Is there an anthropic basis for the universe?

Sure, if science cant get to the bottom of infinity, get it nailed down, I'll accept whatever it delivers. Until then, all we can do is speculate.

Well, I would imagine science has a 'philosophy' about how it approaches things, what i mean it is that should avoid 'woo' and non falsifiable things.

I like pantheism because it doesn't conflict with science, yet it is compatible with eastern philosophy in those aspects of eastern philosophy that I like. But what pantheism doens't get into is reincarnation, an eastern philosophical concept which I do adhere to. But, believing in these things do not conflict with science, and are harmless. If since can disprove reincarnation, I will accept it's findings.

 

I think the actual quote is:
"I'm not an atheist, and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist... 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".

Spinoza saw "god" as an alternate term for "nature" - what exists.

Thus he studied nature.

 

I don't believe science can dodge non falsifiable things.

There are many ideas that aren't falsifiable. Then progress is made that allows better understanding.

I'm completely fine with what you are saying. There are lots of religious points of view that humans don't all share, and that has to be accepted.

I do object to falsifiable claims used to dodge science. There are things we know. For example, we know about vaccines, how COVID, measles, flue, etc., are spread - and it is an assault on the lives of humans to use falsified ideas to encourage people to refuse what is known.

 

Yeah, I was wondering about that, myself. I should think that at some point they are going to have to face the inevitable,
that infinity cannot be falsified and accept the 'possibility' there's something beyond physics going on behind it all, something deeper than the idea that mankind is nothing more than cells and molecules.

Not now, right? But they move forward anticipating at some future point they will be able to prove, or disprove, what currently is not falsifiable. But, I should think the aforementioned comes into play at some point.

Cool.

 

Thank you for this excellent quotation!!!!

I personally believe that Chaim Henry Tejman has learned a great deal from Dr. Albert Einstein and.....
Dr. Tejman believes firmly in a basis for LIFE and Intelligence.....

.... in Energy from Quantum Vacuum which I believe is the Original Energy that existed even before The Original Big Bang Event
which began the expansion of the universe or Multiverse?!

In chapter Thirteen of "Stephen Hawking's Universe".... that incidentally is entitled "The Anthropic Principle" Dr. Hawking postulated
an infinite number of Big Bang events going back into infinite time in the past.....

Chaim Henry Tejman M. D.'s entire website goes into that theme.....

https://www.grandunifiedtheory.org.il/Book7/Atom_shell.htm

 

We “Doc”Smith tackled this question back in the sixties!

 

In my view, Spinoza was a pantheist, but.....it's important to note that while these aspects align with pantheism, some scholars argue that Spinoza's views might be more accurately described as panentheistic (where God encompasses and interpenetrates the universe but also extends beyond time and space) or as a unique form of monism that doesn't fit neatly into traditional categories.

I think Einstein was more into the pantheist side of things because in that view, there is no conflict between a divine basis to nature and science. In short, whether there is, or isn't, a divine essence to nature, or what I call a 'spiritual basis to life', as long as it doesn't conflict with science, it's a harmless belief. And, since it, personally, gives me comfort, my view is 'why not'?

 

OK - Obviously, I wouldn't consider being derogatory of your religious beliefs in any way, and I believe you are comforted by your beliefs, as am I with mine.

However, I see no consideration of pantheism in Einstein's work, and there was (and is) plenty of room for that, as there were serious problems of the nature of the universe that he did not solve to his own satisfaction, nor has science done so since. Science is overflowing with unanswered questions. I see no sign that he is a pantheist.

The foundation of pantheism is that reality, the universe is a manifestation of a supreme being. The foundation of science is that we may meaningfully observe. I don't believe these mix well. The fundamental assumptions, methods, and objectives are all monumentally different.

 

WRM, that's not quite right.

Pantheism is a philosophical and religious belief system that identifies God or divinity with the universe and nature. The key point in pantheism is not necessarily that the universe is a manifestation of a supreme being (as in traditional theism, where God is a distinct, transcendent entity who creates and oversees the universe). Instead, pantheism posits that God and the universe are identical – that the universe, in all its complexity and vastness, is itself divine.

