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 50 of 51)
736. Beyond the universe = euphamism for outside the universe.
Knight_of_BAAWA at 9:23AM on Oct 15th 2007
737. Knight_of_BAAWA @ 704 and Tem @ 708:
Will most likely submit a response to your questions later on tonight...sorry for the delay... been real busy here...
ManOfMettl at 6:33PM on Oct 15th 2007
738. In response to Knight of BAAWA and Tem:
(Tem, your first question, “why do you feel that a God is necessary?” is addressed here as well).
So, first I will restate: “Something cannot come from nothing.”
If we all agree that the universe is “something” -- comprised of matter in various forms (and I will not include “empty space” and “time” because these are an effect/result of matter in motion) then I will proceed to further simplify that all matter is potential energy. Matter can be changed into energy through nuclear fission – BUT – matter cannot be “created” through nuclear fusion alone… Nuclear fusion only changes one form of matter into another. So the question we are faced with is how did primordial matter arise and come to be created.
Since no scientific law that we know of can explain how matter was “created”, then it must have been due to a metaphysical/transcendental act – i.e. God.
And my scientific rationale for the existence of God is predicated on the Law of Conservation of Energy, which states that energy cannot be created or destroyed; it can only be changed from one form to another… Because if there is “Something” which is capable of changing things or acting on them, but is not actually doing so, there cannot be change (for That which has a potentiality need not exercise it).
Amen,
ManOfMettl
ManOfMettl at 11:59PM on Oct 15th 2007
739. "So the question we are faced with is how did primordial matter arise and come to be created."
Actually, first I would ask: "Why does the matter/energy need to have been created?"
Tem at 2:55AM on Oct 16th 2007
740. You just keep restating your premise, ManofMettl. That doesn't make it true, nor does it mean that you have any understanding of thermodynamics and ontology (which, clearly, you don't).
Where did god come from? What does it mean to cause the universe? Prove that the universe is an effect.
Knight_of_BAAWA at 12:33PM on Oct 16th 2007
741. I believe that if you can not explain something to a person with average intelligence, then I doubt that you know what you are talking about.
Albert Einstein seems to agree. He is quoted as saying: “It should be possible to explain the laws of physics to a barmaid.”
I guess you could argue that that Einstein’s opinion only applies to physics and not other topics, such thermodynamics and ontology. But, I see no reason why that opinion can not apply to any topic, whether technical, philosophical, or theological. Of course, you may have to take the time to define your terms.
As I read Knight’s comments regarding ontology, there is no evidence that he actually understands what he is taking about. As I have already posted, he believes that “poly” = greater than OR EQUAL to 1”, has used words such as “orthogonal” to imply “parallel” without realizing that it means “perpendicular”.
As I have stated on other blogs, knight does not explain or argue. He makes unsubstantiated claims or assertions, which are little more than intellectual “burps” or “farts”.
Of course, he will counter that I do not understand because I am not of average intelligence. Well, he will have to demonstrate that. But, I believe his time would be better spent learning what thermodynamics and physics and ontology actually mean, and then enlightening the rest of us “dummies”.
ray at 1:33PM on Oct 16th 2007
742. Poor pathological liar ray. He always demonstrates that he has no idea what he's talking about. He doesn't even know what ontology is. If he wants me to believe that he knows about it, he will have to demonstrate that he does.
Poor pathological liar ray. After all: he lies about my usage of orthogonal, and he lies when he talks about polytheism. Why can't pathological liar ray stop lying? Well pathological liar ray---why can't you stop lying? Why must every letter you post be a lie?
Knight_of_BAAWA at 1:38PM on Oct 16th 2007
743. To Ray @735
"Albert Einstein seems to agree. He is quoted as saying: “It should be possible to explain the laws of physics to a barmaid.”"
Hey Ray!
Touché, my friend in Christ, touché!!! LOL!!!
Oh - and in regards to this/these blog(s) "gadfly" (you know who), consider it a manifestation of traits otherwise known as "cluster B"!!! LOL!!!
