Einstein on religion
Dave Smith
James Randerson, science correspondent
The Guardian, Tuesday May 13 2008
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
So said Albert Einstein, and his famous aphorism has been the source
of endless debate between believers and non-believers wanting to claim
the greatest scientist of the 20th century as their own.
A little known letter written by him, however, may help to settle the
argument - or at least provoke further controversy about his views.
Due to be auctioned this week in London after being in a private
collection for more than 50 years, the document leaves no doubt that
the theoretical physicist was no supporter of religious beliefs, which
he regarded as "childish superstitions".
Einstein penned the letter on January 3 1954 to the philosopher Eric
Gutkind who had sent him a copy of his book Choose Life: The Biblical
Call to Revolt. The letter went on public sale a year later and has
remained in private hands ever since.
In the letter, he states: "The word god is for me nothing more than
the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection
of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless
pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me)
change this."
Einstein, who was Jewish and who declined an offer to be the state of
Israel's second president, also rejected the idea that the Jews are
God's favoured people.
"For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the
most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly
belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no
different quality for me than all other people. As far as my
experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although
they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power.
Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them."
The letter will go on sale at Bloomsbury Auctions in Mayfair on
Thursday and is expected to fetch up to £8,000. The handwritten piece,
in German, is not listed in the source material of the most
authoritative academic text on the subject, Max Jammer's book Einstein
and Religion.
One of the country's leading experts on the scientist, John Brooke of
Oxford University, admitted he had not heard of it.
Einstein is best known for his theories of relativity and for the
famous E=mc2 equation that describes the equivalence of mass and
energy, but his thoughts on religion have long attracted conjecture.
His parents were not religious but he attended a Catholic primary
school and at the same time received private tuition in Judaism. This
prompted what he later called, his "religious paradise of youth",
during which he observed religious rules such as not eating pork. This
did not last long though and by 12 he was questioning the truth of
many biblical stories.
"The consequence was a positively fanatic [orgy of] freethinking
coupled with the impression that youth is being deceived by the state
through lies; it was a crushing impression," he later wrote.
In his later years he referred to a "cosmic religious feeling" that
permeated and sustained his scientific work. In 1954, a year before
his death, he spoke of wishing to "experience the universe as a single
cosmic whole". He was also fond of using religious flourishes, in 1926
declaring that "He [God] does not throw dice" when referring to
randomness thrown up by quantum theory.
His position on God has been widely misrepresented by people on both
sides of the atheism/religion divide but he always resisted easy
stereotyping on the subject.
"Like other great scientists he does not fit the boxes in which
popular polemicists like to pigeonhole him," said Brooke. "It is clear
for example that he had respect for the religious values enshrined
within Judaic and Christian traditions ... but what he understood by
religion was something far more subtle than what is usually meant by
the word in popular discussion."
Despite his categorical rejection of conventional religion, Brooke
said that Einstein became angry when his views were appropriated by
evangelists for atheism. He was offended by their lack of humility and
once wrote: "The eternal mystery of the world is its
comprehensibility."
Lance
>
> comprehensibility."
I think many people have a religious phase in adolescence - I
certainly did.
It seems to me that what Einstein called "lack of humility" in
atheists is worth teasing out more clearly - for it is an impression
that many people form of atheists. Is it the trashing of others
cherished beliefs? A lack of sense of wonder in the world (perhaps
einstein meant this?). I don't know, but I think it might be worth
further thought.
Lance
Dave Smith
>
> - Show quoted text -
An atheist who confidently asserts that religious beliefs are silly
nonsense, is likely to be judged arrogant by those holding such
beliefs.
Dave
Peter Brooks
>
>
> An atheist who confidently asserts that religious beliefs are silly
> nonsense, is likely to be judged arrogant by those holding such
> beliefs.
>
Anybody clever enough to be right about anything is likely to be
'judged arrogant' by those who are stupid enough to be usually wrong.
Quelle surprise!
