Nastavak teme
Citiram deo originalnog clanaka „Religion and Science” koje je Ajnstajn objavio u New York Times Magazine, 9. novmembra 1930, a koji je ponoovo stampan u „Ideas and Opinions”. 1945. godine. Ovaj citat, zapravo ceo clanak je uneti i u njegovu knjigu „The World as I see It” stampanu 1949. g, str. 24-28.

QUOTE
„ … if one wishes to understand spiritual movements and their development. Feeling and longing are the motive force behind all human endeavor and human creation, in however exalted a guise the latter may present themselves to us. Now what are the feelings and needs that have led men to religious thought and belief in the widest sense of the words? A little consideration will suffice to show us that the most varying emotions preside over the birth of religious thought and experience. With primitive man it is above all fear that evokes religious notions - fear of hunger, wild beasts, sickness, death. Since at this stage of existence understanding of causal connections is usually poorly developed, the human mind creates illusory beings more or less analogous to itself on whose wills and actions these fearful happenings depend. Thus one tries to secure the favor of these beings by carrying out actions and offering sacrifices which, according to the tradition handed down from generation to generation, propitiate them or make them well disposed toward a mortal. In this sense I am speaking of a religion of fear. This, though not created, is in an important degree stabilized by the formation of a special priestly caste which sets itself up as a mediator between the people and the beings they fear, and erects a hegemony on this basis. In many cases a leader or ruler or a privileged class whose position rests on other factors combines priestly functions with its secular authority in order to make the latter more secure; or the political rulers and the priestly caste make common cause in their own interests.”

Hugenot1 - Freelancu!

„I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being. (Albert Einstein)
” Ja sam vise puta rekao da po meni ideja o licnom Bogu je detinjasta, ali ne posedujem krstacki duh profesionalnog ateista cija revnost je prouzrokovana bolnim aktom oslobadjanja okova religiozne indoktrinacije sto je doziveo u mladosti. Ja vise volim stav poniznosti koji odgovara slabosti našeg intelektualnog razumevanja prirode i našeg sopstvenog bica. (A.A.)„ ”

>>>Moram da se zahvalim hugenotu1 na ovu misao Ajnstajna uz napomenu da drugi deo iskaza on slučajno ili namerno pogresno tumaci. Međutim, osnovno je da AA ne prihvata stavove nekih „profesionalnih” ateista, sto nije pandan i profesionalnim teistima. Jer, sasvim je izvesno, ateizam nije profesija, sto nije slučaj sa teizmom koji je lukretivna delatnost. Iz ove misli velikog naucnika, jasno je da on ne prihvata postojanje boga da je misao o bogu DETINJASTA.
-------------------

„I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know his thoughts. The rest are details. (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, 2000 p.202)
” Želim da znam kako je Bog stvorio ovaj svet. Nisam zainteresovan u ovaj ili onaj fenomen. Želim da znam njegove misli. Ostalo su detalji„
(A.A.)”

>>>Ova misao je izvucena iz konteksta i ne odgovara Ajnstajnovom uverenju da je bog fikcija. Jer, i ja bih, kao i ostali ateisti, voleo da znam kako je bog stvorio ovaj Svet??? Šta potkrepljujes ili dokazujes ovom Ajnstajnovom izjavom? Potvrdjujes njegov ateisticki stav.
----------------------

„I see a pattern, but my imagination cannot picture the maker of that pattern. I see a clock, but I cannot envision the clockmaker. The human mind is unable to conceive of the four dimensions, so how can it conceive of a God, before whom a thousand years and a thousand dimensions are as one? (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, 2000 p. 208)
” vidim model, ali moja masta ne može da zamisli tvorca tog modela. Vidim casovnik, ali ne mogu da zamišljam casovnicara. Ljudski um nije u stanju da pojmi sve četiri dimenzije, dakle kako može da pojmi Boga, pred kojim hiljadu godina i hiljadu dimenzija su kao jedno ?„
(A.A.)”

>>>Nemam komentar, sve je jasno da jasnije ne može biti. Još jedna potvrda Ajnstajnovog stava o bogu.
------------------------

„”I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.
(Albert Einstein, responding to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein who had sent Einstein a cablegram bluntly demanding „Do you believe in God?” Quoted from Victor J. Stenger, Has Science Found God? 2001, chapter 3.)
„ Verujem u Boga Spinoze koji otkriva sebe u slozenoj harmoniji onog sto postoji, a ne u Boga koji se brine o sudbinama i delima ljudskih bica” ( Odgovor A.A. rabinu Glodstajnu sto ga je direktno pitao: da li verujete u Boga?) A.A.„”

>>>Naravno, Spinozin (panteisticki) bog je bila priroda koja se iskazuje u skladnoj harmoniji onoga sto postoji, a ne u boga koji je zainteresovan za covekovu sudbinu …„ Dakle, jasnije ne može biti. Hvala, hugenot1, ustedeo si mi dosta truda oko prevoda.
-------------
...
”Ima još puno toga, ali šta možemo da kažemo?
A.A. nije hrišćanin a nije jevrejin po veri. Nije klasican ateista,
nego ispoljava atribute agnostika. Ponekad u njegovim spisima zvuci kao deista, a ponekad kao panteista...Ali ni u kom slučaju nije klasican ateista, a u svakom slučaju nije ratoborni ateista
( krstacki raspoložen ateista - kako on sam kaže)„

>>>I još jednom bi se zahvalio kolegi hugenotu1 na trudu. Ne želim da sporim njegov zakljucak o Ajnstajnovim atributima, ali u svakom slučaju imamo naucnika sa jasnim stavom da Boga, kao nadnaravnog bica nema i da je religija u ostrom sukobu sa naukom.

Na zalost, moram da konstatujem da neki diskutanti nisu procitali ili nisu razumeli šta je hugenot1 hteo da poruci sagovornicima. To se, naravno, odnosi na nepismenog ”komentatora„ – istrazivaca i Bengavog. Da su procitali, odnosno razumeli šta je hugenot1 zeleo da kaže, mudro bi cutali.
”

Bengavi: ne znam.

Kako ne znaš? Pa, to ti je peti stupanj reinkarnacije Bangavog kada se pretvara u dobar zalogaj svinjskog mesa pecenog na raznju. Za to su krivi oni neznabozci.