RevBogovac

Yeah, I know... got carried away. Sorry!

So Buddhism is a religion now...? 🤔

The quote is also mentioned in the Wiki on Einstein's religious and philosophical views (under: Jewish identity), and quoted (#28) to Walter Isaacson. Now, I have read a couple of biographies by him and I must say that he is considered one of the more prominent biographers around a.t.m. Further more, Einstein would have had (slightly) different views on things as he grew older (and wiser), so at some point he might have actually said something like this. But even then: For instance: the central theme of the fairy tale of Little Red Riding Hood is: listen to your parents. As a parent, I can relate to that. Does it mean I believe a wolf actually ate a granny and a child and someone cut open that wolf to safe them et cetera... Well, I don't believe that. But yes, I still relate to the point that children should listen (most of the time) to their parents...

Well, even if the quote is true; nowhere does it mention the unconditional acceptance of the talmud or the bible as 100% truth. I can relate to it, there is a lot of interesting and meaningful things in there (hey, even a lot for Grimm's fairy tales have a lot of learning points which can be instructional...) Oh, yeah! Speaking of:

You're welcome. And I thank you for your views on the subject. Helps put things in perspective (as often)...

Having been to Geneva the past weekend, strolling past Reformation Wall and having been to both the Orthodox Russian Church s well as the Protestant St. Pierre (Peter)'s Cathedral, I got inspired to read up a bit on the possibilities for a reconciliation between religion and science. Below is the article How Einstein Reconciled Religion to Science that originally appeared on Nautilus and was published November 30, 2018. What are your thoughts on this? Does Einstein have a point or...?

There is no arguing with someone who takes a book for 100% accurate. Arguing implies arguments used in argumentations, not the statement of something someone beloieves to be 100% accurate. That is a monologue...

Jonathan, Jonathan, Jonathan... Dear Jonathan, let me help; Hey Dan: !

Basically the reason why the only pious christians I take seriously are Quakers and the like... 😁 But yes, I'm all "Darwinian" in that sense (like Jonathan) too...

The examples already given cover that; it's the social sciences in action (on metaphysical questions).... it's the overlap that makes it interesting...

Sure, I'd take that explanation too... but the original question was: Based on : Then: Would keep the responses (re: god actually being the author) in line. But yes, god being a fantasy certainly explains it (even better)...

Interesting, but indeed...

That's basically what I meant. You could see it like this: some questions social studies (like Psychology, Sociology and Anthropology) study are economical in nature, some are meta-physical in nature and other - for instance - historical...

Probably... It's hard (for me) to have a deep (enough) discussion in a third language... but as I quoted before: So yes, again; Distinguising between the "hardcore" and more practical appliance of metaphysics as a branch of philosophy... PS I personally find Hume a bit too extreme and have always been inclined to a fundamental Aristotelian "golden mean"...

Good question, I'm inclined to "believe" there is only one universe (god?). But at the same time I'm convinced we're (not even close to) knowing this (any time soon)....