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 5 of 51)
61. Here are just a few quotes and comments that have ben made about christianity,and athieism.
Thomas Paine, an immigrant to America in 1787, had leaped from obscurity to fame after writing some brilliant pamphlets on freedom. But then he made a fatal mistake. He began to write his “masterpiece” called The Age of Reason which scoffed at Christianity.
“This will destroy the Bible,” he predicted. “Within 100 years, Bibles will be found only in museums or in musty corners of second-hand bookstores.” His book was published in London in 1794. But it brought him so much misery and loneliness that he once said: “I would give worlds, if I had them, had The Age of Reason never been written.”
Paine became a bedridden invalid until his death, friendless and alone, in 1809. The Bible remained a best-seller.
Voltaire’s Vain Boast
Voltaire, the noted 18th century French philosopher, said that it took centuries to built up Christianity, but “I’ll show how just one Frenchman can destroy it within 50 years.” Taking his pen, he dipped it into the ink of unbelief and wrote against God.
Twenty years after his death, the Geneva Bible Society purchased his house for printing the Bible. And it later became the Paris headquarters for the British and Foreign Bible Society. The Bible is still a best-seller; an entire 6-volume set of Voltaire’s works was once sold for 90¢.
Just before his death, the noted atheist swore: “I wish I had never been BORN!”
Epigram On Atheism (Answered)
• I am an atheist, thank God!—Anonymous
• Nobody talks so constantly about God as those who insist that there is no God.
—Heywood Brown
• To swear effectively men must make reference to God. Imagine, an atheistic evolutionist trying for a blood-curdling oath by swearing in the name of natural selection, or by the slimy, primeval amoeba.
—Christianity Today
• Calvin Coolidge once said: “It is hard to see how a great man can be an atheist. Doubters do not achieve. Skeptics do not contribute. Cynics do not create.”
• G. K. Chesterton once said it is often supposed that when people stop believing in God, they believe in nothing. Alas, it is worse than that. When they stop believing in God, they believe in anything.
• Dostoyevski remarked that “If God does not exist, everything is permissible.”
• Napoleon said, “A man is not a man without God. I saw men without God in the reign of terror in 1793. One does not govern such men; he shoots them down.
• Atheism never composed a symphony. Never painted a masterpiece. Never dispelled a fear. Never healed a disease. Never gave peace of mind. Never dried a tear. Never established a phi lanthropy. Never gave an intelligent answer to the vast mystery of the universe. Never give meaning to man’s life on earth. Never built a just and peaceful world. Never built a great and enduring civilization.
—Charles M. Houser
I only wish that I had half the wisdom of these men.
J.Hoyt
Joseph hoyt at 12:51PM on Oct 9th 2007
62. BowWow:
ad-hominem, ad-hominem, ad-hominem. Ok, now that we cleared that up let me address your comments:
Yes, speciation, in the form micro-evolution, meaning evolution within a species (ie, black and white humans are both still humans), does exist. Interspecies evolution, also referred to as macro-evolution, is still theory - not proven, therefore unscientific.
I have never been to talkorigins.org so quit freaking out thinking that I'm gonna lie... seems a bit insecure to me.
I never conceded that there is no God, so stop putting words in my mouth. Your logic is extremely and pathetically flawed. When you say "beings cannot be eternal," define beings. I agree, organic beings cannot (nor can organic beens). Spirit beings may be able to. As an aside, the KJV says "I Am." That is what I was referencing.
Tell me, do you believe in eternity? What was before the Universe? Did it create itself? Has matter somehow, "always existed." By using that logic, you conceed that your theory holds no water. Sorry pal.
Oh BTW, your relentless onslaught of ad-hominems ("personal attacks" for the lay person like you) is evidence of your fear of truth. Give up, give in. Know Jesus. He loves you and died for you.
