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 6 of 51)
76. BowWow: There's only one liar here. You. Do you know what ad-hominem means? You used them repeatedly.
Since you believe micro-evolution over time equals macro-evolution, you conceed that macro-evolution is not observable in anybody's life time. Because science is predicated on testability and observability, there is no way macro-evolution has been able to make the evolution of its own, from theory to science. Macro-evolution has not been observed.
Prove to me that it is impossible for God to exist.
Prove to me that there is no such thing as a spirit being.
Asking where the universe came from is not meaningless. It is foundational to our debate. If you cannot answer that, you have no foundation, and have therefore already lost the debate.
You have the wrong definition of ontological, if you think you are ontolically correct.
The childish one here is you, as revealed by your name-calling. Are you in 5th grade or 6th?
"The fool hath said in his heart, 'There is no God.'"
You are not only childish, but foolish as well. I have sincere pity on you. I pray you will wake up.
Mark at 1:51PM on Oct 9th 2007
77. Tatiana:
You misunderstood what I was saying. I am not focusing on the word or definition of theory. In fact you prove my point by mentioning the need for observation to occur in order for something to be scientific. This is what I just wrote BowWow.
"Because science is predicated on testability and observability, there is no way macro-evolution has been able to make the evolution of its own, from theory to science. Macro-evolution has not been observed."
You have proven your ignorance Tatiana.
Mark at 1:55PM on Oct 9th 2007
78. Marky-mark,
I used no ad hominems. Stop lying.
"Since you believe micro-evolution over time equals macro-evolution, you conceed that macro-evolution is not observable in anybody's life time. "
Wrong. Since it has been observed during people's lifetimes, you're clearly wrong.
Remember: reality is on my side. You're just spouting lies.
"Because science is predicated on testability and observability, there is no way macro-evolution has been able to make the evolution of its own, from theory to science."
Of course it is.
"Macro-evolution has not been observed."
Of course it has. Why must you lie?
"Prove to me that it is impossible for God to exist."
I already did.
"Prove to me that there is no such thing as a spirit being."
You have to prove that there is such a thing.
"Asking where the universe came from is not meaningless."
Yes, it is. You're demanding a cause for the metaphysical primary. That's an invalid question.
"You have the wrong definition of ontological, if you think you are ontolically correct."
You hadn't ever heard of that word until I used it, so don't lie to me, Marky-mark.
"The childish one here is you, as revealed by your name-calling."
Actually, the childish one here is you, as revealed by your constant lies. Are you in kindergarten or pre-school?
"The fool hath said in his heart, 'There is no God.'"
Anyone who calls another a fool shall be liable to burn in hellfire. Matt 5:22.
I pity you, Marky-mark. You have such hatred for reality in you. I hope that you grow up.
Knight_of_BAAWA at 1:58PM on Oct 9th 2007
79. Albert Einstein never addressed publicly his belief of disbelief in a supreme being. However, he was once asked what kind of weapons World War III would be fought with and he answered, "I cannot tell you what kind of weapons World War III will be fought with...but I can tell you what kind of weapons World War IV will be fought with...sticks and stones."
Such a profound sense of awareness of humanity comes from being humble enough to admit there is much you don't understand, being smart enough to fear God and faithful enough to hope in him.
Keith J. Mohrhoff at 1:59PM on Oct 9th 2007
80. If Einstein believed in a God,in whatever sense of the term, it does not prove that there is a God. If Einstein did not believe in a God, it does not prove that there is not a God. Dinesh has fallen into the logical fallacy called "the argument from authority" which assumes that because some authority figure has asserted something, that that assertion is true. Furthermore,while Einstein may have been an authority in mathematics and physics, but he was no authority in theology.
However, to all of you conservative Republicans who love groveling before authority figures, consider this: Einstein was a socialist and said as much. Therefore, I eagerly anticipate Dinesh's next book: "What's So Great About Socialism".
emelpe at 1:58PM on Oct 9th 2007
81. The existence or non-existence of god is unknowable. Every religion has its own version of god. Why should it matter if Einstein believed in god? If there is a true religious answer to explain humanexistence and the cosmos, no one has yet discovered it.
Lolly Nag at 2:05PM on Oct 9th 2007
82. BowBow: Here we go again...
Who observed interspecies evolution in their lifetime?
When did you prove that it is impossible for God to exist?
