All right, let's talk about this article from Life Science via Yahu News by Harry Baker, published July twenty one, twenty twenty three. Science supersedes creationism, Einstein said. Einstein tells religious students and newly revealed letter and this was a letter that Einstein sent to a teacher who wrote him has recently been put up for sale for a one hundred and twenty five thousand dollars. A teacher wrote Einstein and asked if he could tell them basically his thoughts on God and
how that coincidence was co exists with science. And Einstein responded saying, basically, that's sorry that science does not refute the religious attitude, but in a certain sense replaces and supersedes. Said he also had more to say, and he said, as long as the stories in the Bible have been taken literally, it was obvious what kind of faith was expected from the readers. If you are, however, to interpret the Bible symbolically metaphorically, it is clear.
It's not clear anymore whether God is in fact to be thought of as a person, which is somehow analogies of humans. In that case is difficult to sense assess what remains of the faith in its original sense, and this kind of echoes his thoughts about God and science from some other letters that he has as well. I'm going to kick it over to Cynthia first. Oh my goodness. So we are talking about some old letters that have been dusted
off from Antstein himself. And boy, did you say one hundred and twenty five thousand dollars is going off for sale? Yeah, give me ten percent pun intended. Well I'm goodness, but I'm gonna go ahead and after my terrible pun tao because you the residential cartoon that is south south South south south of US. What are your thoughts when you actually read the article? Oh yeah, this is one ainsting. You know, there's a mart dis guy
from their time. Apparently, I tend to fight against misinformation, so I always have to clarify a lot about Astain because many believers love to think that a Stay was quotation mark on their side, that he was a believer just like them, only because when asked about God, he answered that he believed in Spinoza's God. And if you know anything about Spinosa's God, that is just a very condescendant way of saying I don't believe in a God. Don't ask me stupid things. But yeah, it's like, no, God is
everything is the universe? Is everything that is around us? Is the matter is the universe. Yeah, it means I don't believe in a god. Guys, And yet this blitter Now it's it's interesting to read. I have spoken many times about that. That class where Ainstain supposedly said, oh, yeah, evil, it's just the absence of God in human's heart. He never said anything like that. Actually, a Instint was well known for rejecting the idea of a personal God. I got able to intervene or to you
know, interact with people, to hear prayers or all that. There was a letter written to the philosopher I'm going to badger this name Eric got Kined or got Kinds. In nineteen fifty four, Anstey wrote, the word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness. The Bible a collection of honorable but still primitive legends, which are nevertheless pretty childish. And the first thing that I read this was like, what anysty thing
in the same way that I do. Interesting except for the honorable part. I disagree with that, but that's it. We already know that Anstey was not a believer. We already know that he dismissed all the belief as legends and myths that shouldn't be taken seriously. Why do you still have to teach
people about these things? All right? Because we have to teach this to the same people who believe that there was a world flat, that the world was created in six days, and evolution is not real, those silly beliefs. I hope that they'll start reading this new letter from any Stein and they don't start trying to find an excuse to say no, no, no, no, when he's just lessing the creation, he's actually supporting the creation or something like that. You know how some people are, no doubt, It's
like they make up things to suit their own narratives. Who was clutching their imaginary pearls right now? Wash your mouth out with so I know, I know I'll go ahead and do that, But I'm going to let you go ahead and talk first, Infidel, before I go to the bathroom and do such thing. Well, you know, I first had to start off with admitting that despite the assertions and many theists I've come across, I don't have a shrine to science, nor no worship sciences prophets. I believe those behaviors
are the ones with God's prophets and empty promises. Now, Einstein did have a significant impact on this field, but he was one of many. I don't think any of us stop attending church because they learned about Einstein in school. For me, that was okay, okay, all of us probably accept
afia didn't quit going to church because of Einstein. But you know, it is interesting, as Teo noted that he really pretty much said that if you take it and remove literal faith, it's pretty much metaphors with nothing left, just stories and words without contact. Pretty much sounds like religion. Now, I have to admit he was a lot nicer in this letter to the religious
studies teacher than I would have been. To me. It would have been a very short letter and they probably wouldn't been able to sell it for anything because it would have just said your God is not real. But I did notice that Rob Nathan Rob he's the one as head of the curator of the one selling it says not only was this letter written Milbert Einstein, one of
the greatest figures and scientists of all times. It speaks of the ongoing powerful debate between science and religious I gotta say, I don't see a debate at all. This is not an echotomy. Religion may be literature or even sociological nature, but it's not even remotely comparable to rigorous science. Religion tells stories. Science observes and tests to find quantifiable data. I think it doesn't disservice a science and treat him the msique because for me, truth doesn't deserve myths
do not deserve a seat at the adult tape. Any thoughts, TEA, Yeah, I have a few, So you know, when I was reading this, I had a few thoughts, and one of them was that I don't want to commit an appeal to authority fallacy and say like this letter from Einsigin proves something previously improven or anything like that. But I will say that he in this letter he confirms and reiterates an important point that the goal of science isn't to refute religion, as many religious people think, it's simply by
its nature replaces it and supersedes it. Many religious people see science as antithetical to their faith and as an enemy or something they have to oppose. We see this all the time. I see this all the time with apologists accusing atheists or nonbelievers of scientism. You may have seen this, and having faith in things like the theory of evolution, you'll always see them say like, that's your religion, as you know, evolution science or something in the way,
