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 7 of 51)
91. Even if you believe that Jesus stepped out onto the water and said, "That's one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind!"...
... well... it wasn't now... was it? Christianity has been dominating the west for long enough... it hasn't made us kinder, fairer...or anything that inclines us to do the good.
So... so much for personal Christianity.
Political Christianity is no less domineering than any other domineering political worldview... and it is certainly not democracy.
If it is so bloody obvious that there is a supernatural realm then why do we even have secularism at all?
For the sake of the topic... atheism does not stand or fall on whether Einstein believed in a personal god an all encompassing 'mind' or whatever... and it does not stand or fall on what Dawkins or Hitchens or whoever says about what Einstein believed either.
Atheism ... the one thing that all atheists believe is that theists claims to the supernatural are WRONG.
DD could convince us all that Einstein believed his theories were direct revelation from GOD ... but so what?
pboyfloyd at 3:07PM on Oct 9th 2007
92. Marky-mark,
When you tell me that god is spirit/apart from the universe, and I tell you that such is impossible, that is doing what you have asked. Existing outside of space-time is meaningless, Marky. Meaningless. It's like saying g;lkaiuh;salkjhpoihsa;lk. It means NOTHING, Marky. NOTHING.
God is not an answer. God is an emotive ejaculation. Also: what created god? Why can't you answer that?
I already have proven that you lied about there not being any observations of speciation. And read Matt 5:22. You cannot call me a fool without you being in danger of hellfire.
Knight_of_BAAWA at 3:13PM on Oct 9th 2007
93. steven,
"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"
Ummmm....no. The number of people who believe that line of crap is shrinking, and it uses the anthropic fallacy as well as argument from ignorance fallacy.
Try again, steven.
Knight_of_BAAWA at 3:14PM on Oct 9th 2007
94. Melissa,
I have never sinned. Never. Can't. Sin is a myth. I am a good person, too. You can believe that you're a lowly sinner, but that's your problem. Don't project your self-hatred outward.
There is no god. There is no devil. There is no heaven. There is no hell. It's all just a childish myth. And that you have to resort to fudging "believe or burn" is telling. A real argument does not use post-mortem threats, Melissa. Grow up.
Knight_of_BAAWA at 3:17PM on Oct 9th 2007
95. read any of the biographies about Einstein and you'll readily see that he believed GOD existed and created the spendor of the universe. He did not think that any diety was involved in the daily life of any beings. He classified his religion as 'Mosiac" on one of his early applications for a university position.
clay at 3:19PM on Oct 9th 2007
96. @ steven ...84...
yea, yea .. 'fine tuning'... which would need a 'fine-tuner'... yea yea...
... but if we are to assume a 'fine-tuner' to create the universe... then the 'fine-tuner' must also live in a 'place' that is fine-tuned for it or him or whatever...
... and 'fine-tuning' for LIFE... pfft... the 'fine-tuner' must certainly be ALIVE... or is that 'just silly'... is the 'fine-tuner' alive in a different way from us ... similar to the way the 'fine-tuner' must 'exist' in a different way from us, which is, 'not in time or space'?
pboyfloyd at 3:26PM on Oct 9th 2007
97. bowbow:
The bible calls you a fool. It is impossible to argue with a fool, because a fool cannot ascertain the things of wisdom. I can only hope that you will gain wisdom through a genuine reverence of God. For "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One understanding." You have proven nothing accept that you are capable of calling people names. You have not proven the origin of the universe, the big bang, life evolving from non-life, biological evolution from single cell creatures to human, or even evolution from early primate to human. Your philosophy is full of holes. I will credit you with having a high level of faith to believe such idiocy. As one who sees, I cannot explain to a blind man what the glory of God looks like, and a blind man cannot understand the meaning of sight. I am saddened that atheists are such angry people, but I that it is a biproduct of hardening their hearts against God and truth. I wish you the best BowWow and I humbly accept my place as winner of this debate. I am signing off and going to work now.
Bye
Mark at 3:42PM on Oct 9th 2007
98. Marky-mark,
You called me a fool. Don't try to couch it by saying "nonono--it was the bible. Yeah, that's the ticket!". You called me a fool. Stop being a coward and take responsibility for your own actions.