I will wait for you to disprove spiritual beings, since I called you out on it first. I will also wait for you to prove macro-evolution, the big-bang, organic living matter evolving from non-organic, living matter, and the origin of the universe.
Ontology has to do with metaphysics. I am debating the existence of God and the idea that He created the universe vs. the universe somehow appearing from nothing. If you want to debate things that can only exist in our 3-dimensions, then fine, but we are not talking from the same plane. Your definition of ontology is wrong and you still can't answer where space and time come from.
When have I lied?
I simply quoted the bible and used it as a basis for defining you as a fool. The bible defines a fool as "One who has said in his heart there is no God." You have said in your heart there is no God, therefore, by biblical standards, you are a fool. It is not I who called you a fool, but God.
Trust God. Relinquish your ignorance. Find Wisdom.
Mark at 2:21PM on Oct 9th 2007
83. Marky-mark.
1. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
2. Every time you tell me that god exists as spirit/apart from the universe/is eternal.
3. You have to prove that spiritual beings exist, since you have the burden of proof. You claimed they exist. You get to prove it. I do not have to disprove the unproven. I'm also waiting for you to prove where god came from, since life can only come from life (apparently). I'm also waiting for you to prove that the universe has an origin and requires an explanation.
4. How can the universe be created? What does it mean? My definition of ontology is correct, and where did god come from?
5. You have lied about there being no observations of speciation.
6. I used the bible to show you that calling another a fool means that you're liable to burn in hellfire. You called me a fool, not god.
Trust reality. Relinquish your childish belief in god. Find wisdom.
Knight_of_BAAWA at 2:33PM on Oct 9th 2007
84. BowWow:
I have to go now. Sorry for pointing out your flaws in logic.
Bye
Mark at 2:50PM on Oct 9th 2007
85. Marky-mark
I'm not sorry for annihilating your idiotic and childish myth.
Knight_of_BAAWA at 2:53PM on Oct 9th 2007
86. "The human mind is not capable of grasping the Universe. We are like a little child entering a huge library. The walls are covered to the ceilings with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written these books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. But the child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books - a mysterious order which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects."
- Albert Einstein | Quotes
steven at 2:58PM on Oct 9th 2007
87. let me reply one more time bowbow:
2. "Every time you tell me that god exists as spirit/apart from the universe/is eternal."
Me telling you something cannot be credited as you disproving something to me. You have not disproven those things to me.
3. Likewise, you have the burden of proof to prove macro-evolution, big bang, origins of universe and matter therein, life evolving from non-life. My answer to origins is God. What is yours?
4. You have to understand that God exists OUTSIDE of the space/time continuum. Is it provable? NO! I am claiming God to be something or someone who can be tested. But you are claiming that we cannot use means for explaination outside of our own 3-dimensional logic. The problem is, you still can't tell me where the universe, matter, or life came from!
5. Prove that I have lied about there not being any observance of macro-evolution and I will shut up. Give me names of people who have watched one species of mammal evolve into another.
6. Read Romans chapter 1. By using a simple syllogism, I can biblically prove that you are a fool without being in danger of hell fire.
Mark at 3:01PM on Oct 9th 2007
88. According to growing numbers of scientists, the laws and constants of nature are so "finely-tuned," and so many "coincidences" have occurred to allow for the possibility of life, the universe must have come into existence through intentional planning and intelligence.
In fact, this "fine-tuning" is so pronounced, and the "coincidences" are so numerous, many scientists have come to espouse The Anthropic Principle, which contends that the universe was brought into existence intentionally for the sake of producing mankind.
Even those who do not accept The Anthropic Principle admit to the "fine-tuning" and conclude that the universe is "too contrived" to be a chance event.
In a BBC science documentary, "The Anthropic Principle," some of the greatest scientific minds of our day describe the recent findings which compel this conclusion.
Dr. Dennis Scania, the distinguished head of Cambridge University Observatories:
If you change a little bit the laws of nature, or you change a little bit the constants of nature -- like the charge on the electron -- then the way the universe develops is so changed, it is very likely that intelligent life would not have been able to develop.
steven at 3:02PM on Oct 9th 2007
89. Professor Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in high energy physics (a field of science that deals with the very early universe), writing in the journal "Scientific American", reflects on
how surprising it is that the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the universe should allow for the existence of beings who could observe it. Life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values.
