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 4 of 51)
46. sj:
Matt 5:22 -- anyone who calls another a fool shall be liable to burn in hellfire.
Knight_of_BAAWA at 11:29AM on Oct 9th 2007
47. Responding to Robb (#32)
You are entitled to your opinion. But, do not make claims on Einstein's views that directly contradict Einstein's own writings. You are essentially calling the man a liar.
Let me offer a few of Einstein's own words on the matter of religion, science, and technology:
All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree.
I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil.
It was the experience of mystery - even if mixed with fear - that engendered religion.
Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal.
That deep emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.
We should take care not to make the intellect our god; it has, of course, powerful muscles, but no personality.
When the solution is simple, God is answering.
Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.
ray at 11:29AM on Oct 9th 2007
48. I thought that Einstein was a world pantheist. I also read where he thought the Quakers were the closest to what he felt a Christian should be. I think he was referring to their stance on non violence and their great social and political actions. Everyone wants to claim Einstein for their own. I don't think you can put him in a box and limit his view.
Rick at 11:37AM on Oct 9th 2007
49. Mark, I consider myself agnostic, so I don't pretend to know the answers to questions such as your 2 or 3.
But as to your first question...... How do you know there are no intermediary creatures? How do you know we aren't still evolving? Answer: You don't. Check back in a couple (or 10 or 50 or 100) thousand years for the answer to that one.
FL Chick at 12:01PM on Oct 9th 2007
50. I read the first 2 sentences and stopped because there are many scietists that are believers. So what ever arguments there after are just mute to me.
David McCool at 12:01PM on Oct 9th 2007
51. Mark.
1. All species are intermediary species, and we have continued to evolve.
2. How do you think god got here? And "god always was" is an immediate concession that there is no god.
3. How did god create the universe, when god must have existed somewhere (but where?) and creation is a temporal event, requiring the universe to be already?
Knight_of_BAAWA at 12:03PM on Oct 9th 2007
52. Well I guess that settles it Mark (comment 43) God did it, lol. Who says that humans have stopped evolving? Who knows what the future holds for humans as long as we don't go extinct from our own stupidity. There are no intermediate fossils? I am sure you can find some evidence if you look hard enough. So should Christians and other religious people abandon their "faith" if we recreate life from non living matter? Would that be all that it would take to eradicate religion?
scott at 12:04PM on Oct 9th 2007
53. FL Chick: Good to see somebody in here is honest. Most of the "unfaithful" camp try to sound like they are kings and queens of acedemia. In reality they have limited scientific backround and regurgitate things they have heard. When posed with such basic questions as the ones I asked, they have no scientific answer. It is interesting to see and hear the things people call science these days. More interesting is that these ideas, untested and unproven, are taught in classrooms all over the world. Scary stuff.
Mark at 12:14PM on Oct 9th 2007
54. It's interesting how Mark hasn't got a clue as to what he's talking about. How typical.
Knight_of_BAAWA at 12:15PM on Oct 9th 2007
55. Oh Dinesh, another ridiculous one-sided article bent on hawking another one of your books...when will you learn?
Also: you fail to mention that Einstein himself said he is not Christian - refer to the Buddhism quotations left by tom. Another astounding blog, as always.
Nicole at 12:16PM on Oct 9th 2007
56. Einstein was AUTISTIC and ALL of his QUOTES were taken OUT OF CONTEXT ACCORDING TO THE QUESTION GIVEN TO HIM, the answers could have meant something ENTIRELY different than your tiny minds can understand. Get a BOOK with THE QUESTIONS AND THE ANSWERS that are being used as QUOTES then make a better(but not neccessarily REAL decision) for yourself.
LORRAN at 12:44PM on Oct 9th 2007
57. Knight of BowWow:
1. Can you prove that we are intermediary species? What fossils prove that there are intermediary species? Speculation surrounds the infamous "Lucy" findings.
2. God is eternal, meaning that exists outside of the realm of time and space. He created time and space. Where time and space do not exist, there is no before and after. Therefore God has always been. That is why He said, "Before Abraham was, I Am." The Hebrew word for I Am bears an inference of eternality. I do not conceed that there is no God by saying that has always been.
3. Site #2. The universe is made of space and time. The stuff that God created. He exists outside of the realm.
Mark at 12:23PM on Oct 9th 2007
58. Scott:
Who has proven definitively that humans did evolve from another primate? What fossils do you see as being definite proof of our evolution from another primate? If somebody created life from non-living matter, duplicating the environment that supposedly existed in the "primordial soup," I would be intrigued. As of yet, it has not been done. Everything you just commented on proves the unscientific method that has been adopted by atheists.
Mark at 12:29PM on Oct 9th 2007
59. Marky-mark
1. It's been proven that all species are intermediary species. Speciation happens. Deal with it. And the only "speculation" about Lucy comes from idiots like you who are terrified of reality. I'm directing you to www.talkorigins.org so that you can read up about evolution. Now I know that you will lie and say that you've already been there and that what's there has been refuted. But I know that's just a lie. So do yourself a favor and don't lie, ok?
2. Thank you for conceding that there is no god. Beings cannot be eternal, so by claiming that god is eternal, you're saying there is no god. As an aside, the hebrew is not "I am". It's "I will be what I will be". But someone as stupid as you wouldn't know that.
3. Existing outside of the universe is ontologically meaningless. Thank you once again for admitting that there is no god.
Knight_of_BAAWA at 12:37PM on Oct 9th 2007
60. Brian, Ray(#s34 & 36). Sakyamuni Buddha denied the existence of a 'creator God', a central figure in Hinduism.
Ray, I'm not talking about religion as a set of rules to live by but as a way to come to terms with 'the universe', for want of a better term. To be able to reach beyond this physical, animal world to some better understanding. Another way to say it is to say he taught a way that understood the suffering of our lives and sought a way around it. Jesus too, I think. Buddhism has made me more of a Christian than Christianity ever did!
D'nesh wants Albert to support the current popular Christian idea of God or at least to leave that possibility open. I deny that, that's all.
It's Mara, Maya is the Hindu equivalent though. Mara is not a devil really but the selfish desires that chain us to delusion. I AM, I WANT, I MUST PROTECT MINE.The delusions that come from ignorance of the nature of reality as it is. If you weren't referring to this, let me know.
The teachings of the Buddha are known as Dharma, a term shared with Hinduism. He famously said "the Dharma cannot be expressed in words".
This may go down in history as the most thought provoking set of postings, ever. I don't agree with D'nesh much put I gotta give him props for bringing this stuff up!
tom at 12:43PM on Oct 9th 2007