Have you heard of the book "The Afterlife of Billy Fingers" by Annie Kagan? If not, you really DO need to read this book!

Hello preimert1,
Yes. There are multiple possible interpretations. I like to think he meant that there are laws of physics which even God (if you believe in him) did not leave up to chance, that behind everything there are rules that govern. Of course, like Einstein, we do not understand them all yet. :)
Regards,
O.A.

I`m not sure about that. We live in a society where attempts to save and prolong the life of every child born (hell, even conceived!) is applauded no matter the cost to taxpayers or the questionable quality of life for the infant.

I would hypothesize that given enough time, both man and chimps may evolve further. Why should homo sapien be the last iteration? (Unless we succeed in obliterating ourselves, of course)

"God does not play dice" Einstein. I could never figure out what he meant by that statement. Nature abounds with process, the results of which are stochastic arrays. Like when U235 is split, a bi-modal array of elements is produced. The modes are Sr and Xe (plus a couple of neutrons), but almost all other elements (except Fe) are possible. Maybe I'm missing his context?

Thanks for your reply, Robbie.

it happens. I, too, want to fling some ad hominems right about now...
at least God does not steal my property...currently...

Playing "the victim" while lumping together all those without a belief in a god probably gets you points on the christian scoreboard. However, your smearing of concepts is dishonest - to yourself and others that read your comments.

Faith and Reason are polar opposites; they are mutually exclusive. To say that you "find faith as much a reasoning process as anything" calls into question your understanding of either concept. Your beliefs are your own, but you don't get to redefine established concepts to bolster the a la carte religious views you've been espousing.

I went one way and then the other. As a child, I only attended services on holidays with my family. I was an atheist until my early 20s, and then I felt drawn to explore religion. Part of it was caused by public school teachers and media talking heads who had said the Bible was all myths and made-up stories. Once I learned that archaeologists had uncovered and confirmed many of the cities and battles talked about in the Bible, I realized I'd been misled, and wanted to know the truth. I read a lot, started going to weekly mass, and had my First Communion and Confirmation in my 30s. I'm not attending regularly these days, but I'm a believer that there is a God. Religions and individuals certainly struggle to describe God, but I find it a fascinating and rewarding pursuit.

"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." Ambrose Bierce

My conclusion after 70+ years: Belief: A conclusion drawn without rational thought.

A belief is neither fact (it could be proven) nor truth (it could not be refuted). So, if a belief is a choice, the question is: why would one choose a belief that initiates force against another or is self destructive? (You psychiatrists can answer that one; I can't)

Jefferson said "But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

As to existence, I tend to agree with it! And I think it was Joseph Campbell that said God is a metaphor to answer the unanswerable... or something like that.

The beauty about Objectivism, is that it adapts to factual data, to honest perception of the senses. Hence, if science proves that we are really just a quantum dream on some level, the genuinely rational person will adapt to this data and process future conclusions without the need to fall apart due to a "destroyed dogma." What is rejected (as mystical and impertinent) is merely because it has no basis in reality. Where it is impossible to know something, "working assumptions" are made based on what there is to know and what is likely.

That works also. Thanks.

I think I have--but I would like to reserve further comment until you post about it again! :)

This is why rational thinkers do not generally trouble themselves about the mystical or the "supernatural." Whether "it" exists or not, it is either irrelevant or impermeable. In either case, it makes no practical sense to trouble oneself with the unkknowable. To investigate the possibility of such, though, is not necessarily irrational--just most likely impractical.

Robbie, I somewhat "optimistically" suspected that when you pointed out the pragmatism in "covering your bases" regarding God, you were still, somehow, yourself, not motivated by fear but by love (and hope.)

That sounds about right. Although, I wonder how much freedom he means.
There are a progressively growing number of these newly enforced servitude rights which oppress the mind and prevent individuals the freedom to make their own best judgments.

I found that citation when I was researching vaccine exemptions a few years ago, and was surprised the church was so open-minded. I attended a Catholic school from preschool through first grade, and was the product of a "mixed marriage" between a Catholic and an Objectivist, so my formative years were interesting.

I've seen the "popping" reference in quite a few places, so it's apparently a "scientific" term. I also wonder if there is some logical explanation that scientists will discover in the future. But have you heard about the double slit experiment? I'm going to post about it below.