Noumenalism and Einstein's argument for the existence of God
Inquiry 26 (3):251 – 285 (1983)
| Abstract | Einstein argued in his latter years that the intelligibility of the world was in the nature of a miracle, and that in no way could one have expected a priori such a high degree of order; this is why he rejected the atheist, positivist standpoint, and believed in a Spinozist God. Einstein's argument, however, is essentially a form of the ?argument from design? for a personal God based on the existence of beautiful, mathematically simple laws of nature; that physical order is a unique, improbable alternative compared to the infinite number of chaotic universes that might have existed. Einstein, in his early manhood, was a Humean, but in later years, as he moved toward Spinoza, from phenomenalism to noumenalism, he clearly rejected Hume's restriction of probable inferences to observed sequences. Darwin's arguments against biological design did not apply to Einstein's argument, because the laws of physics are not the outcome of any cumulative struggle for existence and natural selection. Perhaps the beautiful simplicity of basic physical laws helps account for the fact that relatively more physicists than biologists or psychologists hold to a theistic standpoint. Einstein's finite universe would have seriously weakened the argument that life, though infinitely improbable, would have been realized in an infinite world. But in any case, Einstein would have regarded ?emergence? theories of life as irrational. In accordance with the principle of identity of Emile Meyerson, the epistemologist whom he most respected, it would have followed that the occurrence of consciousness and intelligence was grounded in a God with those attributes, and that theism was consequently the basis for scientific knowledge | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | No categories specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,711 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesGideon Engler (2002). Einstein and the Most Beautiful Theories in Physics. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 16 (1):27 – 37.
Danny Frederick (forthcoming). A Puzzle About Natural Laws and the Existence of God. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion.
Richard Swinburne (2004). The Existence of God. Oxford University Press.
Jonathan Bain (2003). Einstein Algebras and the Hole Argument. Philosophy of Science 70 (5):1073-1085.
Jonathan Bain (2003). Einstein Algebras and the Hole Argument. Philosophy of Science 70 (5):1073-1085.
Nicolaas P. Landsman (2006). When Champions Meet: Rethinking the Bohr–Einstein Debate. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B 37 (1):212-242.
Richard Swinburne (2004). The Argument From Laws of Nature Reassessed. In M. Ruse & W. Dembski (eds.), Debating Design: From Darwin to Dna. Cambridge Univ Pr.
Tilman Sauer (2007). An Einstein Manuscript on the EPR Paradox for Spin Observables. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B 38 (4):879-887.
Robert Deltete & Reed Guy (1991). Einstein and EPR. Philosophy of Science 58 (3):377-397.
Richard Swinburne (2003). The Argument to God From Fine-Tuning Reassessed. In Neil A. Manson (ed.), God and Design: The Teleological Argument and Modern Science. Routledge.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-30Total downloads7 ( #133,637 of 551,007 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,425 of 551,007 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
