getfunked said:

1725topp said:

I'm amazed at how many so called smart people can't read. Are you just going to ignore the direct quote of Einstein on the same page?: "I am not an Atheist." These are Einstein's words. So, I ask, again, can you not read? Additionally, even though Einstein states that he is "fascinated by Spinoza's Pantheism," he also states that he does not know if he can "define [himself] as a Pantheist." Again, these are Einstein's words. Based on these two quotes, which are, again, Einstein's own words that you so conveniently ignore/omit, there is nothing about my criticism of Natarajan's point that is "uncharitable" or "misplaced." Secondly, I never used the word "religion" or "religious;" I used the word "god," which is the word used by Einstein, himself. Now, I don't know why you so desperately desire Einstein to be an atheist, but, if you do, your problem is with his words and not my "restating" of his words. So, yes, based on this page and the full collection of Ideas and Opinions, Einstein did often admit to the probability of there being a deity. And just a final point/quote from this same page that you have erroneously misquoted or shall I say omitted information in an act of card stacking that no real scholar or objective critical thinker would do, Einstein states: "I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil. His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking, but by immutable laws." While one could argue that this quote shows Einstein leaning toward Pantheism, the problem with that argument is that Einstein clearly makes his "god concept" a singular being that is something separate from the universe who seemingly created the laws by which the universe is governed. Furthermore, the pronoun "his" is replacing the noun/antecedent "God," not universe, not religion, not spirit, not spirituality, but "God," showing that Einstein is open to the probability of a "God," just not a "God" of orthodox religion. So, this clearly shows that Einstein is not a Jew, Christian, Muslim, etc., but it shows that, again, Einstein is open to the probability of a deity. So, do me a favor; next time, act like a real scientist/scholar and research all the information before trying to disprove anyone.

Irony much? I didn't say he was atheist, nor that I desire him to be so... and neither it seems did Natarajan, he was speculating about how a god with agency could maximally fit into einstein's view (just in theory).
Quote: I said '... at most agnostic leaning towards atheism'

When I was talking about the use of the word religious I was referring to Einstein's own usage when describing his awe about experiencing reality (". If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it", "Scientific research can reduce superstition by encouraging people to think and view things in terms of cause and effect. Certain it is that a conviction, akin to religious feeling, of the rationality and intelligibility of the world lies behind all scientific work of a higher order... This firm belief, a belief bound up with a deep feeling, in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God. In common parlance this may be described as "pantheistic" (Spinoza)". And while at that, it seems too much deistic weight is placed on his use of the word 'God'. He isn't necessarily talking about some intelligent agent having designed the world, he's talking about 'god' in a more ambiguous sense. And I'm not sure what you mean by saying I omitted that quote on purpose, you are pretty much just reiterating what I'm saying. Namely, all I mean to say is that a tendency towards spinoza's god vs a personal god doesn't necessarily mean he believed in a deity. He's talking about nature itself here, he says he's referring to nature and 'god' as one thing. In any case this is far from saying that he believes in the probability of deities, quite the opposite. He was at most unsure about deities, but revered the workings of nature in a 'god'ly manner.

*

Yes, but how can Einstein be "leaning toward atheism" when Einstein, himself, states "I am not an atheist"? That's like someone saying, "I can see existential elements in the universe, but, as a believer in the existence of a God, I cannot embrace existentialism as a true, correct, or complete theory of the universe," and then you coming along and saying that person is "leaning toward existentialism." And, yes, you omitted that Einstein, himself, stated that he was not an atheist. If you state that Einstein was "leaning toward atheism" but do not provide that Einstein stated that he was not an atheist, then you are engaging in card stacking because you are omitting information that can refute or contradict your assertion.

*

Next, while Einstein is discussing nature, itself, as being divine, he also asserted several times, based on the quote I submitted and other writings/interviews, that he was open to the probability of a God--a singular being separate/apart from nature--that created the laws of nature. So, if some "thing," whatever it is, created the laws of nature, meaning that it is separate and apart from nature, that "thing" is, by definition, a deity. And, again, while he was "fascinated" by Spinoza's God, he never embraced Spinoza's God or Pantheism over the existence of a singular entity that created the laws of nature, making that entity a separate thing from what "He/It" created. Again, Einstein's words are "His universe" or "God's universe"--that "thing" or "power" being something separate from what it created, making it a deity. I don't deny that Einstein "revered the workings of nature in a godly manner," but he also clearly accepted the probability of a deity that created the universe and its laws by putting the "universe" in the possession of the "thing" that created it--"His universe."

---

Yeah, yeah....this is all fine and wonderful, but the real important question regarding Albert Einstein is "if he were alive today could he get funky?"

---

I don't particularly care for the science bashing or the rants against the music industry or any of the negativity. I much prefer the happy, positive "black, white, Puerto Rican, everybody just a freakin" Prince over the "Chuck D to the Nth degree" Prince. But also I don't understand how anyone can not be seduced by the sheer uber grooviness of "2045: Radical Man." That's something that baffles me far more than all of the kooky craziness of quantum mechanics.

