Atheists seem very eager to claim Einstein for one of their own. Richard Dawkins devotes a whole section to Einstein in The God Delusion and Christopher Hitchens' Portable Atheist is peppered with Einstein quotations seemingly rejecting all belief in God. Recently an Einstein letter surfaced which showed the great scientist scorning the idea that the Jews were in any sense God's chosen people.
But all that these quotations prove is that Einstein was not an orthodox believer. He rejected the idea of a personal God "who would directly influence the actions of individuals or would sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation." Einstein also rejeted the immortality of the soul, noting that "one life is enough for me."
At the same time, Walter Isaacson in his celebrated new biography Einstein provides ample evidence that Einstein not only believed in a higher or transcendent power, but also that Einstein despised atheists. Here are some quotations, drawn from Isaacson's book with full documentation, that I offer as a needed counterbalance to the one-sided list provided by Dawkins, Hitchens and the others.
On whether he considered himself religious: "Yes, you could call it that. Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible laws and connections, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this foce beyond anything we can comprehend is my religion."
On whether he accepted the historical existence of Christ: "Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life."
On whether he considered himself an atheist: "I'm not an atheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what that is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the most intelligent human toward God."
On the nature of God: "That deeply emotional conviction of a presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God."
On whether science leads to religion: "Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of nature--a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort."
On how religion motivates scientific inquiry: "The cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest motive for scientific research."
On whether science and religion are at odds: "The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
On how he feels about atheist efforts to claim him as an ally: "There are people who say there is no God, but what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views."
On how he regards atheists: "The fanatical atheists...are creatures who cannot her the music of the spheres. I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist. What separates me from most so-called atheists is a feeling of utter humility toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos."
Reader Comments ( Page 4 of 24)
46. Reply to: The seven days of creation as well as Adam and Eve were written for mankind to grasp the yet still too advanced informations. The bible doesn't spell it all out accurately because we shouldn't have that much information until we are mature enough to not miss use it.
___________
Nonsense.
Complete nonsense.
Read the story of the Seven Days of Creation.
It's very clear what is going on. The author, a human being, is giving his OPINION on how the world began.
It is completely WRONG. The guy had no idea of what happened.
for example, he claims that trees were growing and bearing fruit on earth BEFORE the stars were made.
I hear this nonsense a lot, and it's a waste of my time to correct you. But I do it. Why? Because this is important.
Christianity is complete NONSENSE. the Jesus in the New Testament never existed. MAYBE there was a real guy who was crucified, but all the rest was made up to fool people into joining a church or a cult.
William Hays at 4:43PM on May 21st 2008
47. Dear Richard,
Coudn't have said it better myself. You may have to explain the 'living God' thing, though. They truly are a dense lot.
Robert at 4:44PM on May 21st 2008
48. Gassett,
Where did you go? You just wussed out without a fight. Pull up your skirt, grab your balls, and remind yourself that you're a man. (This is the part where tay would call me HOT. It's a shame we had to ostracize her...)
Mokele Mbembe at 4:47PM on May 21st 2008
49. You know, for every quote Isaacson has regarding Einstein's "theism", there are just as many quotes refuting that.
Should it be said that Isaacson is intensely involved with Israel, and is tied to Bush's "No child left behind"?
There is no definitive biography on Einstein.
DD must have wet his pants when he heard about the chapter on Einstein and god.
So he presents this as some sort of holy grail to smite the infidels.
What a crock of shit.
It's more likely that Einstein, in his attempts to connect with others, verbalized some understanding of the concepts of "god".
After all, I don't go around arguing with my friends who believe in god that they are "wrong". I relate to their beliefs in a way that is kind and understanding.
Trust me, in Einstein's day, you were digging yourself a social hole if you admitted to atheism.