You have not proven the origin of god. You have not proven that a spiritual being can exist. You have not proven that existence apart from the universe is possible. You have not proven that the universe needs to be created. Your beliefs are full of holes and childish. I have no idea why you're so angry, Marky-mark. I also have no idea why you are so blind. Why do you deny reality, Marky? Why do you think that you can see, when you really can't? Why have you angrily deluded yourself?
Knight_of_BAAWA at 3:51PM on Oct 9th 2007
99. Why are there so many screaming Christian haters out there? It comes from Fear!! Fear that believing in Jesus and God is right. If believing in Jesus and GOD is right that means that they are wrong. If you are having a hard time believing or if you have doubt, pray that GOD will give you the answers and to show you that he is real and he will. Do not be afraid. Do not be afraid that if he is real that you can't be perfect like him. He knows that we are not perfect. Try it. What do you have to lose?
gracey at 5:15PM on Oct 9th 2007
100. Well... we don't know much about this 'fine-tuner' assuming it exists... in fact we have to assume that since it is not 'showing' itself around here, but is somehow 'in contact' with us, in a vague way... that it 'lives' in a different 'plane' or 'dimension'...
... we are also assuming that it made our 'plane' or 'dimension' to test us because(we assume) we are timeless beings and we are here for a reason... the 'test'.
... or are we simply animals that have developed 'existential angst'... 'life' as a continuing process is, on the one hand, just not good enough, it 'just won't do'...
... as opposed to 'life'... always was there, always will be(GOD is alive)... but there is a 'catch'... to choose good or evil.
To believe the Christian worldview... we must assume that the ancients were not simply soothing their existential angst...
There is a lot of assuming going on here.. I'd rather just assume one thing... if there were an everlasting 'mind'... it wouldn't care so much about being worshipped.
If there is a God and he gave us the free-will to ignore him... then ignoring HIM (and all his little helpers) is a valid option... end of sermon.
pboyfloyd at 4:07PM on Oct 9th 2007
101. I can't recall how old I was when the idea of god was first broached in my presence, but I was no more than five years old when I asked my father if there really was a god. It was a rhetorical question; I knew the answer. I was already a non-believer.
I asked that question eighty-three years ago and I haven't bothered to ask that question since because the answer hasn't changed for me.
I admire Einstein, but while his take on the existence of god may be of great importance to D'Souza and Dawkins, I keep in mind that even Einstein can sound confused when discussing the god question. His field, after all, was science not theology I think it is clear enough, however, that Einstein and D'Souza are not on the same page when the word "god" comes up. D'Souza mayh shout an exultant "gotcha," but Einstein is not his ally in his battle against Dawkins' fervent atheism.
Mort selub at 4:24PM on Oct 9th 2007
102. Mark,
This may be too late, but, it appears pointless to debate Bow-wow. He/She/It is not interested in honest and intellectual debate. He/She/It will twist and distort your own words, take them out of context, and on those occasions where you will demonstrate him/her/it to be wrong, he/she/it will deny making such statements and claims.
Bottomline - based on Bow-wow's own posts, he/she/it is either an idiot or pathological liar. I tend to believe the latter.
After, this is the person who has arrogantly tried to redefine "poly" as greater than OR EQUAL to 1 (i.e., "poly = {1, 2, 3, 4}), uses words such as "orthogonal" in a context that defies understanding, and tries to salvage the credibility of atheism by redefining the term to include "agnostic". The person has no honor.
ray at 4:12PM on Oct 9th 2007
103. Responding to Tom (#66)
Thanks for input. In my haste, I forgot to add one point. Our understanding of eastern religions is hampered by translation difficulties. Some concepts and their nuances are difficult to translate accurately.
If you get the chance, please review post #37(?). I asked you a few questions and would appreciate a response if you can.
Let me expound on that post a little:
I do agree with you that punishment in the afterlife is not an admirable reason for behaving in the here and now!
ray at 4:21PM on Oct 9th 2007
104. "Almost all scientists are atheists. It comes with knowledge."
Bingo. The more people learn, the more they realize that there is no such thing as 'god' and that all religions are false.
Christopher Kidwell at 4:29PM on Oct 9th 2007
105. Einstein was a deist. That seems pretty clear to most educated readers.
web jones at 5:04PM on Oct 9th 2007