Today's Savage Mind

Why we are not as wise as we think we are.  Not observing patterns, loss of knowledge and the empirical method.

Comments and responses welcome.  

 

 

Views: 432

Comment

You need to be a member of Open Anthropology Cooperative to add comments!

Comment by M Izabel on March 19, 2013 at 10:26pm

Yes, you can also reconstruct the Homeric culture of Achilles, but if you include Greek gods and goddesses in that cultural reconstruction as if they physically existed, that is not anthropology or history but Greek mythology or literature.

Comment by M Izabel on March 19, 2013 at 10:10pm

What is fundamentalist is when you treat the Bible as an ethnographic text to prove the existence of God.  There's nothing wrong if your goal is to reconstruct the culture of Jacob, but if you put God in your reconstructed cultural history as if He existed and interacted with the people in the Bible (old testament), you're doing fiction. 

Comment by Alice C. Linsley on March 19, 2013 at 9:52pm

M,

Again, you fail to understand the nature of Biblical Anthropology. You assume that a scientist using the Bible to gather data about the ancient world is a fundamentalist. This is grossly illogical.

Comment by M Izabel on March 19, 2013 at 9:51pm

*I understand selective reading and interpretation is a method in your Biblical anthropology because you are out to prove the historicity of the Bible, but please don't peddle christian fundamentalism as anthropological knowledge.

Comment by M Izabel on March 19, 2013 at 9:39pm

Please read Einstein's writings and remarks about religion that are obviously godless--the absence of the anthromorphic God who is the center of christian belief.

Here's where you took that quotation from.  Stop being selective.   I understand selective interpretation is a method in your Biblical anthropology because you are out to prove the historicity of the Bible, but please don't peddle christian fundamentalism as anthropological knowledge.

Conversation on Religion and Antisemitism

See Bucky and Weakland pp. 85 - 87. This book contains the record of various conversations between Bucky and Einstein over a thirty year period.

BUCKY:

It's ironic that your name has been synonymous with science in the twentieth century, and yet there has always been a lot of controversy surrounding you in relation to religious questions. How do you account for this unusual circumstance, since science and religion are usually thought to be at odds?

EINSTEIN:

Well, I do not think that it is necessarily the case that science and religion are natural opposites. In fact, I think that there is a very close connection between the two. Further, I think that science without religion is lame and, conversely, that religion without science is blind. Both are important and should work hand-in-hand. It seems to me that whoever doesn't wonder about the truth in religion and in science might as well be dead.

BUCKY:

So then, you consider yourself to be a religious man?

EINSTEIN:

I believe in mystery and, frankly, I sometimes face this mystery with great fear. In other words, I think that there are many things in the universe that we cannot perceive or penetrate and that also we experience some of the most beautiful things in life in only a very primitive form. Only in relation to these mysteries do I consider myself to be a religious man. But I sense these things deeply. What I cannot understand is how there could possibly be a God who would reward or punish his subjects or who could induce us to develop our will in our daily life.

BUCKY:

You don't believe in God, then?

EINSTEIN:

Ah, this is what I mean about religion and science going hand-in-hand! Each has a place, but each must be relegated to its sphere. Let's assume that we are dealing with a theoretical physicist or scientist who is very well-acquainted with the different laws of the universe, such as how the planets orbit the sun and how the satellites in turn orbit around their respective planets. Now, this man who has studied and understands these different laws-how could he possibly believe in one God who would be capable of disturbing the paths of these great orbiting masses?

No, the natural laws of science have not only been worked out theoretically but have been proven also in practice. I cannot then believe in this concept of an anthropomorphic God who has the powers of interfering with these natural laws. As I said before, the most beautiful and most profound religious emotion that we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. And this mysticality is the power of all true science. If there is any such concept as a God, it is a subtle spirit, not an image of a man that so many have fixed in their minds. In essence, my religion consists of a humble admiration for this illimitable superior spirit that reveals itself in the slight details that we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds .

BUCKY:

Do you think perhaps that most people need religion to keep them in check, so to speak?

EINSTEIN:

No, clearly not. I do not believe that a man should be restrained in his daily actions by being afraid of punishment after death or that he should do things only because in this way he will be rewarded after he dies. This does not make sense. The proper guidance during the life of a man should be the weight that he puts upon ethics and the amount of consideration that he has for others. Education has a great role to play in this respect. Religion should have nothing to do with a fear of living or a fear of death, but should instead be a striving after rational knowledge.

 

Comment by Alice C. Linsley on March 19, 2013 at 9:17pm

A direct quote is not a misrepresentation.

Comment by M Izabel on March 19, 2013 at 9:06pm

Christians just love misrepresenting Einstein's remark to support their fundamentalist agenda.  I, too, believe what Einstein said about science and religion .  It is in religion where one can learn ethics and morality.  Science without ethics and morality is not only lame or blind but destructive.

Comment by Alice C. Linsley on March 19, 2013 at 8:48pm

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." --Albert Einstein, "Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium", 1941

Comment by M Izabel on March 19, 2013 at 8:37pm

Did you try this game called message relay in girl scouting?  That's the proof.  I think I'm more subtle by calling it oral history/story.  Einstein considered the Bible a collection of primitive, childish legends.

Let me preempt your reason that the writing of the gospels was through divine vision, inspiration, and revelation as if God dictated them to the evangelists.

I like what Szasz said:

"If you talk to God, you are praying.  If God talks to you, you have schizophrenia." 

Comment by Alice C. Linsley on March 19, 2013 at 8:25pm

I don't take criticism about my research personally, M.  However, I do question statements that claim universality such as this: "We all know how oral history/story is passed on, distorted, exaggerated, toned down."

 

This merely shows that you do not know what is being said in the field of Biblical Anthropology.

Translate

OAC Press

@OpenAnthCoop

Events

© 2019   Created by Keith Hart.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service