Einstein’s view on religion
I think that he states it well; he had some “faith” that there were set laws to be discovered but he didn’t believe in a cosmic puppet master:

Of course, the “multi-verse” models might be an assault on such a “faith”:

[...]This long and appealing trend may be coming to an end. Dramatic developments in cosmological findings and thought have led some of the world’s premier physicists to propose that our universe is only one of an enormous number of universes with wildly varying properties, and that some of the most basic features of our particular universe are indeed mere accidents—a random throw of the cosmic dice. In which case, there is no hope of ever explaining our universe’s features in terms of fundamental causes and principles.

It is perhaps impossible to say how far apart the different universes may be, or whether they exist simultaneously in time. Some may have stars and galaxies like ours. Some may not. Some may be finite in size. Some may be infinite. Physicists call the totality of universes the “multiverse.” Alan Guth, a pioneer in cosmological thought, says that “the multiple-universe idea severely limits our hopes to understand the world from fundamental principles.” And the philosophical ethos of science is torn from its roots. As put to me recently by Nobel Prize–winning physicist Steven Weinberg, a man as careful in his words as in his mathematical calculations, “We now find ourselves at a historic fork in the road we travel to understand the laws of nature. If the multiverse idea is correct, the style of fundamental physics will be radically changed.”

The scientists most distressed by Weinberg’s “fork in the road” are theoretical physicists. Theoretical physics is the deepest and purest branch of science. It is the outpost of science closest to philosophy, and religion. Experimental scientists occupy themselves with observing and measuring the cosmos, finding out what stuff exists, no matter how strange that stuff may be. Theoretical physicists, on the other hand, are not satisfied with observing the universe. They want to know why. They want to explain all the properties of the universe in terms of a few fundamental principles and parameters. These fundamental principles, in turn, lead to the “laws of nature,” which govern the behavior of all matter and energy. An example of a fundamental principle in physics, first proposed by Galileo in 1632 and extended by Einstein in 1905, is the following: All observers traveling at constant velocity relative to one another should witness identical laws of nature. From this principle, Einstein derived his theory of special relativity. An example of a fundamental parameter is the mass of an electron, considered one of the two dozen or so “elementary” particles of nature. As far as physicists are concerned, the fewer the fundamental principles and parameters, the better. The underlying hope and belief of this enterprise has always been that these basic principles are so restrictive that only one, self-consistent universe is possible, like a crossword puzzle with only one solution. That one universe would be, of course, the universe we live in. Theoretical physicists are Platonists. Until the past few years, they agreed that the entire universe, the one universe, is generated from a few mathematical truths and principles of symmetry, perhaps throwing in a handful of parameters like the mass of the electron. It seemed that we were closing in on a vision of our universe in which everything could be calculated, predicted, and understood.

However, two theories in physics, eternal inflation and string theory, now suggest that the same fundamental principles from which the laws of nature derive may lead to many different self-consistent universes, with many different properties. It is as if you walked into a shoe store, had your feet measured, and found that a size 5 would fit you, a size 8 would also fit, and a size 12 would fit equally well. Such wishy-washy results make theoretical physicists extremely unhappy. Evidently, the fundamental laws of nature do not pin down a single and unique universe. According to the current thinking of many physicists, we are living in one of a vast number of universes. We are living in an accidental universe. We are living in a universe uncalculable by science. [...]

This is why I am loathe to call Einstein’s views “faith” as such views will change according to evidence.

Still, I find this interesting.

Social
The police officer in this video doesn’t like being told “no”.

But he did accept “no”. Hopefully, his next day went better. He probably needed a vacation.

Politics
Mr. Romney likes to tout the jobs “lost on Obama’s watch”, evidently ignoring the fact that President Obama inherited an economy that was losing jobs and that it takes time for economic policies to take effect. (Fact Check)

The bars above means private sector jobs created in a particular month; the bars below mean jobs lost in that month. Remember that the number of jobs created have to match the increase in the work force population and those who are looking for work so “break even” would require jobs created. More on the mathematics of it here.

Still, Mr. Romney is blaming the administration for what happened prior to his policies being enacted (as are other Republicans)???

Note how Ms. Palin uses the figures that start when the President took office. So yes, you ARE confused numbskulls…or liars. Never mind that.

Now that things are getting somewhat better (not good, but improving) Mr. Romney is singing a new tune:

Mitt Romney now says the economy’s getting better, but President Obama has nothing to do with it.

“The president is going to try to take responsibility for things getting better. It’s like the rooster trying to take responsibility for the sun rising. He didn’t do it.”

So, Romney concedes the economy is getting better.

Mr. Willard “Mitt” Romney: C’mon Man!!!!! You can’t have it both ways!!!!

(psst: I will concede that Presidents often get too much credit AND too much blame for stuff they can influence but really not control…Governors too; personally I think that the President should have pushed for a larger stimulus package even though he probably would have had to settle for the one that he got)

Of course, we are supposed to be quiet about matters such as the huge chasm in income inequality and how middle and lower class gains haven’t even remotely kept pace with GDP growth…according to Mr. Willard “shut up and listen to us” Romney:

Sorry, but having discussions that bring up points such as “these policies benefit people in this income class more than people in this other income class” or “the issues affecting this group are different than those that affect this group” are appropriate things to discuss IN PUBLIC and appropriate things to campaign on, even if Mr. Romney thinks otherwise:

Mr. Romney, you are better than that. I think.

Advertisement