In my own take on this, I state it thus:

There is a spiritual basis to life, it's not a 'supreme being' but a divine essence that cannot be acquired by physical means, and is not falsifiable. One could argue it's 'woo' but it's harmless in that it does not conflict with science, and if any part of any religious philosophy does conflict with science, that part should be rejected.

The description of pantheism aligns closely with the philosophy of Baruch Spinoza, a 17th-century Dutch philosopher. Spinoza is often regarded as a central figure in the development of modern pantheistic thought.

Because of Einstein's concept of 'god' he describes thus:

"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."

Therefore, I found it logical to conclude that Einstein's religiosity is more on the pantheist side of things rather than that of Christianity and monotheism (or polytheism), in general.

In other words, contrary to your claim, pantheism and science can coexist nicely, neither interfere with each other. I think that is precisely why Einstein chose Spinoza.

 

That one sentence from Einstein doesn't convey that he believes what theists believe. He merely says that there is no god who interacts with us, and claims fealty to the idea that there is one substance of which all is made - called nature. (Spinoza called it nature and called it god - so it has more than one name, but still has the properties of nature.)

Since pantheism doesn't have to include ANY god (since nature is specifically stated to cover the subject), one can't assume that quote hinted of theism.

Are pantheism and science somehow in perfect alignment? I don't see an argument for that. For example, what does it mean for pantheism to have ideas of the Devine? Science doesn't account for a Devine. On this board we find people who conjure amazing ideas based solely on the view that nature is god, a god who acts in various way, usually undetectably. Of course, that's not Spinoza.

I'm not concerned about pantheism. I've spent little time studying philosophy. And, it's good that people are looking in all directions.

I do see Einstein as strictly following science, even though he was faced with monstrously difficult questions throughout his life - questions that a deity was frequently given credit. And, that was a direction he did not accept.

 

Nor did I make that claim. 'Pantheism" is NOT 'theism' or any other type of theism where there is a 'supreme being/creator'. there is no 'intelligent designer' in pantheism.

That IS pantheism, and Spinoza is considered one of the prime thinkers in the pantheist movement, though he probably didn't call it that.

Again, there is no traditional 'theism' in Pantheism. "pan' means the entire universe, and pantheism merely asserts that the universe is divine unto itself. There is no personal god or gods in pantheism, like there are in other theologies.

Pantheism has no orthodoxy, no congregation, no icons, no religious anything to it. It merely says that the universe is divine, nothing more, nothing less. It wouldn't change anything in science to believe it or not believe it. Some pantheists, like myself, add psychic lawyers upon it, such as reincarnation, out of body experience, things of this nature. But such is not central to pantheistic thought.

Einstein said his 'god' was the 'God of Spinoza'. The 'God' of Spinoza IS pantheism. It doesn't conflict nor interfere with science, which is probably why he likes Spinoza.

 

Great!

Anyway, I'm still suspicious, as per the -theism and the claim of being Divine, which to me means of, from or like God.

People suggest God has objectives, but I don't see evidence that the universe has such. Plus, suggesting that gravity, etc., are powers implies to me that they are being used to further an objective.

As for the Einstein quote, those who bring it up seem almost always doing so in order to claim that a smart scientists can believe in God.

Otherwise, why the heck would it be brought up so much?

Nobody needs Einstein to note that strong scientists can believe in a god of almost any definition. Being religious doesn't mean that one can't strictly follow the definition and methods of science.

 

Think 'divinity' instead of 'divine', think 'creativity' instead of creator. Think adjectives instead of nouns, which imply personal Gods. Life has the quality of divinity, creativity, there is no one 'divine super being', or 'intelligent designer'.

Correct, and that is why Einstein picked the Spinoza idea. There is no 'god', not in the traditional, patriarchal sense.

They don't use the Spinoza quote, they use the 'God doesn't play dice' quote. But, Einstein cleared up what he meant by 'God' and thus referred to Spinoza. It suspect it was a kind of backpedal.

A misunderstanding by Bible thumpers to give credence to their ID beliefs.

Well, Einstein is the most notable.