The student begins to explain.'You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don't have anything called 'cold'. We can hit down to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458 degrees. Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat.You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.'Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding like a hammer.'What about darkness, professor.. Is there such a thing as darkness?''Yes,' the professor replies without hesitation. 'What is night if it isn't darkness?''You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word. In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?'The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will be a good semester.'So what point are you making, young man?''Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed.'The professor's face cannot hide his surprise this time. 'Flawed?Can you explain how?''You are working on the premise of duality,' the student explains.. 'You argue that there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought.' 'It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it.' 'Now tell me, professor... Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?''If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do.''Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?'The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed.'Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?'The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has subsided.'To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, let me give you an example of what I mean.' The student looks around the room. 'Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?' The class breaks out into laughter. 'Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir.' 'So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?'Now the room is silent.... The professor just stares at the student, his face unreadable. Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers. 'I Guess you'll have to take them on faith.''Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life,' the student continues. 'Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?'Now uncertain, the professor responds, 'Of course, there is. We see it Everyday. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man.. It is in The multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil.'To this the student replied, 'Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light.'The professor sat down.If you read it all the way through and had a smile on your face when you finished, mail to your friends and family with the title 'God vs Science'PS: the student was Albert EinsteinAlbert Einstein wrote a book titled God vs Science in 1921.....
This is a miscellaneous collection of Einstein's thoughts about life and religion, and war and peace. In this book,an interesting picture of Einstein, as man, emerges.Einstein sees reason manifesting itself in nature and that an appreciation of this reality is to experience the mysterious. It is this experience that "stands at the cradle of true art and true science" he writes. While this, along with fear, gave rise to religion, Einstein's religious attitude is all about mystery and not, as he writes, "the fears of an absurd egoism of feeble souls." While the scientist "is possessed by the sense of universal causation," Einstein nevertheless taps into a religious feeling that "takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority" that "...succeeds in keeping [the scientist] from the shackles of selfish desire."Everything we have done as a human, Einstein writes, "is concerned with satisfaction of felt needs and the assuagement of pain." While, with primitive man, fear (avoidance of pain) is the primary religious force, more civilized religions move from fear to a "moral religion" that relies on and develops social feelings, and loves and cherishes the life of the tribe or the human race, or even life as such." In the reference to life itself, Einstein elsewhere seems to value not the tribe or humans per se, but the "life of all creation." Beyond fear- and moral-based religions, Einstein sees a "third state of religious experience" where science and religion are not opposed. Science feeds into and supports "a cosmic religious feeling" that is seen in Buddhism, "as we have learnt from the wonderful writings of Schopenhauer."Philosophically, Einstein is focused on the freedom of individuals to develop as creative personalities. Fitting into this picture of life is his recognition of the variability of human nature. "Nature distributes her gifts variously among her children," he states. Accordingly, he is skeptical of state power that interferes with individual freedom. Einstein sees the world from the perspective of the whole where all forms of egoism and its social cousins of tribalism, classicism and nationalism are kept in check. Happiness in a social context comes, he says, "through renunciation and self-limitation everywhere." Although only vaguely stated, this need to check the power of the part in deference to the good of the whole appears to be for Einstein a law of reason.Reflecting on this philosophical position, Einstein is also fairly clear that he divides life up between the forces of evil (money, greed, egoism) and the forces of good where "great and pure characters" produce "fine ideas." Money appeals to selfishness and abuse. On this latter point, he asks, "can anyone imagine Moses, Jesus or Gandhi armed with the money-bags of Carnegie?" Also scattered throughout these writings are Einstein's negative comments about war-like attitudes of state power and what he saw occurring in Germany. The exchanges he had with the Prussian Academy of Science regarding his resignation is particularly striking. Here and there, Einstein also makes practical suggestions to counter the abuses of state power. In these writings, Einstein is not particularly systematic. However, there is a comprehensive religious and philosophical worldview that is presented here and there in this book. That worldview is admirable and appealing.
What do You think about The World As I See It (2006)?
Couldn't really understand everything in the book. The language structure is little bit complicated. Maybe because most of the essays in the book are translated ! However I found the few ideas I grasped interesting. The one related to mandatory army service is new to me. Haven't thought about the issue like that before and I don't think it is too simple like that. 'To stop war around the world we need to fight the narrow nationalism and prevent the countries from having compulsory service in the army' This really simplifies the case. However it still needs to be considered in further readings. One more idea that really hooked me was about the economy; Real and apparent over-production. I always thought about that ! To have all the people work and unemployment to reach zero, for sure there will be an over production of goods which means that consumption increase and people will be busy consuming goods. High consumption rate will degrade humanity into materialistic society. The question I always asked; How to make everyone work in a society while producing enough good for everyone ?! I am still searching for a book that can answer that question !
—Mohamed
The book repeats itself all the time. It's a collection of essays, letters and speeches, and was no supposed to be a book from the beginning. Because of that, it doesn't work well as a book, and most of the essays say something that a previous one has said. The chapter about pacifism is utterly redundant, because he keeps showing his solution to war all the time.A nice book, tells us that one of the greatest minds of the twentieth century was a humanist, a pacifist, and his views about his scientific work and his life. Except for the fact that it wasn't supposed to be a book and wasn't organized as such.
—Italo
In the preface, J.H. writes that the purpose of this book is to give "a picture of a man [Einstein]" as opposed to the distorted view we might get from the media or the passing of time. Fine. Except there was nothing in this book that gave me a deeper sense of the man Einstein. Instead, I read 100 pages of formal statements to formal organizations. Very dry, with very little insight into Einstein's true, non-posturing self.The 'Introduction to Abridged Edition' further emphasized what kind of book this would be: Readers were not going to see Einstein the scientist. That material had been withdrawn. Instead, this would be a selection of his public statements, organized to convince the reader of one thing: that Einstein was a pacifist and believed in the rights of the individual. If you're looking for a paper trail to prove that Einstein publicly made statements about peace, then this is the book for you.Perhaps these formal statements would have carried more weight if they were interspersed with personal letters or diary entries? Readers would then have had a sense of intimacy with the author. As is, Einstein equivocates and almost begs you to undervalue his opinions.I'll give you an example. On page 69 Einstein is writing about the world economic crisis and says, "What I have to say is nothing new and does not pretend to be anything more than the opinion of an independent and honest man who, unburdened by class or national prejudices, desires nothing but the good of humanity and the most harmonious possible scheme of human existence."Aw shucks, don't mind him, he's just a simple guy with one man's humble opinion. Hmm. So why should his opinion be more persuasive or valuable than any other person's? Why should we care? I give this book one star because it never gave me reason to care.
—Matthew
