In Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion, Albert Einstein is depicted as an atheist. Dawkins pretty much has to go this route, because it would be a major embarassment for him if Einstein was a religious believer. Afer all, Dawkins seeks to show that theism is pretty much incompatible with modern science. If Einstein disagrees, then who is Dawkins to say otherwise?
Moreover, as I show in my new book What's So Great About Christianity, most of the great scientists of the past 500 years (Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Brahe, Descartes, Newton, Leibniz, Gassendi, Pascal, Mersenne, Cuvier, Harvey, Dalton, Faraday, Herschel, Joule, Lyell, Lavoisier, Priestley, Kelvin, Ohm, Ampere, Steno, Pasteur, Maxwell, Planck, Mendel, Lemaitre) were devout Christians. Gassendi, Mersenne and Lemaitre were priests.
Faced with this daunting list of believers, Dawkins is desperate to wrest Einstein for the atheist camp.
The problem for Dawkins is that Einstein repeatedly refers to God. Famously Einstein said "God is subtle but He is not malicious" and "God does not play dice" with the universe. Dawkins rewrites Einstein's remarks. "God does not play dice" becomes "Randomness does not lie at the heart of all things." Dawkins insists that his revisions are justified because "Einstein was using 'God' in a purely metaphorical, poetic sense."
Dawkins' case for Einstein's atheism is based on quotations from Max Jammer's book Einstein and Religion. At best, Dawkins writes, Einstein was a pantheist who identified God with the laws of nature themselves. But when philosopher Anthony Flew went to the original source, he discovered that Dawkins had lifted quotations favorable to his case while excluding statements that refuted it. Einstein specifically repudiated both the atheist and the pantheist label. "I'm not an atheist, and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist." Dawkins forgot to include that line. While Einstein clearly stated that he did not believe in a "personal God" he also spoke of God as a "superior mind," "Illimitable spirit" and "mysterious force that moves the constellations."
Einstein spoke of the laws of nature pointing to an Infinite Mind that to him represented the true nature of God. "Every one who is seriously engaged in te pursuit of science becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble...My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details that we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God."
Isn't it interesting that these quotations appear nowhere in Dawkins' book. It seems that atheists like Dawkins have to suppress the facts in order to establish their theories. Can an atheism so selective and indeed manipulative actually claim to be sustained by evidence and reason?
Reader Comments ( Page 2 of 51)
16. Barry, I respect your situation, but is fear of punishment in the afterlife a good basis for a religious life?
tom at 6:45AM on Oct 9th 2007
17. And Larry also, is fear of punishment in the afterlife a good basis for a religious life?
tom at 6:48AM on Oct 9th 2007
18. Here we are, from Albert himself. I'll post again if I find these are not accurate but they do jibe with my memory of this.
-Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be expected in a cosmic religion for the future: It transcends a personal God, avoids dogmas and theology; it covers both the natural and spritual; and it is based on a religious sense aspiring from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity. -Albert Einstein
How could you have missed this, D'nesh? Seems impossible. Didn't you just write a book on religion?
tom at 6:53AM on Oct 9th 2007
19. Why there are so many religions and only one atheism? There is only one truth and so many gods and religions very often contradictory, are only attempts to find the answer for big WHY. If there is only one truth, than atheism is the only one and multiple answers for WHY do not represent the truth. All other attempts are desperate exercises in our search for real answers and truth. Yearning for an evidence, that god is responsible for everything is no proof, that god exist. Religion(s) is only an attempt to find answer to that question. We do not know many things yet, and conclusion that god created everything, provides us with unsatisfactory answer to that big question WHY we are here, WHO created us and the Universe. Answer that god did this, does not prove that fact either. If god is eternal and nobody created god, so why it is so wrong to assume that energy, or matter was created from nothing, like god, by itself. Our starting point is exactly the same. We do not know what was before "big bang" and before god. Why there is such a desperaton to prove existence of god, inspite of lack of such a proof. Centuries of search for god did not provided us with real answers.
Disrespecting atheistic arguments, does not enhances theistic point of view either.Punishing atheists for their independent search for the truth(in the past of course), did not solve the problem WHY? Answer: "there is no god" is the only logical solution for so many conflicting religious answers.
Henryk Jakubowski at 6:58AM on Oct 9th 2007
20. More from Albert:
"A human being is part of the whole, called by us 'Universe'; a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest--a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and affection for a few persons nearest us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compasion to embrace all living creatures and the whole nature in its beauty. Nobody is able to achieve this completely but striving for such achievement is, in itself, a part of the liberation and a foundation for inner security".
-Albert Einstein
Those 'optical delusion'and 'widening circle of compassion' ideas are the marks of a Buddhist, and a darn good one!
tom at 7:00AM on Oct 9th 2007
21. Hey Barry, maybe God created humans from a microorganism that evolved over billions of years that eventually evolved into both monkeys and humans, not from monkeys. D'ouche the world is older than 6000 years.
Dennis at 7:00AM on Oct 9th 2007
22. Dear Dinesh:
Another Einstein quote indicating Einstein's thinking about modern science and Buddhism:
"If there is any religion that would cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism." -Albert Einstein
Bruce at 11:27AM on Oct 9th 2007
23. I think it would be impossible to know for sure what Einstein's level of faith was. If even someone like Mother Teresa had serious doubts about God then I would not be surprised if a physicist such as Einstein had doubts as well.
