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 7 of 24)
91. "Why can't Dinesh ever be honest? He lies with his first sentence! All atheists know that Einstein was a spinozean-style pantheist."
You're wrong as usual, Knight. Einstein denied being a pantheist:
"I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist...I am fascinated by Spinoza's pantheism, but admire even more his contributions to modern thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and the body as one, not two separate things."
So Knight, why do you lie? Why can't you ever be honest? Why do you hate the truth?
Renzo at 9:47PM on May 21st 2008
92. "Why does Dinesh hate the truth? Why must he always concoct lies and strawmen?
Knight_of_BAAWA at 9:36PM on May 21st 2008"
Why do birds sing so gay
And lovers await the break of the day
Why do they fall in love?
Why does the rain fall from up above?
Why do fools fall in love?
Why do they fall in love?
brandon at 9:52PM on May 21st 2008
93. gwen says, "..all D.D. was trying to say is Enstein believed in something besides it all happened by chance..."
D'Souza said, "Atheists seem very eager to claim Einstein for one of their own."
Seems to me that even if you are mostly right, that makes D'Souza a complete jackass for saying the above sentence, now doesn't it gwen? :O)
not-pboyfloyd at 10:05PM on May 21st 2008
94. (Sorry, knight, just felt like a "why is the sky blue" response to "why does Dinesh concoct lies and strawmen")
brandon at 10:06PM on May 21st 2008
95. Way to avoid my question dude... I hardly noticed that you didn't answer if you thought God was all infinite and stuff SIMPLY BECAUSE you thought that the universe WASN'T all infinite and stuff.>>
I percieve God as infinite in as much as I see design in everything I can percieve. I know the universe to be finite, though we could never find an end to the universe.
That said, it has little to do with my proposition that either this one and only universe was designed in a way that allows life, or there is no design, simply an infinite number of universes and life was able to be (due to the law of averages) in this one of an infinite number of universes.
I guess I'm saying you can't come up with a universe like ours on a single roll of the dice. The laws of universe are simply too complex, too elegant, and too strick to be produced on the first and only try ... a single accident. It would take infinite accidents to produce one universe like ours, or it was designed. It's that simple.
Thomas J Gassett at 10:06PM on May 21st 2008
96. I'll bet Einstein believes in eternity now!! Unfortunately it is eternity in a devil's hell.
Man_in_Wilderness at 10:18PM on May 21st 2008
97. To Thomas J. Gassett,
Quoted from TalkOrigins.org,
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200.html
Irreducible complexity can evolve. It is defined as a system that loses its function if any one part is removed, so it only indicates that the system did not evolve by the addition of single parts with no change in function. That still leaves several evolutionary mechanisms:
deletion of parts
addition of multiple parts; for example, duplication of much or all of the system (Pennisi 2001)
change of function
addition of a second function to a part (Aharoni et al. 2004)
gradual modification of parts
All of these mechanisms have been observed in genetic mutations. In particular, deletions and gene duplications are fairly common (Dujon et al. 2004; Hooper and Berg 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000), and together they make irreducible complexity not only possible but expected. In fact, it was predicted by Nobel-prize-winning geneticist Hermann Muller almost a century ago (Muller 1918, 463-464). Muller referred to it as interlocking complexity (Muller 1939).
Evolutionary origins of some irreducibly complex systems have been described in some detail. For example, the evolution of the Krebs citric acid cycle has been well studied (Meléndez-Hevia et al. 1996), and the evolution of an "irreducible" system of a hormone-receptor system has been elucidated (Bridgham et al. 2006). Irreducibility is no obstacle to their formation.
Even if irreducible complexity did prohibit Darwinian evolution, the conclusion of design does not follow. Other processes might have produced it. Irreducible complexity is an example of a failed argument from incredulity.
Irreducible complexity is poorly defined. It is defined in terms of parts, but it is far from obvious what a "part" is. Logically, the parts should be individual atoms, because they are the level of organization that does not get subdivided further in biochemistry, and they are the smallest level that biochemists consider in their analysis. Behe, however, considered sets of molecules to be individual parts, and he gave no indication of how he made his determinations.
Systems that have been considered irreducibly complex might not be. For example:
The mousetrap that Behe used as an example of irreducible complexity can be simplified by bending the holding arm slightly and removing the latch.
The bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex because it can lose many parts and still function, either as a simpler flagellum or a secretion system. Many proteins of the eukaryotic flagellum (also called a cilium or undulipodium) are known to be dispensable, because functional swimming flagella that lack these proteins are known to exist.
In spite of the complexity of Behe's protein transport example, there are other proteins for which no transport is necessary (see Ussery 1999 for references).
The immune system example that Behe includes is not irreducibly complex because the antibodies that mark invading cells for destruction might themselves hinder the function of those cells, allowing the system to function (albeit not as well) without the destroyer molecules of the complement system.
--------------------
Browse and challenge your assertions regarding "irreducible complexity" and other nonsensical claims issued by creationists. Nothing came to be by chance. No scientist makes this claim. Natural Selection is, by no means, chance.
Further reading:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
Remember ladies and gentlemen, the world ends with you.