---

[Edited 11/25/14 22:33pm]

TheBoneRanger said:

---

Yeah, yeah....this is all fine and wonderful, but the real important question regarding Albert Einstein is "if he were alive today could he get funky?"

---

I don't particularly care for the science bashing or the rants against the music industry or any of the negativity. I much prefer the happy, positive "black, white, Puerto Rican, everybody just a freakin" Prince over the "Chuck D to the Nth degree" Prince. But also I don't understand how anyone can not be seduced by the sheer uber grooviness of "2045: Radical Man." That's something that baffles me far more than all of the kooky craziness of quantum mechanics.

---

[Edited 11/25/14 22:33pm]

*

Ironically, Einstein was viewed as one of the more hip scientist who was actually pretty in-tune with popular culture. I'm not sure that he could drop it on the one, but when African-American contralto Marian Anderson was one of the biggest singers of their day and was still not allowed to stay in "white only" hotels even when she was booked to sing at some of the most prestigious concert halls, such as the Met, Einstein regularly had her stay at his home. Einstein was also an associate of noted singer, actor, and Civil Rights activist Paul Robeson, and Einstein called racism "a disease of white people," which means that Einstein's rhetoric was not too far from "2045 Radical Man" though I don't know if Einstein would approve of some of the lyrics from The Rainbow Children, even though I think that Prince's lyrics are far from being racist as many on this site have asserted.

*

Also, I can't disagree with you for liking what you like. We all have sounds/genres and themes/subject matter that move or interest us. So, if you like the more multicultural/integrationist themed songs by Prince, that's understandable. However, my question is: how is it "negative" for an African American to comment on the injustice done to African Americans? It's one thing if you assert that, when Prince takes a more Black Nationalist or Black Power position, those songs tend to be not well-crafted, especially if one then presents other Black Nationalist or Black Power themed or position songs that are well-crafted. But, to say that they are negative merely because Prince is commenting on injustices seems to imply that African American artists should never use their art to discuss what they perceive as their socio-political plight or reality or it seems to suggest that Prince should be this one-dimensional being that has no varying notions or ideas about various topics. Even Martin Luther King, Jr., stated that riots are the response of the unheard, and he also stated in his book, Where Do We Go From Here, that "often the Negro is integrated out of power" and "I may have integrated my people into a burning house." So, here is a man loved for embracing non-violence and his pursue of equality and "integration" acknowledging (not promoting) that violence is natural to the oppressed and questioning whether or not integration is the best course of action for African Americans. I see this as a natural reflection by any human being attempting to understand the complex world in which we live and being open, at least, to examining various ideas and solutions, and I would expect this diversity in thought from anyone, even Prince.

1725topp said:

Yes, but how can Einstein be "leaning toward atheism" when Einstein, himself, states "I am not an atheist"? That's like someone saying, "I can see existential elements in the universe, but, as a believer in the existence of a God, I cannot embrace existentialism as a true, correct, or complete theory of the universe," and then you coming along and saying that person is "leaning toward existentialism." And, yes, you omitted that Einstein, himself, stated that he was not an atheist. If you state that Einstein was "leaning toward atheism" but do not provide that Einstein stated that he was not an atheist, then you are engaging in card stacking because you are omitting information that can refute or contradict your assertion.

*

Next, while Einstein is discussing nature, itself, as being divine, he also asserted several times, based on the quote I submitted and other writings/interviews, that he was open to the probability of a God--a singular being separate/apart from nature--that created the laws of nature. So, if some "thing," whatever it is, created the laws of nature, meaning that it is separate and apart from nature, that "thing" is, by definition, a deity. And, again, while he was "fascinated" by Spinoza's God, he never embraced Spinoza's God or Pantheism over the existence of a singular entity that created the laws of nature, making that entity a separate thing from what "He/It" created. Again, Einstein's words are "His universe" or "God's universe"--that "thing" or "power" being something separate from what it created, making it a deity. I don't deny that Einstein "revered the workings of nature in a godly manner," but he also clearly accepted the probability of a deity that created the universe and its laws by putting the "universe" in the possession of the "thing" that created it--"His universe."

Do you mean to say that stating you're not something and leaning towards it are mutually exclusive... ? Also, if we're going to take every single Einstein quote as some sort of QED then you might as well stop your whole argument against his pantheism after 'I believe in Spinoza's god'. But, as you say, there's obviously more to it. BTW, I'm not saying Einstein was a pantheist either, only that his tendency towards something like pantheism, as he talks about multiple times, doesn't indicate a belief in the probability of deities. Given his determinism and discussion of pantheism, at least to me, it seemed that Einstein took a more atheistic view about whatever could have been the First Cause or the ever-ambiguous 'God'. Doesn't exclude a First Cause, but doesn't also have to include deities.

As far as the implication of your analogy that Einstein saw the hands of creation in the universe or whatever, again you're missing the point about the ambiguity of it. There's a lot of muddling going. How can you assume he was speaking about some deity/intelligent agent every time he uses God or some pronoun thereof, especially given his other statements about how he doesn't assign any inherent conciousness to nature? He's just unsure and he's not ruling out deities, but at the same time is trying to describe some mysterious aspect, and maybe God was the best word or concept he could characterize that with. Again, it's jumping to a conclusion, based on his other statements, to say he's talking about an intelligent designer when talking about God.