But I'm not aware of Einstein ever declaring atheism or any sort of religion outright. Nor does Stephen Hawking, who calls himself somewhat of an agnostic but often refers to God as the creator of the universe in his "Brief History of Time." This is what I like about Stephen Hawking. Unlike Richard Dawkins, Hawking does not engage in the crude practice of denouncing every single religion as childish nonsense. He doesn't go out of his way to defend it either, but at least he's respectful.
But as far as Einstein goes, here's what I know: he did refer to God and claimed to have worshiped a more ambiguous Judeo-Christian deity. Maybe he was just saying stuff, and maybe he was truly a believer. Either way, he was a better man than Richard Dawkins ever will be.
Tony Messinger at 7:56AM on Oct 9th 2007
24. Dr. Einstein, though a Jew, had to attend a Catholic school where he grew up and it did have a profound impact on him. Here is a quote from Dr. Einstein..."The most beautiful and most profound emotion we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms—this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness."
"My religion," he says, "consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God."
He most assuredly was not a Buddist...nor was he a Christian, but no one could accuse him of being an atheist.
I agree with you wholeheartedly about science and religion...it was the Catholic church that founded the great universities, and many Jesuit priests were great scientists (read the history of genetics, or geologty etc.) Also, people should really read what the church's stance on Gallileo was...you will be very surprised.
Thanks. Dana W.
dana wheeler at 9:48AM on Oct 9th 2007
25. “It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.” Einstein said this in a letter dated March 24, 1954.
If you had bothered typing in "Einstein and God", this is what you would have gotten. Why they bother publishing your blog is beyond me, as you write like many of the moronic, lazy, non-thinking posters on AOL's new's stories.
Ken at 8:07AM on Oct 9th 2007
26. Dennis,
That would go against Genesis. It's not consistent with Adam and Eve and all the descendents thereafter.
Well, what did Jesus believe?
oldahus at 8:24AM on Oct 9th 2007
27. G*D will cease to exist the moment man realizes it never did - it's as simple as that. And I'm to the point where I don't feel I have to be respectful about it. In 2007 it's neolithically stupid to be even talking about it. G*d is man-made, the bible was written to control the stupid unless you really believe in talking animals, food falling from the sky or man walking on water. It's time to put these silly, stupid and unproveable superstitions to rest - grow-up America - it's long past time.
Shawn Bushway at 8:32AM on Oct 9th 2007
28. There are many paths to the top of the mountain, Henryk. It is love and oneness that encompasses all of these. Thict Nat Han is a buddhist who hates the word buddhist and embraces christianity. Lovely.
deborah at 8:46AM on Oct 9th 2007
29. In general, a good discussion pro and con with only a small number of people who feel the need to make personal attacks. Keep it up.
A few comments from my personal, probably flawed, point of view.
1. Athiests cannot prove that G*d does not exist. It is not possible to prove a negative.
2. "Good" behavior while alive should be the goal, not risk of eternal punishment. Are we capable of this?
3. Religion has the potential to lead to great (such as helping others) and to horrible (such as killing others)deeds, often both at the same time. It is up to the practioners to decide how to behave.
4.If the is a G*d and I do not believe, will I go to hell, even if I am an otherwise "good" person? What if there is a G*d, just not the one I have chosen to follow?
5. If the Earth's orbit were a small amount different, we would not be having a discussion of whether this proves G*d exists. Other parties on another planet would instead. Please do not confuse cause and effect.
6. To paraphrase Clarke's Third Law, "Any sufficiently complex natural process is indistinguishable from divine intervention."
alan at 9:05AM on Oct 9th 2007
30. "Isms" do not reveal Truth. Science strives to explain, but only describes. Religion describes falsely, while claiming to explain. "Spritiualism" is invoked as an alternative to religion, but the root word of that "ism" is "spirit." Running up against that lexicographic boundary, those awed by that which is greater than themselves have few other terms to describe their vague awe, other than by labeling themselves as "spiritual, but not religious." Einstein's viewpoint is more consistent with Carl Jung than with Buddhism; not being a psychologist, it is understandable that Einstein would find the closest parallel with his general outlook as being Buddhism. But he never endorsed Buddhism specifically. The question Einstein addresses here is the attempt to transcend ambiguous awe. As he pointed out, awe is the result of limitations on our consciousness. Similarly, Jung's thesis centered on the concept of achieving "cosmic consciousness." Jung utilized dream phenomena and symbolism as vehicles for expanding cosmic consciousness. At the limitations of our consciousness, what lurks beyond its boundaries is discernible by humans as emotion, as feelings. Religious dogma is anithetical to this methodology, and seeks to confine and emasculate the free mind, ultimately squelching man's "enlightenment." Life after death, kosher food, whether homosexuality is "sinful," etc. are artificial, superstitious dogmas unrelated to the issue of Truth, cosmic consciousness, and enlightenment. In the end, one either believes in a "life force," or does not. That is a worthy debate; the validity of religious constructs is not, for all religious constructs are, by their very nature, false.
Zorro at 9:06AM on Oct 9th 2007