the same way fanatical religious person I have faith in their belief. It just to show that religious people always see progress in truth as the enemy and always have. There's a large contingent of people who see such things as a theory of evolution as a devil's attempt to get people to lose faith in God instead of a true, verified, confirmed, factual theory based on scientific evidence. Yeah, I you know, it's it's kind of interesting. I was
just thinking about. I was in a let's like a debate show, let's call it that, in an informal debate with a colleague of mine concerning you know, some you know, political some political subject matters, and then we got onto the whole COVID nineteen debate and some of the different events that happened as as you know, vaccines were developed, and also congressional hearings about you know, did the coronavirus COVID nineteen specifically emerge from a lab in Wuhan,
or was this something that happened specifically in nature. And one of the things that I told the person that in my own research and listening to different sides of the argument concerning this whole subject matter, is that all the things that was specifically said about where this particular virus came from, versus who lied about it, versus who got big money from it, have not been verified.
So if they haven't been verified to be true with evidence, empirical evidence, why should I waste gray matter in believing it, believing the conspiracy theory. And I was told believe what you want to believe, when I was like, no, no, no, no, no, no no no. I don't do believe. I don't do believe. As my partner says, beliefs are for children who want to go see Santa Clause during Christmas. I don't do believe. I have I want to do things that have at have
been verified justified verification using fossifiable methods. That is what I And then once that happens, I can say if such thing is factory right, and I think that this is something that you know, we can take as far as like an aside when it comes to Einstein and other scientists too who happened to want to use data through methodologies with the scientific method per se, specifically in order for them to come to come up with testing hypotheses to see if they
turn into theories or if we can actually say that this is a law. You know, it never changes no matter what this is what it is like physical law. And one of the things that I would even say, even when I believe the person who wrote the letter their religious studies teacher who happened to be Jewish, I believe her name was Monk, Miss Monk, basically
say well do you believe? And you know he's like nah, you know nah, and and per se when he said, like, you know, super science actually supersedes creationism is because that a lot of things that we have attributed to supernaturalism, deities, God playing foot seas with us gets once we actually have like a natural explanation, it actually cuts out any type of God
or supernatural explanation for it. Uh And and so I don't and I know that like of course, especially being part of the ACA and listening to different people who have called into the atheist experienced talk heathen, and even true wanted that we still have folks who would equivocate atheists who happened to listen more so to a preponderance of science, more so than they would pass or a preacher
or even the Bible, that we're used in science as a religion. I was like, no, no, a science is not a religion, and atheism is not a religion. It's just a question to one to one thing, do you believe in a god or gods? And and the majority of us who you know, will say that, you know, based on a
lack of evidence to support a god of God existing, I don't. And and and in this particular case, when we're saying when I'm believing that, when Einstein is saying this that based on the lack of evidence, no, I don't. And especially I have participated in experiments that actually show natural reasons for things that we used to attribute to God. But I'm going to stop right there, because I'm not a scientist. I'm not even an Einstein at nine at nine nine, nine nine nine. You know, he did some
cool things. He had crazy hair like me. But at the same time, I didn't want to ask you, guys, because there was a specific quote that was in the article Cold that was attributed to another letter that's sign that he wrote, where he said that as long as the stories in the Bible have been taking literally, it was obvious what kind of faith was expected
from the readers. If you are, however, to interpret the Bible symbolically metaphorically, it is not clear anymore whether God is in fact to be thought of as a person and therefore not a monotheistic deity which is somehow analogous. And now and now I can never say that word analogious whatever analogy us I was so terrible. You're gonna fix that quote, Hinesight wrote in case. In that case, it is difficult to assess what remains of faith its original
sense. Now now when you all hear that, and I believe it was written, you know that was right before. Is this something that you agree with? When I can agree with Einstein and an if you do or don't, why or not? I'm going to start with, say on this go down a lot. I mean, yes, I totally agree with him. I guess I want to go with what the guy said about not being you
know, scientificist, like not worshiping people who were just smart. I mean, instant could could be saying, you know what, I see no evidence of God, but I'm a Christian. Therefore I believe in Jesus and that couldn't be evidence in favor of Jesus. So at the same time, he not believing like any perfectly rational being human being that small scientists are. It's just not evidence against God. It's just just means that believers don't have, you know, a false tool to say, yeah, I instant believed,
therefore us he was very smart. He this must be an evidence in favor of God. I like that we have the tools like this letter to say that's like, that's not true, because I guess we can understand that, Yeah, an instinct believing or not believing in God doesn't prove anything. But many people who are not very honest when they try to prove their existence of
their God. Do you not understand that? That's why I went to congratulate the guys who here who said that, yeah, they we don't worship anystect We don't. I personally don't really care much about these beliefs, but I like to know that we have this confirmation of what we already knew, that he didn't believe in any god or stuff like that. And I think I went to a tangent and I didn't answer your question. If I didn't, you can repeat it now. You're fine, Thank you, thank you.