Mark at 12:50PM on Oct 9th 2007
63. Ray -
The thing I admire most about the Jewish religon is that it expects one to be Moral W/O the carrot & stick promise of pleasure / pain in an afterlife
Robert E. Quillen at 1:01PM on Oct 9th 2007
64. J Hoyt:
Those are some sweet quotes. It really makes one see the full life that is gained through a personal relationship with the Lord.
Mark at 1:03PM on Oct 9th 2007
65. Joseph hoyt(57) Graet quotes, especially Napoleon.
Nonoe of them attempt to prove or disprove a thing. They all have a 'dog leg' in their logics as in 'This must be because this is'but not connecting anything. Just because people were animals during the reign of terror says nothing of the existence of God. Thanks for the quote, I'm a fan of the 'general'.
tom at 1:04PM on Oct 9th 2007
66. Ray:
The carrot and stick can better be defined as truth. Although Heaven is not simply pleasure, it is fullness of life, worshipping the Creator. And Hell is not simply pain, it is eternal seperation from the giver of life. Not only that, God gives us life more abundantly here on earth. It is not simply for the sake of morality. Also, Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism. Jesus fulfilled all of the laws and prophecies concerning Him, which were written in the Tanakh.
Mark at 1:09PM on Oct 9th 2007
67. Responding to Brian (#34), who wrote:
“Buddhists don't believe in a "theos" or god, they believe in Maya and unattachment to reality...”
It appears you are viewing Buddhism from a “euro-centric” perspective. Not very “enlightened” if you ask me. (Pun intended)
There are many variations of Buddhism. And for many of them, your comment about a “god” is probably correct. What little experience I have with Buddhism is from China, where the dominant variation is Mahayana Buddhism.
First, let’s backtrack a little. A few comments/questions to frame the discussion:
What is the difference between a philosophy and a religion?
Per Webster’s dictionary:
- Philosophy = rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct
- Religion = set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe
This suggests that a philosophy might turn into a religion? Or, is the opposite the case, where a religion might lead to a philosophy of life?
When does the “practitioner” cross the threshold from philosophy into a religion? When they answer their own questions?
When does the “practitioner” cross the threshold from religion into a philosophy? When they decide their own rules for behavior or for the truth?
I do not believe that a religion must have a god or some supernatural component. Many evolutionists envisioned evolution to be a new religion. Humanism can be considered a religion.
I do not believe that a god must be supernatural. If you wish to worship the sun or the moon or a tree in your backyard, then that constitutes a religion.
If you wish to extol virtue on your god, that is OK. If you claim that the sun is the source of all the Earth’s power and energy, you are not far from scientifically correct. Yes – there is power and energy from geothermal sources, and I am not aware of any claim that all of the geothermal energy is from the sun. But, by and large, the energy we make use of is ultimately from the sun. (That includes oil and gas from the decayed organic matter, which at one time, lived thanks to energy from the sun.)
However, as soon as you start praying to your god, you cross a threshold into a supernatural category. And when Buddhists pray to Buddha or whoever/whatever, then that constitutes a “supernatural god”. Do all Buddhists pray to a “supernatural god”? Probably not. But many do.
Now, can you say that Einstein was not referring to Mahayana Buddhism?
And remember, Einstein’s definition of God is not the same as mine or yours.
The point is – Einstein’s comments about HIS personal belief in God suggested a singular being or singular power. But at any rate, monotheistic or polytheistic, Einstein was clearly not an atheist. He stated so and that is DD’s main point!
ray at 1:17PM on Oct 9th 2007
68. Marky-mark
There was no ad hominems in what I wrote. Please stop lying.
"Yes, speciation, in the form micro-evolution,"
There is only evolution. And speciation means that over time, selection and mutations will bring about a different species. It's been observed. Lying, whining, and crying about it won't help you.
"I have never been to talkorigins.org"
Most cretinists lie and say they have. I wanted to pre-empt your crap if you tried that.
"I never conceded that there is no God,"
Of course you have. You keep talking about something which cannot possibly exist. Therefore, you have conceded that there is no god.
