else referencing what they say about people doesn’t make it any less disrespectful. It makes it targeted and hurtful. “See? You ARE a fool! Einstein said so!”
September 29th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
I guess I’m just not really sure what the point in pulling those quotes out and referencing them is. Point taken. Freud thinks I’m off my rocker. He also thought that all children have sexual feelings for their mothers.
September 29th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
Your RSS feed must not be kicking out correctly or I would have been here sooner.
It’s not putting words in your mouth. If it is, please tell me what you intended to say by using these quotes. I’m not understanding how else to read it.
September 29th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
My point is that nobody writes those guys off or thinks they were stupid just because they said offensive things. I guess i was wrong, though, since it seems most people fail to acknowledge the great things Freud did for the field of psychology.
September 29th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Mmkay. That wasn’t clear in your post, so it reads like, “See, these dudes agree with me.”
An another topic, not really brought up here, but from other posts: Offensive doesn’t always mean wrong. But it is still hypocritical to call Christians fools unless you’re okay with them saying the same to you.
September 29th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
Clearly, you know that posting these two quotes out of context and without explanation would elicit a response. You even said it would.
My point was not to write anyone off. I don’t think that anyone is stupid, nor did I say such a thing. My point was to respond to your opinion with mine.
September 29th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
You say you’re not trying to be offensive – but how would you feel if I suddenly put up a few quotes from “respected” sources condemning/insulting atheists? You’d be hurt and you’d likely have some choice things to say to me. I don’t get how it’s okay for you to say things like that if you’re so against anyone saying anything against your beliefs (or lack thereof). You know I love you, but you’re being rather hypocritical, and by quoting those quotes, you clearly believe what they are saying – so you’re calling the rest of us childish, delusional fools. I’d like to think I’m not either of those things.
Freud’s net contribution to psychology was essentially nil – sure, everyone knows who he is, and what his whacked out theories were, of which no prominent psychologists take ANY stock in these days. Einstein was brilliant, yes, but like Cat said – he doesn’t know everything. You can’t prove faith, like you can science. If you could, that would negate the entire purpose. The whole point of faith is that it CAN’T be proven – you just have to believe. Maybe you think that’s dumb, and that’s fine – but you don’t need to outright insult it. Especially since all I hear is how persecuted and misunderstood you feel atheists are. You aren’t dialoguing – you are picking fights.
October 8th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/quotes.asp
November 1st, 2009 at 6:46 pm
Steph, I’m going to “side” with you, so to speak, though I know this post wasn’t intended to galvanize. I think Freud and Einstein were pretty smart men, and offering their opinions on religion is just as valid/important to atheists as the offering up of various religious celebrities’, George Bush’s (haha, ok that was meant to be mean) or other world leaders’, or religious figures’ views is to apologists. I mean, if I were trying to defend belief in god and quoted Oprah affirming a belief in god (I have no idea if this is true, just an example), what percentage of religious people would point out that her opinion is no more valid than that of the the gas pump guy down the street? What percentage of atheists would? Commitment to objectivity is hard to spread around evenly, even in a strictly scientific setting, but it’s especially important to recognize in social/moral/theoretical debates such as this.
So I find it interesting how one’s belief system can lend an invisible bias that really exists by silencing criticism unless one is examining the other side’s “evidence” or “points” – here some people are being so, 100% objective as to give you and me equal authority on whether or not god exists as the guy who basically invented quantum mechanics and the father of, let’s say, psychoanalysis. And sure, why not? – from the perspective of a religious person, someone who’s had formal religious training is far more qualified to make such judgments, while from the atheist’s perspective, surely someone who’s spent years of his adult life contemplating the nature of the universe (scientifically, and almost mystically – that is, able to look beyond seeming contradictions of common sense in search of truth) is equally, if not more (for demonstrating such laudable objectivity) qualified. Having studied psychology extensively is even more loaded as a qualifier, in my opinion, because it implies some psychological aspect to faith, whether it’s simply an inclination of human nature/emotion to seek out or believe in a god (whether or not it exists) or, carrying it even further, that man “needs” god so much (“the god gene”, for example, or the need for some element to morally organize societies and establish accountability) he’ll actually invent one. I can definitely understand why I think it’s so important for someone to fully understand these aspects of human nature, really see them stark naked for what they are and then find and acknowledge them within oneself, before one can really make an educated and full opinion on religion. And I can also easily see why religious people would likely be offended by this – the insinuation that belief in god hinges in the brain and emotions, not the heavens and fact.
Wow, ok, so this is far too long but my point is, people tend to be objective when criticizing other’s viewpoints, but not one’s own. We can learn from this and I hope play devil’s advocate with ourselves sometimes, striking down the weaknesses in our own justifications to our opinions, reasonings, lifestyle, choices, whatever.
This also lends itself easily to vegetarianism. Are you still? I went vegan, then started a few forays into yogurt and meat, think I’ve cut out the meat though. I encounter plenty of disparate opinions regularly working at the co-op!
Miss your intellectualism and delightful sense of aesthetics, but happy I can e-stalk you
I’m very glad to see you this happy. Congrats on what seems to be a sweetly balanced life!
November 1st, 2009 at 6:57 pm
hmm, just read Kelly’s response and have a couple responses to it myself. (I totally don’t mean to pick on you! Just made me think).
so (1) she says, “by quoting those quotes [...] you’re calling the rest of us childish, delusional fools.” I understand that this is probably how it feels, and also that while this is not Steph’s intention, sometimes “angry atheists” (or angry/frustrated whoever-of-a-distinctive-opinion) does have the intention to make someone feel “stupid” when such a quote is referenced. But – WHY is feeling ridiculed a possible outcome, if the “ridiculed” don’t give the persons quoted much credit? If you think Freud and/or Einstein are bunk, then feel free to ignore their opinions. When I hear opinions contradictory to mine from sources I consider unintelligent or just not the right authority, it doesn’t offend me, at least not in the sense that I’d feel silly or put down. Maybe I’d be frustrated at the bad choice of reference. So even if you consciously debunk these dudes, somewhere in you is a sort of reverence or respect for them.
and (2), she also says (and I think this is particularly insightful), “You can’t prove faith, like you can science. If you could, that would negate the entire purpose. The whole point of faith is that it CAN’T be proven – you just have to believe. Maybe you think that’s dumb, and that’s fine – but you don’t need to outright insult it.” This, to me, gets to the root of why maybe deists and atheists will never fully reconcile: the former consider it a matter of faith and NOT fact (therefore never provable), so there is no point in debate (and those who let it rest and stay a matter of choice or faith: I think that’s a nice, peaceful, mature way to be). But the latter? It’s simple fact, logic, and science. Of course faith can be prove or disproven or at least heavily hypothesized and tested within that perspective. These two groups don’t even agree on the nature of religion or whether or not it can be analyzed decisively. They’re speaking two different languages and not attempting to translate the incoming messages, which do seem to be off target, no? (Exceptions: ID’ers, who seem to mix up the two categories – “god does exist AND it can be proven” – and apologists, digging up their carbon dated sea scrolls and marking off floodlines, etc. I don’t know of any atheists who claim atheism is not based in fact, but in faith/choice/emotion/feeling, but maybe they do exist).
Forgive my verboseness!!