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 51 of 51)
751. Multiphix wrote:
"The main point, which is not favorable to D'Souza, is that while Einstein may not have been an atheist, he clearly was not a theist either. Debating whether someone believed in God is an oversimplification unless you define what such belief means. I have read that Einstein said he believed in the God of Spinoza, who talked about "God" a lot. But it's a very abstract, intellectualized, NON-THEISTIC concept of God, so it does not support the whole body of what most "believers" would wish it to, or what they specifically mean by it."
That is a good post. Spinoza claimed in Ethics that the universe is a God. He believed that there is not an intelligent being that caused the universe to exist. According to Spinoza's view, I'm one property of God, and so is every tree and every blade of grass. But, according to Spinoza, there is no being that caused the universe to exist.
Wes at 2:01PM on Oct 18th 2007
752. Ray wrote:
"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."
It is important to keep in mind that many persons' religious beliefs change over the course of their lives. Einstein might had different beliefs about whether there is a God at different times of his life. A large percentage of people do.
Wes at 2:06PM on Oct 18th 2007
753. I wrote:
"It is important to keep in mind that many persons' religious beliefs change over the course of their lives. Einstein might had different beliefs about whether there is a God at different times of his life. A large percentage of people do."
Another possibility is that from adolescence on, Einstein's beliefs about whether there is a God were essentially the same. In other worlds, I guess it is possible that his beliefs about whether there is a God didn't change much at all over the course of his life. And maybe his beliefs on the matter of whether there is a God are hard to categorize. I know a person like that.
Wes at 3:09PM on Oct 18th 2007
754. All may be interested in the interview that Gary Habermas did with Antony Flew from Philosophia Christi. Habermas is a friend of Flew's. Philosophia Christi a peer-review publication in philosophy of religion. Its the journal of the Evangelical Philosophical Society (www.epsociety.org), but it its production is housed at Biola University.
See here for the interview: http://epsociety.org/library/articles.asp?pid=33
And here for Habermas' review essay of There is a God: http://epsociety.org/library/default.asp
Best regards,
Joseff Farrah
Joseff Farrah at 12:07PM on Nov 5th 2007
755. Dawkins is nothing more or less than a Prophet Of The Dirt.....
Evolutionism is incongruous with the Second Law Of Thermodynamics...IOWs it precludes any notion of macomolecule to cell transition....you know bacteria to bear etc etc....
Volubrjotr at 10:21PM on Nov 13th 2007
756. As God COULD be beaten by me, He's A Controversy Issue, I don't know, if I can meanwhile even 'just like that' much less explain to myself in labor-ac-
comodation terms, & whose most alternative news, being Buddha, IS meanwhile absolutely welcome to be taken into any necessary considerations, ac- counts, so that I can at least, at long last find out, why we, the Buddhists, are better than He, God, that is on whatever ground why.
Greet's, J.A., a.respect-
life70@gmail.com.
J.A. at 12:20PM on Dec 5th 2007