Linda at 4:48PM on May 21st 2008
50. Atheists! Our Atheist Blog is looking for contributors. www.christianvoicestalkradio.com check us out and contact me if you would like to contribute to the blog. Our atheist social network site will roll out in the next couple of months too!
z at 4:49PM on May 21st 2008
51. One approach in the intellectual tradition is to appeal to what others have thought. If the 'authority' to which (or whom) we appeal is highly regarded, the appeal carries greater weight. Although such appeal is not logical it is significant because we are not in possession of absolute truth
However, appeal to authority can be carried to excess. This is common in academic circles, especially in areas of thought in which there is a lack of final arbitration. There may, of course, be no absolutely final arbitration in any field but an idea behind science is that there is appeal to experiment. That is, for something to be science it should appeal to the empirical (this is necessary for but does not guarantee correctness.) In philosophy there is, typically, no empirical appeal. Valid argument in philosophy is possible but modern academic philosophy tends to be highly circular in its reference to 'who said what about who said what about who said what...'
Religion, too, typically does not make appeal to empirical evidence. There are empirical claims in religion but these tend to be of the form 'it is claimed in the scripture that so and so happened.' That is we depend on authority regarding even empirical claims; we do not have direct access to the empirical claim. In science we do have direct access (practically we do not because scientific apparatus is difficult to use and not commonly available but in principle one could have such access and this is not the case for religious claims.) Another type of religious argument is indirect argument, e.g., the argument from design whose form is 'the world is so complex and beautiful, that it must have had a designer.' The logical weakness in that argument is that the designer is part of the world (universe) so it shows nothing (the question becomes who designed or created the designer.) Thus, even if you disagree with evolution, you must admit that the evolutionary argument (self-origin) is logically superior and more satisfying because it does not posit an external being that is itself not explained. The problem of self-origin then that of showing that of showing the origin of complexity from simplicity which seems counterintuitive
Where does that leave us on the question of 'authority?' It seems to leave us in the situation that, after all is said and done, the truth is between the individual (you) and the universe and all authority is at most suggestive. What authority? All authority including science, the bible and other scripture, Dinesh D'Souza, your high school or university education, and, of course, this writer
But... if it is between you and the universe, is there any absolute way of knowing the truth? Or are you ever ‘condemned’ to what seems probable or reasonable. I.e., are you never in the situation of knowing the true and ultimate nature of the universe, of all being, and, specifically, of your own final nature and the nature of that ultimate that we name (God) but whose existence and nature we do not know?
I believe that we are often misled in our attempt to know. In addition to the problems of the argument from authority versus direct knowledge there is the following problem. When we argue for or against God the argument tends to be preconditioned by a conception of God that comes from someone or somewhere else, a philosopher, a parent, a vision, the Bible...
When I say that the truth is between you and the universe it is not only factual truth that is in question but conceptual truth. For example, the concepts of God you inherit are at most suggestive and it is up to you to properly conceive what God is or may be. Thus in your search you have the double difficulty of conceiving and knowing the nature of being
Is there way to negotiate this problem of truth? First, it should be noted that although the problem seems to be involve a 'double' difficulty it actually involves a great simplification because it clears out and removes from consideration the inherited history of misconception (some of which of course you may cherish and hold close to your heart; but this is not altogether bad for if what you cherish is true then this approach can only make your belief more firm, i.e., it will replace belief by knowledge...
An answer to the question at the beginning of the previous paragraph is 'Yes there is a way' and my answer is contained in my website http://www.horizons-2000.org
Anil Mitra at 4:52PM on May 21st 2008
52. Atheists, we are looking for contributors to our atheist blog, www.christianvoicestalkradio.com also our social networking site will be up soon too. contact me at z at gogojiji.com to become a contributor.
z at 4:53PM on May 21st 2008
53.
brandon:
LMAO ROFL, water out my nose on your pez post......
Linda at 4:52PM on May 21st 2008
54. "You know, for every quote Isaacson has regarding Einstein's "theism", there are just as many quotes refuting that."
Einstein's belief in god should not be a threat to you Linda. Plenty of scientists in this field have a belief in a 'composer', 'architect' or 'law giver'. You might be too if you understood physics at this level. Regardless, why fight it? Nobody is claiming Einstein for Christianity.
bigTuna at 4:53PM on May 21st 2008
55. very funny z
Pretty sad looking website.