[Edited 11/26/14 9:23am]

getfunked said:

1725topp said:

Yes, but how can Einstein be "leaning toward atheism" when Einstein, himself, states "I am not an atheist"? That's like someone saying, "I can see existential elements in the universe, but, as a believer in the existence of a God, I cannot embrace existentialism as a true, correct, or complete theory of the universe," and then you coming along and saying that person is "leaning toward existentialism." And, yes, you omitted that Einstein, himself, stated that he was not an atheist. If you state that Einstein was "leaning toward atheism" but do not provide that Einstein stated that he was not an atheist, then you are engaging in card stacking because you are omitting information that can refute or contradict your assertion.

*

Next, while Einstein is discussing nature, itself, as being divine, he also asserted several times, based on the quote I submitted and other writings/interviews, that he was open to the probability of a God--a singular being separate/apart from nature--that created the laws of nature. So, if some "thing," whatever it is, created the laws of nature, meaning that it is separate and apart from nature, that "thing" is, by definition, a deity. And, again, while he was "fascinated" by Spinoza's God, he never embraced Spinoza's God or Pantheism over the existence of a singular entity that created the laws of nature, making that entity a separate thing from what "He/It" created. Again, Einstein's words are "His universe" or "God's universe"--that "thing" or "power" being something separate from what it created, making it a deity. I don't deny that Einstein "revered the workings of nature in a godly manner," but he also clearly accepted the probability of a deity that created the universe and its laws by putting the "universe" in the possession of the "thing" that created it--"His universe."

Do you mean to say that stating you're not something and leaning towards it are mutually exclusive... ? Also, if we're going to take every single Einstein quote as some sort of QED then you might as well stop your whole argument against his pantheism after 'I believe in Spinoza's god'. But, as you say, there's obviously more to it. BTW, I'm not saying Einstein was a pantheist either, only that his tendency towards something like pantheism, as he talks about multiple times, doesn't indicate a belief in the probability of deities. Given his determinism and discussion of pantheism, at least to me, it seemed that Einstein took a more atheistic view about whatever could have been the First Cause or the ever-ambiguous 'God'. Doesn't exclude a First Cause, but doesn't also have to include deities.

As far as the implication of your analogy that Einstein saw the hands of creation in the universe or whatever, again you're missing the point about the ambiguity of it. There's a lot of muddling going. How can you assume he was speaking about some deity/intelligent agent every time he uses God or some pronoun thereof, especially given his other statements about how he doesn't assign any inherent conciousness to nature? He's just unsure and he's not ruling out deities, but at the same time is trying to describe some mysterious aspect, and maybe God was the best word or concept he could characterize that with. Again, it's jumping to a conclusion, based on his other statements, to say he's talking about an intelligent designer when talking about God.

[Edited 11/26/14 9:23am]

*

If, by definition, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a God and we combine that definition with Einstein's statement, "I am not an atheist," then I find it improbable--not impossible--that he was "leaning toward being an atheist." If, then, you would have stopped your statement with "Einstein was an agnostic" and not included "leaning toward atheism," all I would be able to say is that based on the definition of "agnosticism" and given the manner in which Einstein spent his entire life grappling with his "god concept," I could give some merit to him being "agnostic" but would then argue that his words show him "leaning toward" being open to the probability of there being a deity. As to the question of "stating that one is not something and leaning toward it," I understand and can find merit in a lot of concepts with which I disagree; does my finding merit in those concepts mean that I'm leading toward them? I find merit in "integration," but I'm a Black Nationalist. Further, I can agree that Einstein spent his entire life pondering, analyzing, developing, and "working out" his definition of "god," but he clearly prescribed to/embedded within the "god" in his concept the ability to create the laws of the universe, making that thing something separate and apart from the universe. So, while I can agree that the concept of a "First Cause...doesn't also have to include deities," by using the terms "God" and "his" being in possession of the universe ("His universe") and the creator of the universe's laws, this shows that Einstein was open to the probability of a deity. Now, was the deity fluid, plural, solid, gas, and liquid?--could be, but it is described by Einstein as something separate from the universe it created. So, the ambiguity of the "god thing" or "god concept" does not lessen the evidence of Einstein's words that this "god thing" or "god concept" created the laws of the universe.

*

And, for the record, I'm not comfortable with the notion of "an intelligent designer," per se, because I can agree that Einstein was, again, grappling with his own notion of his "god thing" or "god concept." But, based on his words, whatever his "god thing" or "god concept" was, it was something he perceived as separate from the universe it created, which makes it a deity. (Note: Even though I believe in the existence of a God--big "G" intended--I think it makes only rational sense to teach in academia what science has revealed. So, I am a bit suspect of the terms, "intelligent design" or "intelligent designer," as they are weighted with the agenda to teach creationism in academia, which is not my desire in this discourse. That being said, Einstein presented his "god thing" or "god concept" as something separate from the universe it created.)

