einstein and free will

I read some things today on Albert Einstein and what his exact thoughts were on God. Einstein believed in causal determinism, the belief that every physical event in the universe has a direct physical cause, and this strict causation is brought about by the physical laws that govern the universe. God, Einstein believed, is the creator of these laws. To directly quote him, he believed in a "God who reveals Himself in the harmony of all that exists", "but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind." It is clear that Einstein believed in an impersonal Creator.

Einstein also expressed clear beliefs on the topic of free will. As he said himself, "I am a determinist. I do not believe in free will." In other words, Einstein believed that free will was truly an impossible commodity in the scientifically predictable universe which we live in. To a determinist, any argument for free will must somehow disprove the physical causality of our universe; the strict causality that is so often used to make valuable predictions, and on which most of modern science depends on. (I say most of modern science because the relatively recent field of quantum mechanics allows for unpredictability and true randomness, but at a level so small that its effects are completely negligible in arguments concerning human free will and brain function. And yet even if this randomness were to effect the universe at the level of human brain cells, it most certainly would not result in free will, only randomness. Free will is not about randomness. So while quantum mechanics does allow for a kind of break in the cause and effect process, it does not then follow that free will exists.)

On Einstein's beliefs, one writer put it best. "For some people, miracles serve as evidence of God's existence. For Einstein it was the absence of miracles that reflected divine providence. The fact that the world was comprehensible, that it followed laws, was worthy of awe."

Most, if not all, believers in free will believe that the mind, or soul, or consciousness is non-physical. But how can something non-physical affect something physical (your body) in a predictable universe? Is belief in free will any more logical than belief in the paranormal? Both claim that non-physical entities can affect physical ones. And if you believe it's very reasonable and rational to believe in paranormal activity, than maybe you belong in the Middle Ages.

by the way, the writer I mentioned is named Walter Isaacson. He wrote a book about Einstein entitled "Einstein"

Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.

- Thomas Jefferson


Thomas Jefferson is featured on the two dollar bill. I would strongly encourage everyone to start using it. Thomas Jefferson was a great man and I feel his importance is ignored in the fact that most, if not all, cash registers don't even have a place for them to go between the 1's and 5's. A lot of people don't know that they really aren't worth anything (more than two dollars, at least), or that the latest series is actually 2003. Some people may have never even seen one in person before. But I've been using them a lot lately, and you can too. It's real easy.

Go to any bank nearest you, I go to a local Bank of America (they usually have waaaay more in supply then the local TD bank, who never has more then four).

1. Ask them if they have any two dollar bills handy.

2. If they do, ask them for some.

3. Give them some of your money in exchange (preferably something other than two dollar bills).

4. Spend them all over the place.

Just think how cool it would be if two dollar bills became as common as the one dollar bill, then you could tell all your friends that it was all because of you.

I know this isn't a very philosophical post, but I still think it's worth posting.

what's good.......

Many people think morality exists independently of humans, and most of these people think it is in turn entirely dependent on God. This is a logical fallacy.

If you believe that morality, more specifically goodness, is entirely dependent on God, you believe first that God is good. You also believe that whatever God wills is good. This is circular reasoning, for God can only be called good if he wills for us to do whatever is truly right, and how can we be sure that what he wants is truly the right thing? "Because he is good." How can we be sure he is good? "Because he wills what is good." In this way, what God wills is entirely dependent on God's being good, but God's goodness is entirely dependent on what he wills. Whatever God commands is automatically right by definition, even if it is surely wrong in most human eyes. It becomes necessary that some other factor be involved - some outside source of moral reasoning to break the cycle. This is where human reasoning must come into play. All I'm saying is that any ruler can not call himself good by definition, but must be judged to be good by his people. Otherwise, all sorts of bad things could happen and still be called good.

One is left with two options, to believe that morality is dependent on both God and humans, or that morality is entirely dependent on humans. Of course one could believe that God placed a moral law within each of us, but we each still have to decide for ourselves which religion's god did so, and this leaves a large amount of dependency on humans. That's enough for one post. Here I come, extra credit.