You should check out Chris Aable's:
http://www.self-evolution.org/
Linda at 4:55PM on May 21st 2008
56. bigTuna,
Einstein's beliefs are innocuous, as are those of many atheists. Yours get more than a bit scary sometimes.
Mokele Mbembe at 5:00PM on May 21st 2008
57. I struggle with the simple minded viewpoint of the majority of the atheism sympathizers that comment here. I am reminded of the child who when talking to a friend stated "My dad can whip your dad in a fight". The 2nd child said "No, my dad would whip your dad". They then argued back and forth until they got home and found their fathers together playing poker...The point is until each side has thoroughly studied the other, then both sides are represented by fools. Atheism requires a faith that very few people can maintain, it is one of the greatest religions in the world and has a following of believers the world over. Theistic religion requires much less faith and has much stronger evidence but this evidence could rarely convert the atheist as his religious belief is part of his being...funny how only one can be right...they are mutually exclusive so I hope you..reader..have done your homework and are on the right side of the argument..especially if you are a faithful atheist..it would suck to be wrong.
gardami at 5:11PM on May 21st 2008
58. Gassbag says, "You must be a confused atheist. Your arugment is that there is NO God, not that there is no Christian God."
Are you guys really THAT desperate to justify your silly praying, Bible study, belief in an afterlife etc. that you are willing to clutch at that 'straw' of the 'vast library' analogy?
As usual you guys are proving that religion is nothing more than organized compartmentalized thinking.
Einstein cleary demolishes religion by saying that prayer is a waste of time, demolishes the Bible by saying that the Jews were never 'supernaturally chosen' and demolishes Christianity by saying that there is going to be no afterlife...
... still, that doesn't deter you, Gassbag or D'Souza or any of you guys in the least, after all Einstein gave you those 'straws' to cling to.. 'God is the mystery of it all' and 'the "Awesome library" analogy.
It is pathetic, really, isn't it Thomas?
It is too bad for you that DVD recorders weren't around at the time of Einstein's childhood. Perhaps we could be 'regaled' by a five year old Einstein thanking Santa Claus for some Xmas presents or rushing through to his Mama and declaring that the Tooth Fairy left him a 'silver penny' under his pillow.
not-pboyfloyd at 5:03PM on May 21st 2008
59. Refuting something, Big Tuna, is not "fighting" it. Did you see the quotes on the first page?
Why do all of you christians swallow DD's spoom so readily?
Linda at 5:07PM on May 21st 2008
60. "Renzo, I am looking forward to your one sided paternalistic circular logic arguments on how you and Einstein are on the same belief page."
Um, no. If you had actually read my previous posts on Einstein (which were only written in response to Peter's superficial presentation of Einstein's views), you would have noticed that I readily concede (as D'souza does at the beginning of his post) that Einstein did not believe in a personal god. The most sensible interpretation of Einstein's many remarks on religion is that he was a deist. As I said, this is not just a conclusion reached by the 'god freaks'; Christopher Hitchens has reached the same conclusion. Since I am NOT a deist, I would not say that Einstein and I are on the same page. HOWEVER, deism is certainly closer to theism than it is to atheism: both the theist and the deist believe in an 'infinite spirit' or a 'superior intelligence' (to use two of Einstein's phrases); they just disagree about the nature of this spirit, and about its relevance to our existence. Atheists, on the other hand, reject the existence of such a spirit altogether (or, if you prefer, 'simply lack belief in the existence of such a spirit'). So, as I said, Einstein isn't on the same page as the theist is, but at least he's reading the same book (no, Floyd, not the bible -- it's just an extension of the metaphor). You can't say the same for the atheist.
And to answer your pointless and condescending questions, no, I have never had any intention of becoming a priest, minister, shaman, witch doctor, monk, friar, vestal virgin, or keeper of the flame.
If you look closely, I only adopt a pompous attitude toward those who insult me first. Should I 'be the better person,' and not respond in such a manner? You bet. But wht can I say -- I'm far from perfect.
Renzo at 5:10PM on May 21st 2008