*

And just to return to my original point, the goal of all of this for me is to refute the notion that people who believe in the existence of a god are somehow innately or organically not as intelligent as those who do not believe in the existence of a god. And while you and I disagree as to whether or not Einstein believed in a god, there has been nothing presented to disprove the Einstein was open to the probability of a deity, allowing me to continue my position that Newton and Einstein are clear examples that one can believe in the existence of a god and make great contributions to empirical study/research, as proven by both men.

1725topp said:

lezama said:

I agree with the bolded completely. The problem I have with much "politically tinged" music is that its too constrained within the normal cliches of either mainstream political apparatuses or their counter-culture counterparts. I feel its easier to break through the trappings of political cliche by not focusing on dominant themes (which makes it immediately social and thus more prone to repeating that's on the internet or CNN a gazillion times) but by making it immediately personal and intimate.. The artist and their immediate expression unconfined by political cliche but rather expressing a person truth that by virtue of the type of or nature of expression it is is innately political... I LOVE that, but generally when people talk about art that is political they gravitate to cliche.

*

I hear what you are saying, but, again, I would argue that it depends on the type of art one engages. As I stated, I am moved not just by an artist's socio-political position, but by how creatively one presents or articulates that position. As the poet Wordsworth asserted, the goal of the poet is to make the familiar unfamiliar so that the reader can re-recognize it or recognize it anew, allowing a catharsis to occur. So, for me, I'm moved by art that is crafted well enough to force me to rethink or reexamine my socio-political position or art that is crafted well enough to inspire or reinvigorate me to continue to work towards my socio-political goals. So, I can't speak for others, but, as both a creative writer and a lover of art, I abhor the cliche. Of course, I will admit that in some cases it is the tone/texture or phonetic quality of the vocal or the music that moves me, but even then I tend to be less moved by the entirety of the song if the lyrics do not match the intensity/creativity of the vocal delivery or musical quality. So a group like Sweet Honey in the Rock can be powerfully moving with their vocal delivery; yet, their lyrics--while not elaborate--have a powerful simplicity, like the Greek poet Sappho, because they have a diction/word choice that is usually able to force listeners to examine the gap between the righteous rhetoric of some white Americans and their evil actions or the ability to explain why the oppressed must risk life to be free.

Yeah I actually agree with your entire set of points here. Its possible that my problem is less on the side of the artistic expression, but more on the nature of the socio-political world itself, insofar as socio-political facts are generally complex or multifaceted, which doesn't always make the job of the artist to express certain political truths in simple form very easy. So a lot of what I see, and I guess what I was trying to express that I had a problem with is that people tend to gravitate towards easy answers, easy scapegoats, easy explanations (its the fault of communists, capitalists, Republicans, the 1%, immigrants, white people, black people, gays, satanists, christians, jews, arabs etc etc ad nauseum), but the causes of socio-political problems are rarely one-sided and simple and the solutions to those problems are generally never simple. I like those that tease out the complexities of an issue in an honest manner, though I guess that's probably easier done in a novel than in song lyrics..

1725topp said:

*

Also, I can't disagree with you for liking what you like. We all have sounds/genres and themes/subject matter that move or interest us. So, if you like the more multicultural/integrationist themed songs by Prince, that's understandable. However, my question is: how is it "negative" for an African American to comment on the injustice done to African Americans? It's one thing if you assert that, when Prince takes a more Black Nationalist or Black Power position, those songs tend to be not well-crafted, especially if one then presents other Black Nationalist or Black Power themed or position songs that are well-crafted. But, to say that they are negative merely because Prince is commenting on injustices seems to imply that African American artists should never use their art to discuss what they perceive as their socio-political plight or reality or it seems to suggest that Prince should be this one-dimensional being that has no varying notions or ideas about various topics. Even Martin Luther King, Jr., stated that riots are the response of the unheard, and he also stated in his book, Where Do We Go From Here, that "often the Negro is integrated out of power" and "I may have integrated my people into a burning house." So, here is a man loved for embracing non-violence and his pursue of equality and "integration" acknowledging (not promoting) that violence is natural to the oppressed and questioning whether or not integration is the best course of action for African Americans. I see this as a natural reflection by any human being attempting to understand the complex world in which we live and being open, at least, to examining various ideas and solutions, and I would expect this diversity in thought from anyone, even Prince.

---

Prince commenting on injustice isn't necessarily being negative...it's the injustice itself which is a negative blight on humanity. In more juvenile terms "it's a total buzzkill." I seek out Prince's music to escape, not to be confronted with the harsh realities of existence. But he's an artist, he's getting it off his chest and I understand that, so ultimately I support him for it and I would never let it stop me from enjoying some great music.

---

Strangely enough I used to be a big Public Enemy fan in the early 1990s. I listened to "Fear of a Black Planet" and "Apocalypse 91" non stop. But after a while it got to be like turning on the news every night and getting depressed from over exposure to all of the miserable, rotten shit in the world.