"When you say "beings cannot be eternal," define beings. I agree, organic beings cannot (nor can organic beens)."
There's no such thing as an inorganic being.
"Spirit beings may be able to."
There's no such thing as a spirit being.
"As an aside, the KJV says "I Am.""
KJV is wrong.
"Tell me, do you believe in eternity"
No.
"What was before the Universe?"
Meaningless question, like asking "what's north of the north pole".
"Did it create itself? Has matter somehow, "always existed.""
The universe has, necessarily. It is the ontological basis.
"By using that logic, you conceed that your theory holds no water."
Wrong. Mine is ontologically correct.
"Oh BTW, your relentless onslaught of ad-hominems"
Of which there were none.
Your lies about evolution reveal your terror. Embrace reality. Give up your childish belief in god.
Knight_of_BAAWA at 1:34PM on Oct 9th 2007
69. Joseph Hoyt, were those quotes supposed to mean something?
Knight_of_BAAWA at 1:35PM on Oct 9th 2007
70. Ray, it gets complicated in practice and people misunderstand. The Buddha should be honored, not worshipped. And it's not that I totally disagree with people who pray for salvation. Throwing yourself to the mercy of the universe is a very human thing but it's entirely between the one who prays and whatever he or she is praying to. It's best for people to keep this private, otherwise they cheapen any result by trying to put it into words. Then where was the original humility behind the honest desperation that motivated the prayer in the first place?
And Brian, it's not 'non attachment to reality' but a radical acceptance of reality. Reality as naked and unadorned as you can make it.
tom at 1:41PM on Oct 9th 2007
71. Responding to Robert E. Quillen (#58), who wrote: “The thing I admire most about the Jewish religon is that it expects one to be Moral W/O the carrot & stick promise of pleasure / pain in an afterlife “
But, your comment says nothing about “carrots and sticks” in life itself. The OT contains promises of blessings for good behavior and threats of destruction for bad behavior. Remember, the penalties for some sins were quite severe. Stoning for adultery and blasphemy? In the case of the Hebrews, the threat was not the afterlife locale, but, the “early entry into the afterlife” (i.e., death)!
Most religions EXPECT their practitioners to be obedient without “carrots and sticks”. This is least true for Islam than other major religions, but, not untrue. If you read the Koran, one does not get the impression that the carrot or stick is hanging in front of your face at all times. Same with the Bible, especially the NT. However, that does not mean the “carrot” and “stick” do not exist.
ray at 1:38PM on Oct 9th 2007
72. DD;
Thats not fair, he was a great mind. What
could he know about God?
Of course on the other hand him being by
some the smartest man on the earth, maybe
him believing in God would be reasonable.
Yes he did believe in God because he said
so and that is a fact.
William Ehlert at 1:45PM on Oct 9th 2007
73. Mark, you have proven your ignorance. You said, "Interspecies evolution, also referred to as macro-evolution, is still theory - not proven, therefore unscientific."
You think that something is "unscientific" because it is a theory? Apparently you, like too many others, don't understand the scientific meaning of "theory." It does not mean "guess" or "possibility."
Here is an excellent explanation:
Gravity is theoretical, so if you think a THEORY is unscientific, go ahead and jump out of a window and see if you don't hit the ground.
Tatiana at 1:41PM on Oct 9th 2007
74. Sorry...for some reason, the definition of theory did not come through in the post. Here it is: In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behaviour are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and general relativity.
Tatiana at 1:43PM on Oct 9th 2007
75. One problem here is one of terms. Athiest is being used as 'non-religious' because it is convenient to do this. If the question is whether Einstein believed in the popular notion of a creator God that watches over all and metes out reward or punishment in the hereafter, the answer is no. Obviously not.
Mark, I admire your spirit but you attempt to express your fervor in words and that is not possible. It makes us haughty and unapproachable. How will you tell them about Jesus if they are already angry with you? Jesus didn't teach like that. You make it such a small club!
tom at 1:52PM on Oct 9th 2007