ManOfMettl at 9:39PM on Oct 16th 2007
744. Well, here is a good story, I had a rough time as a kid, and contemplated suicide. As I sat in my car over a cliff, done with my troubles, I challenged God saying out loud. God if you dont show yourself to me, I am driving my car off this cliff. Now I am a balls out guy, and if I say something, I will do it and on that day I was, lets just say committed.
I waited for about ten seconds or so and recieved no answer. I was pretty furious so I started my car and punched the push button radio. Just then the radio popped and changed the channel. "A man cannot see my face and live", were the words I heard as it was an old time minister repeating the words that God told Moses on the mount.
Needless to say I put my car in reverse and never had a problem like that again. Gotta love it...Another time I will tell you about when I was skydiving and my shoot did not open until I called on the name of Christ.
Also, I could tell you about he time I caught a women who I loved that had lied to me, and I told her God would give me a sign if we were supposed to be together. Then two weeks later, I got back into town, left a message telling her I forgave her and invited her out for a St Paticks day beer. She was gone so I thought I would meet my brother for a beer. I walked in the rain and while in the parking lot I stood in front of a car with two people making out, when I looked in tbe car, it was her and some other guy. The look on her face was priceless, but I got my sign. I live in a valley of 150000 people so it could of once again been random. But.....I perceive something else....
MrBrentPearson at 2:45AM on Oct 18th 2007
745. Yes he did believe in God and alot of his theroy's and now proven facts,was the way he thought God created the universe.
Chris Anders at 12:25AM on Oct 17th 2007
746. Chris Anders wrote: “Yes he did believe in God and alot of his theroy's and now proven facts,was the way he thought God created the universe.”
If you are talking about Albert Einstein, it is problematic to say that he believed in God. Some of his quotes suggest that he thought the universe was a god. Some of his quotes suggest that he did not believe in a personal God. And some of his quotes could be reasonably interpreted to mean that he did not believe in God. He died in 1955. Here are two quotes from Einstein from 1954:
"I am a deeply religious non-believer. This is somewhat of a new kind of religion."
“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.”
Here is a quote from a letter Einstein wrote in 1945:
“I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.”
- Albert Einstein, letter to Guy H. Raner Jr, July 2, 1945, responding to a rumor that a Jesuit priest had caused Einstein to convert from atheism; quoted by Michael R. Gilmore in Skeptic, Vol. 5, No. 2
However, Einstein has other quotes that are more deistic or pantheistic. For example, here is a quote of Einstein’s from the 1920s:
“I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.”
Maybe Einstein believed thing about whether there is a God at different times of his life. Many people do believe different thing about whether there is a God at different times of their lives.
Here is a link to various quotes by Einstein on religion:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quotes_einstein.html
And here is another:
http://www.einsteinandreligion.com/
Wes at 12:16AM on Oct 18th 2007
747. I wrote: "Maybe Einstein believed thing about whether there is a God at different times of his life."
I meant maybe Einstein believed different things about whether there is...
Wes at 12:17AM on Oct 18th 2007
748. Wow Brent--another example of rationalizing what you wanted to believe in the first place.
Knight_of_BAAWA at 8:42AM on Oct 18th 2007
749. Responding to multiphix (743)
NO! The MAIN POINT is in DD's first sentence of this article:
"In Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion, Albert Einstein is depicted as an atheist."
The evidence shared in this blog clearly shows that Dawkins wish or claim is not true. Is Einstein a theist? Probably not. I see him as a deist But, he is clearly NOT an atheist.
Dawkins and others desperately want Einstein to be an atheist to provide credibility to their cause. Many atheists recognize that they have a credibility problem. (I agree)
If you go to the American Atheists website, they have a video of their president discussing the debate over whether or not they should stop using the "atheist".
ray at 12:08PM on Oct 18th 2007
750. Ray wrote:
"Is Einstein a theist? Probably not. I see him as a deist But, he is clearly NOT an atheist."
What do you mean by "deist" and "atheist?" And why do you say "I see him as a deist...But he is clearly NOT an atheist?"
Wes at 1:57PM on Oct 18th 2007