I would tangents here. It's all good, tim What are your thoughts? Yeah, I mean, I think for a lot of people, and I know, especially for me leaving religion, the unraveling began with taking things metaphorically right. Well, I can't find it within myself to believe the sixth day creation account and to believe a lot of the stories in gener assist the flood. You start rationalizing around these things. Maybe the flood was a metaphor,
an analogy, a myth. You know what else was? You know, why wouldn't why wouldn't the resurrection of Christ also be an analogy, a myth, a metaphor. If this wasn't real, then can I call myself a Christian? You know, do I do I actually believe this? Do I actually believe any of this? I know for a lot of people, that starts the unraveling, And some people are very comfortable not thinking about this stuff.
I know, probably the majority of Christians, like ninety percent of Christians would probably say, you know, yeah, a lot of a lot of Genesis is metaphorical, but I believe in the resurrection of Christ, and they would find no inconsistency in that. I know that that's probably the majority of
Christians. They don't, they don't do a lot of thinking beyond that, and that's why they're still and that's why they're still Christians, because once you start applying critical thought to what can I even consider real about my faith,
it quickly unravels. Yeah, I was just gonna say, doctor, Doctor William Lane Craig says that, like, you know, he attributes like at least about a good portion of Genesis and a lot of the supernatural happenings of the of the Old Testament to myth or metaphor, but still believes that, you know, the death and the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and therefore that's why he's a Christian, even though like there's no there's like no good evidence
to even support a death and resurrection of any person. I don't. I don't care how many times that you may have watched like a video from the seven hundred Club that dies too. But I'm going to stop my rant, infidel you're not well. First, I want to say that you got me nervous there for a little bit because I thought you were going to say something like Santa wasn't real when you talked about your partner, and you did get
me more than a little bit unsettled. I'm so sorry, but I'm getting over and I'm a little emotional, but I can handle it, okay. But you know, it is a valid point because the truth is is that whether whether Einstein believed than twenty gods or no gods, it really doesn't have any bearing on me today. It is interesting, and I am glad that we see further clarification of his position being far more distant than the there's an attempt to rationalize things, but you know, for me, I wasn't raised
young Earth. I also knew evolution and I accepted evolution, and Timothy is exactly right, because you know, those things stood for a long time. But when I really started stepping back and going, Okay, if this isn't true, what else isn't true? And when you start taking more and more metaphor, you start having to ask yourself, you know, how do I you know, I don't have the lens that the magic lens. That what's Brigham Young? Not Brigham Young, the first guy, the Mormon guy who
had the gold goggles that translated the place. Yeah, Joseph Smith, thank you. You know, I just have problem with it. You know, it's written a book faith. What can I say? Now, if you look down at the bottom of the screen, it'll say infidel. Okay,
gotcha. So you know, maybe that explains a little bit. You know, at the end of the day, I do find this article interesting and definitely interesting to see where it goes and how people interpret this over the coming years, because it'll be viewed and analyze of death, because that's well what we do. But you know, as as Taoe, I think all of us have alluded to them some part, except Cynthia that you know, we
don't worship scientists, we don't pray to them. And even though I am lying when I say I don't have a shrine to Einstein, you know that's just not the way it goes. But I did find it interesting, I gotcha. Well, dear viewer and listener, if you do find what we say interesting and want to hear more, click here.