TheBoneRanger said:

1725topp said:

*

Also, I can't disagree with you for liking what you like. We all have sounds/genres and themes/subject matter that move or interest us. So, if you like the more multicultural/integrationist themed songs by Prince, that's understandable. However, my question is: how is it "negative" for an African American to comment on the injustice done to African Americans? It's one thing if you assert that, when Prince takes a more Black Nationalist or Black Power position, those songs tend to be not well-crafted, especially if one then presents other Black Nationalist or Black Power themed or position songs that are well-crafted. But, to say that they are negative merely because Prince is commenting on injustices seems to imply that African American artists should never use their art to discuss what they perceive as their socio-political plight or reality or it seems to suggest that Prince should be this one-dimensional being that has no varying notions or ideas about various topics. Even Martin Luther King, Jr., stated that riots are the response of the unheard, and he also stated in his book, Where Do We Go From Here, that "often the Negro is integrated out of power" and "I may have integrated my people into a burning house." So, here is a man loved for embracing non-violence and his pursue of equality and "integration" acknowledging (not promoting) that violence is natural to the oppressed and questioning whether or not integration is the best course of action for African Americans. I see this as a natural reflection by any human being attempting to understand the complex world in which we live and being open, at least, to examining various ideas and solutions, and I would expect this diversity in thought from anyone, even Prince.

---

Prince commenting on injustice isn't necessarily being negative...it's the injustice itself which is a negative blight on humanity. In more juvenile terms "it's a total buzzkill." I seek out Prince's music to escape, not to be confronted with the harsh realities of existence. But he's an artist, he's getting it off his chest and I understand that, so ultimately I support him for it and I would never let it stop me from enjoying some great music.

---

Strangely enough I used to be a big Public Enemy fan in the early 1990s. I listened to "Fear of a Black Planet" and "Apocalypse 91" non stop. But after a while it got to be like turning on the news every night and getting depressed from over exposure to all of the miserable, rotten shit in the world.

*

I completely understand your point. For someone like me who loves socio-political themed art (literature, music, film, painting, etc.), the local news is a "total buzzkill," and I rarely watch it. And, to be honest, local news does not seem to be that much more negative than national or global news, but local news begins with three to five murder stories and then follows that with the negative economic and political stuff. So, I can't be mad at you for desiring your funk fix to escape this depressing world.

lezama said:

1725topp said:

*

I hear what you are saying, but, again, I would argue that it depends on the type of art one engages. As I stated, I am moved not just by an artist's socio-political position, but by how creatively one presents or articulates that position. As the poet Wordsworth asserted, the goal of the poet is to make the familiar unfamiliar so that the reader can re-recognize it or recognize it anew, allowing a catharsis to occur. So, for me, I'm moved by art that is crafted well enough to force me to rethink or reexamine my socio-political position or art that is crafted well enough to inspire or reinvigorate me to continue to work towards my socio-political goals. So, I can't speak for others, but, as both a creative writer and a lover of art, I abhor the cliche. Of course, I will admit that in some cases it is the tone/texture or phonetic quality of the vocal or the music that moves me, but even then I tend to be less moved by the entirety of the song if the lyrics do not match the intensity/creativity of the vocal delivery or musical quality. So a group like Sweet Honey in the Rock can be powerfully moving with their vocal delivery; yet, their lyrics--while not elaborate--have a powerful simplicity, like the Greek poet Sappho, because they have a diction/word choice that is usually able to force listeners to examine the gap between the righteous rhetoric of some white Americans and their evil actions or the ability to explain why the oppressed must risk life to be free.

Yeah I actually agree with your entire set of points here. Its possible that my problem is less on the side of the artistic expression, but more on the nature of the socio-political world itself, insofar as socio-political facts are generally complex or multifaceted, which doesn't always make the job of the artist to express certain political truths in simple form very easy. So a lot of what I see, and I guess what I was trying to express that I had a problem with is that people tend to gravitate towards easy answers, easy scapegoats, easy explanations (its the fault of communists, capitalists, Republicans, the 1%, immigrants, white people, black people, gays, satanists, christians, jews, arabs etc etc ad nauseum), but the causes of socio-political problems are rarely one-sided and simple and the solutions to those problems are generally never simple. I like those that tease out the complexities of an issue in an honest manner, though I guess that's probably easier done in a novel than in song lyrics..

*

Yes, I agree that literature and film are more effective mediums to examine thoroughly socio-political issues. I guess I'm more accepting of the limited manner in which it can be done in a song if the lyrics are somehow insightful, funny, or just different in their approach. So, I can like "Starfish and Coffee" because it's a song about individuality that does not announce that it is about individuality but simply provides a very visual story about a child being different and being content with being different. It's a simple but very descriptive narrative. And, while most of the narratives of Prince's songs are not that well contained, he is great for moments of creative wording, "a pocket full of condoms and some of them used," that either establish, propel, or conclude a narrative and its message very well. For instance, I'm really digging the line from "WayBackHome," "At night my bed stays made 'cause in my mind I roam." It's not that it's a very new concept, but it is an interesting way to discuss metaphysical or spiritual searching. So, yeah, I agree that literature and film allows for a more thorough analysis of a topic, but the right phrase with the right music can be just as moving.

