Albert Einstein was not Wrong

Albert Einstein was not wrong, for if he was the entire edifice of material science would also be wrong and all its achievements a figment of the collective imagination. Niels Bohr and his Copenhagen School of Quantum Physics is just one way of viewing quantum reality, but it is a methodology that has attracted literal religionists and those peddling an anti-science agenda. Ironically, for all the apparent liberalism and potential spiritualism associated with the Copenhagen School, Niels Bohr himself was quite conservative in opinion and dogmatic in attitude. He was not interested in the work of Paul Dirac (which proved the existence of anti-matter), or that of Richard Feynman (whose equation proved the that a vacuum or void is full of sub-atomic particles). The material world is the by-product of the quantum process which spontaneously generates a particle and an anti-particle (from borrowed energy) in the void, which are annihilated a fraction of second later and returned to energy. The human body has evolved in such a way so that its sense-organs only perceive the material world as if it were absolutely real. It is only with the emergence of the human mind from the instinctive brain that humanity has developed the scientific ability to ‘see through’ the apparent concreteness of the physical world – but this insight does not change the reality of the presence of the material world but does change the manner in which humanity perceives reality. A number of decadent US scientists attempting to statistically prove science wrong (and religion right) does not prove or suggest that Einstein was wrong – which is why the presenter here, soon backtracks after making such an outrageous statement.

Paul Dirac’s views on religion are obviously premised upon the work of Karl Marx:

‘I cannot understand why we idle discussing religion. If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality. The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination. It is quite understandable why primitive people, who were so much more exposed to the overpowering forces of nature than we are today, should have personified these forces in fear and trembling. But nowadays, when we understand so many natural processes, we have no need for such solutions. I can’t for the life of me see how the postulate of an Almighty God helps us in any way. What I do see is that this assumption leads to such unproductive questions as why God allows so much misery and injustice, the exploitation of the poor by the rich and all the other horrors He might have prevented. If religion is still being taught, it is by no means because its ideas still convince us, but simply because some of us want to keep the lower classes quiet. Quiet people are much easier to govern than clamorous and dissatisfied ones. They are also much easier to exploit. Religion is a kind of opium that allows a nation to lull itself into wishful dreams and so forget the injustices that are being perpetrated against the people. Hence the close alliance between those two great political forces, the State and the Church. Both need the illusion that a kindly God rewards—in heaven if not on earth—all those who have not risen up against injustice, who have done their duty quietly and uncomplainingly. That is precisely why the honest assertion that God is a mere product of the human imagination is branded as the worst of all mortal sins.’

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s