Isn't it rather a commendation to be 'judged arrogant' by the stupid?
Lance
it seems to me that Einstein was not stupid.
Lance
PG
"Lance" <Lanc...@gmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
3db35fe4-a32e-4a33...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Peter Brooks wrote:
>> On May 13, 8:35?pm, Dave Smith <da...@dsmith60.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > An atheist who confidently asserts that religious beliefs are silly
>> > beliefs.
>> >
>> And?
>>
>> Anybody clever enough to be right about anything is likely to be
>> 'judged arrogant' by those who are stupid enough to be usually wrong.
>>
>> Quelle surprise!
>>
>> Isn't it rather a commendation to be 'judged arrogant' by the stupid?
>
>it seems to me that Einstein was not stupid.
I have a friend who can finish the Times crossword in a few minutes, without
fail. He is a committed Christian. He walks into 'transparent' glass doors
on a regular basis, has problems interracting with other people. He (rather
inevitably) ended up as lifelong academic, dean of a college of a major
university, author of studies on obscure mediaeval writers. He's not
'stupid' either. All the same, evolutionary psychology goes right over his
head.
pga
Lance
> "Lance" <LanceG...@gmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 3db35fe4-a32e-4a33-a0cc-4a9f55dc7...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> - Show quoted text -
It seems to me that if people who should call themselves atheists just
by the nature of their lack of belief (such as Einstein) don't want to
because they perceive atheists as arrogant, then we need to ask what
gives rise to that perception. And I don't buy your claim that such
folk are just too stupid to understand evolutionary psychology. It is
something about the way atheists are presenting themselves (on
average) that is repulsing people from accepting that identity.
Lance
Peter Brooks
>
>
> It seems to me that if people who should call themselves atheists just
> by the nature of their lack of belief (such as Einstein) don't want to
> because they perceive atheists as arrogant, then we need to ask what
> gives rise to that perception. And I don't buy your claim that such
> folk are just too stupid to understand evolutionary psychology. It is
> something about the way atheists are presenting themselves (on
> average) that is repulsing people from accepting that identity.
>
to mean 'unintelligent'. Looking for defintions, I found a nice one
for the alternative meaning 'greatly apt to making poor decisions'.
Somebody can be very clever but extremely short of 'common sense' -
I've met a few. It is the model of the stereotypical absent-minded
professor.
On the arrogance side, I can see the problem, I think, or at least
part of it. God-botherers are wont to humble themselves before their
gods, to the extent of bowing to them, kneeling before their idols or
even going in for full prostration. This is, of course, all to build
up the impression of the gods being powerful and important enough to
be treated in the way people (wise people - as in 'what do you call a
gorilla with a machine-gun? [Sir] - anyway) treat despots.
Now atheists don't get involved with that sort of thing (unless
they're keen on S&M, I suppose), so, inevitably, they will be seen as
'arrogant'. They arrogate to themselves the position of being greater
than the tin-gods - which, to a believer in tin-gods, is pretty
extreme arrogance.
Lance
1. Einstein called religion and belief in Gods childish - hardly
bowing down to the Gods.
2. Einstein was not afraid to stand up to authority figues - he stood
up to Nazi's and the FBI, for example.
3. Einstein was not socially stupid, but very much aware of the
complex world in which he lived. He was a pacifist, but when it seemed
likely that the Nazi's would manufacture a nuclear bomb he took
appropriate action.
4. Despite 1-4 above, he perceived atheists as arrogant.
Lance
PG
"Lance" <Lanc...@gmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
3639fdcc-39fd-4ee9...@24g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
[Lance wrote]:
{1. Einstein called religion and belief in Gods childish - hardly
{bowing down to the Gods.
{
{2. Einstein was not afraid to stand up to authority figues - he stood
{up to Nazi's and the FBI, for example.
{
{3. Einstein was not socially stupid, but very much aware of the
{complex world in which he lived. He was a pacifist, but when it seemed
{likely that the Nazi's would manufacture a nuclear bomb he took
{appropriate action.