I think this is the first time in ten years I've had a more than surface level discussion on the org..

1725topp said:

If, by definition, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a God and we combine that definition with Einstein's statement, "I am not an atheist," then I find it improbable--not impossible--that he was "leaning toward being an atheist." If, then, you would have stopped your statement with "Einstein was an agnostic" and not included "leaning toward atheism," all I would be able to say is that based on the definition of "agnosticism" and given the manner in which Einstein spent his entire life grappling with his "god concept," I could give some merit to him being "agnostic" but would then argue that his words show him "leaning toward" being open to the probability of there being a deity. As to the question of "stating that one is not something and leaning toward it," I understand and can find merit in a lot of concepts with which I disagree; does my finding merit in those concepts mean that I'm leading toward them? I find merit in "integration," but I'm a Black Nationalist. Further, I can agree that Einstein spent his entire life pondering, analyzing, developing, and "working out" his definition of "god," but he clearly prescribed to/embedded within the "god" in his concept the ability to create the laws of the universe, making that thing something separate and apart from the universe. So, while I can agree that the concept of a "First Cause...doesn't also have to include deities," by using the terms "God" and "his" being in possession of the universe ("His universe") and the creator of the universe's laws, this shows that Einstein was open to the probability of a deity. Now, was the deity fluid, plural, solid, gas, and liquid?--could be, but it is described by Einstein as something separate from the universe it created. So, the ambiguity of the "god thing" or "god concept" does not lessen the evidence of Einstein's words that this "god thing" or "god concept" created the laws of the universe.

*

And, for the record, I'm not comfortable with the notion of "an intelligent designer," per se, because I can agree that Einstein was, again, grappling with his own notion of his "god thing" or "god concept." But, based on his words, whatever his "god thing" or "god concept" was, it was something he perceived as separate from the universe it created, which makes it a deity. (Note: Even though I believe in the existence of a God--big "G" intended--I think it makes only rational sense to teach in academia what science has revealed. So, I am a bit suspect of the terms, "intelligent design" or "intelligent designer," as they are weighted with the agenda to teach creationism in academia, which is not my desire in this discourse. That being said, Einstein presented his "god thing" or "god concept" as something separate from the universe it created.)

*

And just to return to my original point, the goal of all of this for me is to refute the notion that people who believe in the existence of a god are somehow innately or organically not as intelligent as those who do not believe in the existence of a god. And while you and I disagree as to whether or not Einstein believed in a god, there has been nothing presented to disprove the Einstein was open to the probability of a deity, allowing me to continue my position that Newton and Einstein are clear examples that one can believe in the existence of a god and make great contributions to empirical study/research, as proven by both men.

In light of his other discussions on the matter, I don't think it's accurate to extrapolate his position on the agnostic spectrum off of that one remark ("I am not an atheist"). My basis for saying he would at most lean towards atheism was what I saw as his tendencies towards something like pantheism, which by definition would be contradictory to deism/theism. You hold that he presented his idea of 'god' as seperate from what he created. Alright, we'll have to agree to disagree on that.

As for this statement of yours "As to the question of "stating that one is not something and leaning toward it," I understand and can find merit in a lot of concepts with which I disagree; does my finding merit in those concepts mean that I'm leading toward them? ": Nope, and that wasn't my point nor my implication. Again I'm only basing my assessment of his agnostic alignment on from what I've seen of his other dicussions regarding 'god'.

And I think you're still misunderstanding my point about the ambiguity of 'god'. In light of the wider discussion, his use of possessive pronouns (i.e. 'his') to confer ownership to 'god' comes accross as an extension of a metaphorical characterization. Maybe a good analogy is the characterization of 'Mother Nature' and her children. I think this summary sentence on wikipedia is apt: "Mother Nature (sometimes known as Mother Earth or the Earth-Mother) is a common personification of nature that focuses on the life-giving and nurturing aspects of nature by embodying it in the form of the mother." Similary, to me at least, Einstein's personified notion of god and his use of possesive pronouns doesn't necessary imply openness to a deistic entity.

Regarding this statement of yours: "And just to return to my original point, the goal of all of this for me is to refute the notion that people who believe in the existence of a god are somehow innately or organically not as intelligent as those who do not believe in the existence of a god." I completely agree with you. And just to be clear, this was never my implication, nor is it the implication of everybody who holds a similar view. I'm only interested in accuracy's sake.

And finally: And while you and I disagree as to whether or not Einstein believed in a god, there has been nothing presented to disprove the Einstein was open to the probability of a deity, allowing me to continue my position that Newton and Einstein are clear examples that one can believe in the existence of a god and make great contributions to empirical study/research, as proven by both men. I completely agree with the conclusion, but am again iffy about your use of Einstein to support it. Wouldn't you say the same criticism regarding lack of evidence for disproval be presented about an atheistic tendency too? Especially in light of the huge amount of ambiguity present? Unless you're 100% sure Einstein was a deist then any following statement could only be at most uncertain too, no?

lezama said:

I think this is the first time in ten years I've had a more than surface level discussion on the org..