Although Weinberg is a self-described agnostic, he cannot but be astounded by the extent of the fine-tuning. He goes on to describe how a beryllium isotope having the minuscule half life of 0.0000000000000001 seconds must find and absorb a helium nucleus in that split of time before decaying. This occurs only because of a totally unexpected, exquisitely precise, energy match between the two nuclei. If this did not occur there would be none of the heavier elements. No carbon, no nitrogen, no life. Our universe would be composed of hydrogen and helium. But this is not the end of Professor Weinberg's wonder at our well-tuned universe. He continues:
One constant does seem to require an incredible fine-tuning -- The existence of life of any kind seems to require a cancellation between different contributions to the vacuum energy, accurate to about 120 decimal places.
This means that if the energies of the Big Bang were, in arbitrary units, not:
100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000,
but instead:
100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000001,
there would be no life of any sort in the entire universe because as Weinberg states:
the universe either would go through a complete cycle of expansion and contraction before life could arise, or would expand so rapidly that no galaxies or stars could form.
steven at 3:05PM on Oct 9th 2007
90. Whether you "believe" in God is of no consequence unless of course you don't believe. Try saying you don't "believe" in gravity and then jump off a building. I suspect you're still going to fall. Or maybe you'd rather try saying I don't "believe" in cars or trucks and stand in the middle of busy highway. Your "belief" doesn't change the fact that there is the law of gravity and that cars and trucks exist. There is absolute truth. And the absolute truth is that there is a God - one universal, omniscient, omnipotent, glorious, righteous, holy, loving God. And the truth is he hates your sin. In fact, the bible says that he's angry with the wicked everyday. He says your sin is like a stench in his nostril - that of a dying corpse. He says that he looks into the heart of man and that all he sees is evil continually. He says he looks about the world to find one that is good and finds no, not one. So do you think you'll escape his judgment?
Well let's see? Do you think you're a good person? Have you ever lied? Ever stolen anything? Then you are a liar and a thief. Have you ever lusted after a person, then you've already committed adultery in your heart. Have you ever used the Lord's name in vain? Then you're guilty of blasphemy - a very serious crime in the eyes of God. I suspect that you've haven't always obeyed your parents and that you haven't kept the sabbath day holy. I bet some of you are thinking, well at least I've never killed anyone. Well, let's see? The bible says if you've ever had hatred in your heart or called anyone a "fool" or worse, then you're guilty of MURDER in the eyes of God. Do you still consider yourself to be a good person?
The truth is that you are not a good person. None of us are. Nor am I. Whether you're guilty of one or many offenses, you are guilty in the eyes of God. Remember, he hates sin and you are a sinner for you've transgressed HIS law. And you've transgressed it many, many times. Probably thousands of times. So what happens now? Let see, you can stick your head in the sand and say "there is no God therefore he cannot punish my sin." That's one option, but you will still be judged for your sins against God because he is a just God and justice requires punishment for sin. If you don't think so, I'd guess that you're opposed to sanctions and prisons for those that break our judicial laws. But since, I know you're reasonable, I know that you know that justice requires punishment for the breaking of laws for the sake of justice.
Now a better option is this, while you are very guilty in the eyes of God for breaking his moral laws, and while you do deserve punishment for your sins and while the punishment for sins against God is hell for all of eternity, God has provided a way for you to avoid this just punishment...
This way out is not available to all though...if you're justifying your sin, in other words, saying it is ok that you've sinned, then there is no good news for you. BUT if you're one who is being drawn then you see the reasonableness of what I'm saying. You see that you are indeed a sinner and that you are in trouble and that you do deserve hell. Well, then there is good news for you. God became fully man and lived a sinless life here on this earth to become a sacrifice for YOUR sins. He suffered, died and was buried for YOUR sin. He took the punishment that was due to YOU. After defeating death Jesus rose again and lives at the right hand of the God, the father. He said that if you repent and trust in Him then you will be forgiven for all of your sins against him and that you will gain eternal life. He said to repent - that is, turn from your sin. Sin no longer. Then he will give you a new heart with new desires and you will be saved.
Now, if you're rejecting this it is of no surprise, but know that you will be without excuse. God has given you creation as proof of his existence. And he has placed a conscience in your heart that tells you what is morally right and what is morally wrong. You know it is wrong to lie, steal, commit adultery, murder, etc... You will die and you will face God's judgment. And for now you continue to store up wrath for yourself and your judgment day. Repent for you too will perish. Unless of course you don't "believe".
Melissa at 3:11PM on Oct 9th 2007