{
{4. Despite 1-4 above, he perceived atheists as arrogant.
Perhaps times have changed a little, in that today (imo) the majority of
atheists associate their standpoint with a lack of belief in, rather than an
outright denial of, the existence of (G)god(s). Perhaps today, Einstein, who
only ever expressed a pretty vague deism, would be standing shoulder to
shoulder with Dawkins. I certainly think that is quite possible.
pga
PG
"Lance" <Lanc...@gmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
92cb5914-fa5a-4c98...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On May 14, 8:29 am, "PG" <p...@alpesprovence.net> wrote:
> "Lance" <LanceG...@gmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 3db35fe4-a32e-4a33-a0cc-4a9f55dc7...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> Peter Brooks wrote:
> >> On May 13, 8:35?pm, Dave Smith <da...@dsmith60.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> > An atheist who confidently asserts that religious beliefs are silly
> >> > nonsense, ?is likely to be judged arrogant by those holding such
> >> > beliefs.
>
> >> And?
>
> >> Anybody clever enough to be right about anything is likely to be
> >> 'judged arrogant' by those who are stupid enough to be usually wrong.
>
> >> Quelle surprise!
>
> >> Isn't it rather a commendation to be 'judged arrogant' by the stupid?
>
> >it seems to me that Einstein was not stupid.
>
> I have a friend who can finish the Times crossword in a few minutes,
> without
> fail. He is a committed Christian. He walks into 'transparent' glass doors
> on a regular basis, has problems interracting with other people. He
> (rather
> inevitably) ended up as lifelong academic, dean of a college of a major
> university, author of studies on obscure mediaeval writers. He's not
> 'stupid' either. All the same, evolutionary psychology goes right over his
> head.
[Lance wrote]:
{It seems to me that if people who should call themselves atheists just
{by the nature of their lack of belief (such as Einstein) don't want to
{because they perceive atheists as arrogant, then we need to ask what
{gives rise to that perception. And I don't buy your claim that such
{folk are just too stupid to understand evolutionary psychology. It is
{something about the way atheists are presenting themselves (on
{average) that is repulsing people from accepting that identity.
I certainly was not implying that Einstein was 'stupid' in any respect, but
had an idea that PB's use of the term "stupid" suggested a different
interpretation. Instinct, logic-leaping insight (but with sound evidence to
back it up), a lack of credulity, just some of the factors that help some
people to a more rounded understanding.
Somewhat of a generality too, the alleged 'arrogance' of atheists. Given
that atheism only implies a lack of belief in the supernatural (with
absolutely no other compulsory common denominators), it's a bit like calling
a collective of nofairiesatthebottomofthegardenists arrogant, no matter what
their moral etc beliefs. So Einstein, among others, made a rather silly
statement categorising atheists en masse in this manner - it just doesn't
stand up to scrutiny.
pga
Dave Smith
>
> - Show quoted text -
It's possible to respect people with whom one disagrees, and
dismissing their opinions as stupid is likely to be counter-
productive. Better to try to understand why they think and feel the
way they do.
Dave
Paul Grieg
> "Lance" <LanceG...@gmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 3639fdcc-39fd-4ee9-89f2-665db7488...@24g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Dawkins certainly tries to enrol him on his side (pretty
successfully), see the early chapters of TGD
Knuje
>
> Perhaps times have changed a little, in that today (imo) the majority of
> atheists associate their standpoint with a lack of belief in, rather than an
> outright denial of, the existence of (G)god(s). Perhaps today, Einstein, who
> only ever expressed a pretty vague deism, would be standing shoulder to
> shoulder with Dawkins. I certainly think that is quite possible.
>
-- but not Pandeism....
Dave Smith
>
> - Show quoted text -
Incidentally, the Telegraph reports that Dawkins has tried,
unsuccessfully, to buy the letter.
Dave