*

I greatly enjoyed our conversation. Take care.

getfunked said:

1725topp said:

If, by definition, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a God and we combine that definition with Einstein's statement, "I am not an atheist," then I find it improbable--not impossible--that he was "leaning toward being an atheist." If, then, you would have stopped your statement with "Einstein was an agnostic" and not included "leaning toward atheism," all I would be able to say is that based on the definition of "agnosticism" and given the manner in which Einstein spent his entire life grappling with his "god concept," I could give some merit to him being "agnostic" but would then argue that his words show him "leaning toward" being open to the probability of there being a deity. As to the question of "stating that one is not something and leaning toward it," I understand and can find merit in a lot of concepts with which I disagree; does my finding merit in those concepts mean that I'm leading toward them? I find merit in "integration," but I'm a Black Nationalist. Further, I can agree that Einstein spent his entire life pondering, analyzing, developing, and "working out" his definition of "god," but he clearly prescribed to/embedded within the "god" in his concept the ability to create the laws of the universe, making that thing something separate and apart from the universe. So, while I can agree that the concept of a "First Cause...doesn't also have to include deities," by using the terms "God" and "his" being in possession of the universe ("His universe") and the creator of the universe's laws, this shows that Einstein was open to the probability of a deity. Now, was the deity fluid, plural, solid, gas, and liquid?--could be, but it is described by Einstein as something separate from the universe it created. So, the ambiguity of the "god thing" or "god concept" does not lessen the evidence of Einstein's words that this "god thing" or "god concept" created the laws of the universe.

*

And, for the record, I'm not comfortable with the notion of "an intelligent designer," per se, because I can agree that Einstein was, again, grappling with his own notion of his "god thing" or "god concept." But, based on his words, whatever his "god thing" or "god concept" was, it was something he perceived as separate from the universe it created, which makes it a deity. (Note: Even though I believe in the existence of a God--big "G" intended--I think it makes only rational sense to teach in academia what science has revealed. So, I am a bit suspect of the terms, "intelligent design" or "intelligent designer," as they are weighted with the agenda to teach creationism in academia, which is not my desire in this discourse. That being said, Einstein presented his "god thing" or "god concept" as something separate from the universe it created.)

*

And just to return to my original point, the goal of all of this for me is to refute the notion that people who believe in the existence of a god are somehow innately or organically not as intelligent as those who do not believe in the existence of a god. And while you and I disagree as to whether or not Einstein believed in a god, there has been nothing presented to disprove the Einstein was open to the probability of a deity, allowing me to continue my position that Newton and Einstein are clear examples that one can believe in the existence of a god and make great contributions to empirical study/research, as proven by both men.

In light of his other discussions on the matter, I don't think it's accurate to extrapolate his position on the agnostic spectrum off of that one remark ("I am not an atheist"). My basis for saying he would at most lean towards atheism was what I saw as his tendencies towards something like pantheism, which by definition would be contradictory to deism/theism. You hold that he presented his idea of 'god' as seperate from what he created. Alright, we'll have to agree to disagree on that.

As for this statement of yours "As to the question of "stating that one is not something and leaning toward it," I understand and can find merit in a lot of concepts with which I disagree; does my finding merit in those concepts mean that I'm leading toward them? ": Nope, and that wasn't my point nor my implication. Again I'm only basing my assessment of his agnostic alignment on from what I've seen of his other dicussions regarding 'god'.

And I think you're still misunderstanding my point about the ambiguity of 'god'. In light of the wider discussion, his use of possessive pronouns (i.e. 'his') to confer ownership to 'god' comes accross as an extension of a metaphorical characterization. Maybe a good analogy is the characterization of 'Mother Nature' and her children. I think this summary sentence on wikipedia is apt: "Mother Nature (sometimes known as Mother Earth or the Earth-Mother) is a common personification of nature that focuses on the life-giving and nurturing aspects of nature by embodying it in the form of the mother." Similary, to me at least, Einstein's personified notion of god and his use of possesive pronouns doesn't necessary imply openness to a deistic entity.

Regarding this statement of yours: "And just to return to my original point, the goal of all of this for me is to refute the notion that people who believe in the existence of a god are somehow innately or organically not as intelligent as those who do not believe in the existence of a god." I completely agree with you. And just to be clear, this was never my implication, nor is it the implication of everybody who holds a similar view. I'm only interested in accuracy's sake.

And finally: And while you and I disagree as to whether or not Einstein believed in a god, there has been nothing presented to disprove the Einstein was open to the probability of a deity, allowing me to continue my position that Newton and Einstein are clear examples that one can believe in the existence of a god and make great contributions to empirical study/research, as proven by both men. I completely agree with the conclusion, but am again iffy about your use of Einstein to support it. Wouldn't you say the same criticism regarding lack of evidence for disproval be presented about an atheistic tendency too? Especially in light of the huge amount of ambiguity present? Unless you're 100% sure Einstein was a deist then any following statement could only be at most uncertain too, no?