Saigokarasu at 10:24PM on May 21st 2008
98. I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. [Telegram of 1929, in Hoffman and Dukas]
In a 1950 letter to M. Berkowitz, Einstein stated that "My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment."
Sounds to me like you don't know what you're talking about Renzo. Einstein obvious embraces a pantheist universalist type of spiritualism. A little peek on the internet would have saved you thr trouble.
Somber at 10:28PM on May 21st 2008
99. Post 96 - I hope not, actully I would hope that no one would go to such a place.
Friend at 10:34PM on May 21st 2008
100. Post 97 - Y'all seem to miss it. Our God who created all things, is all powerful, and is capable of literal creation within 6 days. Now when eternity is your time piece, the 6 days is really irrelevant, except that God said it, so it must be so.
Friend at 10:43PM on May 21st 2008
101. Okay, Thomas... I think that this is the same as D'Souza's (getting to be 'famous') 'fine-tuned' argument.
Picture God sitting at some controls of physical laws of this universe and if he had moved one a gozillionth of a millimeter..POOF! .. no life possible.
Well Thomas, this is backwards logic. We must consider the actual facts first before we try to 'logically' deduce anything from them, yes?
You were born, came to realise that you lived on this world, in space and time.
Now you KNOW that scientific laws are described by... well, scientists.(whether you believe that they are prescribed by God or not is beside the point here).
e.g. Force is equal to mass times acceleration. (F= ma) was not 'written in the scriptures', a 'revelation from God'.
Similarly E=MC(squared) is a description of energy as being equivalent to mass multiplied by the speed of light squared).
What you are saying is that IF there is a designer and IF he prescribed physical laws THEN (since he could have prescribed any laws) that 'thought experiment'(fine-tunedness) plus the actual physical laws(facts) combined with the fact that we ARE here 'tells us' that there IS a designer.
But the thought experiment INCLUDES a 'prescriber' of physical laws to deduce a 'designer' of those laws.
It is circular.
You are now just adding this infinite universes idea to confuse the issue a bit further, claiming that it 'THE' one and only 'choice' of beliefs... 'THE' only two possibilities.
By the way, I noticed how you managed to agree with me about God being infinite and the universe being NOT infinite while seeming to disagree with my point or dismissing my point.
Still, cleverly wording something does not make you any 'righter', now does it?
not-pboyfloyd at 10:50PM on May 21st 2008
102. To Friend,
Alas, another TalkOrigins page.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH100.html
This claim is dogmatism. It suggests no reason for its conclusion. The views of others, that the Bible is not God's word or is not an ultimate authority, have just as much validity.
The Bible says different things to different people. Beliefs that creationists take as gospel today, such as the fixity of "kinds" and the impossibility of life from nonlife, would have seemed absurd to creationists of centuries past, and those past creationists would have cited the Bible to support their views (such as Moses's staff changing to a snake and the plagues of Egypt appearing from nowhere), just as today's creationists quote the Bible to support their own views (Brewster 1927).
In practice, this claim really means, "My view of the Bible is the ultimate authority." (Since there are so very many different interpretations of the Bible, not to mention other religions, the claim would be meaningless otherwise.) In practice, then, this claim displays a great deal of arrogance, hubris, and closed-mindedness. It says that the final word on how the universe operates depends on one's personal decision of what to believe.
This belief, when applied as a standard for others, is religious bigotry in its purest form. It shows contempt to others who believe that God's influence may be seen elsewhere than the Bible and the select few who are defined to interpret it correctly. This claim has started wars.
The Bible says several things that you probably do not believe:
Slavery is acceptable. (Skeptic's Annotated Bible, n.d.).
You should kill your child if he strikes you (Exod. 21:15).
If you work on the Sabbath, you should be put to death (Exod. 35:2-3).
If you curse, you should be stoned to death (Lev. 24:14-15).
Happiness is smashing children upon the rocks (Psalms 137:9).
Women should be subjugated by their husbands (1 Pet. 3:1-7).
I'd list far more errors in bliblical logic and morality, but I am not sure how many words can fit into a singe comment box.
Remember, The World Ends With You.
Saigokarasu at 10:53PM on May 21st 2008
103. Saigo - this is nothing new, the devil has been attacking the word of God from the beginning. I'll believe God, you put your faith in whoever and whatever.
The harmony of the gospels, the prophecies of Christ, the end times, etc...etc... No. I'll believe the Bible, not you or anyone else contradicting God's Word.
Friend at 11:04PM on May 21st 2008
104. Besides much of what you are noting is the OT. I am a NT Christian. Christ started the Christian faith with His ministry, death, burial, and resurrection.
Yes when are to be subject to thier husbands, and the husbands are to love thier wives as Christ loves the Church. In which He gave himself for the Church.
Friend at 11:09PM on May 21st 2008
105. I knew DD would have to try and spin something about Einstein after the sale of the Einstein letter pointing out that religion is for the weak mineded... lol
Nice try. But like all your arguments... failed again.
Religion is the opiate of the masses...keeps them docile and obedient.
cdnbirch at 11:28PM on May 21st 2008