*

It's not that I'm misunderstanding your point about the ambiguity of how Einstein "defines," "discusses," or "presents," god; Moreso, like you, I'm willing to agree to disagree. I get what you mean about the "godly" notion of the universe or the concept of "Mother Nature." Generally, when "Mother Nature" is used, it is as an all-encompassing thing. So, when one says, "It's not nice to try to fool Mother Nature" or "It's not nice to fool with Mother Nature," one generally means the Earth or Universe as one, personified, thing. But, when Einstein says "I don't believe in a God of Theology...His universe is...," it does not seem that he is making the same type of all-encompassing personification for nature or the universe but stating that while he does not believe in the same "type" of "judgmental" God of theology he is open to the probability of a god that creates the laws of the universe, perceiving that god as something separate and apart from the universe and laws it created and that people's outcomes are not based on their whims or desires but on their ability to understand and navigate those laws. But, again, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

*

And, yes, Einstein did have an agnostic alignment, but that does not, for me, justify the leap to him "leaning toward" being an atheist, especially when he says that he is not an atheist and when he goes "out of his way" to ask that people stop using his words to justify their atheism. If Einstein was "leaning toward atheism," why would he mind/care if others use him/his words to justify their atheism?

*

As for your final question, I can only say that I don't perceive anything ambiguous about "I am not an atheist" nor do I perceive anything ambiguous about his plea for people to stop using him to justify their atheism. Yet, this simply means that we have come to an impasse and must, as you suggested, agree to disagree. But, the conversation has been insightful because it is always useful to engage discourse with those who interpret data differently than oneself.

1725topp said:

Askani said:

1725topp said:

*

Is it that you don't like songs with socio-political themes, or is it that you think that "2045 Radical Man" is poorly done? And, if you do like songs with socio-political themes, and just think that "2045 Radical Man" is poorly done, can you provide three to five songs with socio-political themes that are well-crafted? I'm not trying to be adversarial, but your comment that "This isn't a song. It's an essay." sounds similar to the critique by the art for art's sake literary crowd when addressing poetry or fiction that has a socio-political theme, especially if the work presents a position that differs from or challenges their position. So, could you provide a few socio-political themed songs that you do not consider essays and are not ponderous?

It's poorly done. It's Prince trying to disguise his poor-me millionaire problems as something actually important subject. Also, the music bores me. I don't mind political songs. But I'm not going to be assigned a the homework of providing 5 political songs I like either. This "song" is both bullshit and crap on every conceivable level. The intent, the lyrics, the music, the production.

*

It's not about homework; it's about having a discussion. I thought these threads were about sharing ideas and providing insight. You say that the song is "bullshit and crap on every conceivable level," but are unable or unwilling to provide examples of songs that are well-crafted. I would think that someone who thinks that a song is done so poorly could instantly provide songs that do a better job addressing the topic so that we could obtain a better understanding of art that works/succeeds at presenting this type of message. I was just hoping that you knew the difference between trolling and discourse.

BobGeorge909 said:

Not to get ig'nant in here...but as I was somewhat swiftly scrolling throught the page I saw the words 'Einstein was fascinated by Spinoza's Pantheism'...which becuz of my brain and the fact that I was scrolling, for a tiny period...thought it said 'Einstein was fascinated by Susanna's Pajamas'. Which made me chuckle. Annnnnywaaays... Some songs of the 'plastic' period I am fond of....not many. Supercute and 2045 are my mainstays in it. The atypical(at least for P) guitar sounds. Every thing is cut and trimmed and in a pocket. Very little decay allowed anywhere. He's very good at transferring melodies and achieves it very well in this cut IMO. I enjoy the Afrocentric, metaphorical lyrics as well. I even like the preacher allusion. That was a sound he had said he admired...the way a good preacher can captivate an audience with only his voice, without even 'singing' per say. He had sampled MLK once...bet here he had the balls to try it out him self. I can appreciate that. As for lyrics...I don't think many were meant to be literal, but more emotionally driven... The Einstein bit and disease with no name bit especially. The world will continue to marvel Einstein...so go ahead and take YOUR time to marvel the pyramids instead...Einstein ain't going nowhere. I always took the disease bit to Kean the gov'ts or society don't have a problem leaving the problems of the marginalized alone...not that theres a literal conspiracy re:AIDS... just acknowledging the documented lack of attention. Its a supurb, nuanced track IMO....and have , do, and will always love it.

*

While I have a slightly different interpretation, I also like your interpretation.

There's some musically interesting stuff towards the end, but it's tracks like these that typify what went wrong in the late-90s and very early-00s. I suppose it qualifies as "funk", but has none of the drive and groove I'd associate with the genre.

I think when he did TRC and Musicology he realized himself that something had to be done to the clinical sound he had been favouring for years. I know people aren't that fond of "Life 'O' The Party" in general, but at least it has a dirtier, earthier sound that was a move in the right direction. "Black Sweat" had the same dirtier approach done electronically and that type of stuff works a whole lot better than the "High" era tracks.

Weak song