"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."

More of the article here: Link

------------------------------------------------------
A most interesting piece of history

And you left out the last paragraph of the article, I thought I'd add it now:

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."

Do not forget these quotes:

He was no atheist but he was agnostic.



He disapproved of atheist using him misquoting him.



He does not believe in a personal God but did in a Creator that set out the laws of nature.



He was still religious even though it was from a scientific base and mindset.



He believed science cannot refute a personal God even though he did not believe in one himself.



He did not believe science and religion could be truly at odds. In this I agree with him. Those who engage in science vs God debates do so out of politics and not out of science or God.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein

+ how much you think the letter will fetch? and who will buy it? the historian? the scientist? or someone engaged in political debates that merely want to possess it? my random guess is a museum or other preservation society.

No, I did not.

UM Rules:

2c. Copyrighted material: If you quote text from another web site then please properly credit the source. Not doing so constitutes plagiarism, always include a source link with quoted material. Members are asked to copy only as much as is necessary when quoting copyrighted material from other web sites, do not copy and paste entire articles or web pages.

Blame Saru, not me. If you also notice that isn't the only thing I 'left out' but more then half of the article at hand.


As for the quote... He sounds like he's ticked that religious people would just redouce his works as "atheism" and dismiss it on that basis.

It would seem he did not want atheist or evangelist quoting him for their own points since he did not ultimately agree with either. I have to agree with MMW in that he rejected conventional religion and that was what the final quote illustrated.

That's news to me. Einstein was a pantheist, he believed that nature could be viewed as being an abstract god in itself.

Something interesting to not is that Buddhists (or Yoga philosophers) a thousand years or so before Einstein theorised that matter and energy were the same they had already incorporated such a teaching into their philosophy.

So they just lacked the science to prove their theory. So was it a lucky guess or do they know something we don't?

Are you saying pantheist cannot believe in a Creator?

Can't we just claim Einstein on the side of great humans, reguardless of his religious beliefs? I thought it was already very clear what his beliefs were.

@heinrich1858: They likely had no special knowledge, but they just had an abstract way of thinking about things that turned out to be right, just like the hindus and their cosmology and the greeks figuring out atoms with no way to prove it. And when you think about it, doesn't it seem obvious that energy and matter are the same thing?

It seems contradictory to me. The whole point of pantheism is that the 'god' is immanent, bound within the universe itself, however for a god to be a creator it must be transcendent, don't you think?

In either case, no, I don't believe this particular pantheist did believe in a creator.

But that wouldn't give either side 'credit' for him.

Well us atheists can always lay claim to Rodney Dangerfield.

Tough luck believers...he's ours

Why would he say this then? It would seem he was a proponent of intelligent design even if he did not believe in a personal God that involves Himself with our lives. Einstein did believe in a God that that created and also orders the universe through laws and nature.




http://www.physics2005.org/einstein.html

Einstein's "belief" in Spinoza's God is one of his most widely quoted statements. But quoted out of context, like so many of these statements, it is misleading at best. It all started when Boston's Cardinal O'Connel attacked Einstein and the General Theory of Relativity and warned the youth that the theory "cloaked the ghastly apparition of atheism" and "befogged speculation, producing universal doubt about God and His creation"(Clark, 1971, 413-414). Einstein had already experienced heavier duty attacks against his theory in the form of anti-Semitic mass meetings in Germany, and he initially ignored the Cardinal's attack. Shortly thereafter though, on April 24, 1929, Rabbi Herbert Goldstein of New York cabled Einstein to ask: "Do you believe in God?"(Sommerfeld, 1949, 103). Einstein's return message is the famous statement: "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings"( 103). The Rabbi, who was intent on defending Einstein against the Cardinal, interpreted Einstein's statement in his own way when writing: "Spinoza, who is called the God-intoxicated man, and who saw God manifest in all nature, certainly could not be called an atheist. Furthermore, Einstein points to a unity. Einstein's theory if carried out to its logical conclusion would bring to mankind a scientific formula for monotheism. He does away with all thought of dualism or pluralism. There can be no room for any aspect of polytheism. This latter thought may have caused the Cardinal to speak out. Let us call a spade a spade"(Clark, 1971, 414). Both the Rabbi and the Cardinal would have done well to note Einstein's remark, of 1921, to Archbishop Davidson in a similar context about science: "It makes no difference. It is purely abstract science"(413).

The American physicist Steven Weinberg (1992), in critiquing Einstein's "Spinoza's God" statement, noted: "But what possible difference does it make to anyone if we use the word 'God' in place of 'order' or 'harmony,' except perhaps to avoid the accusation of having no God?" Weinberg certainly has a valid point, but we should also forgive Einstein for being a product of his times, for his poetic sense, and for his cosmic religious view regarding such things as the order and harmony of the universe.

But what, at bottom, was Einstein's belief? The long answer exists in Einstein's essays on religion and science as given in his Ideas and Opinions (1954), his Autobiographical Notes (1949), and other works. What about a short answer?

In the Summer of 1945, just before the bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Einstein wrote a short letter stating his position as an atheist (Figure 1). Ensign Guy H. Raner had written Einstein from mid-Pacific requesting a clarification on the beliefs of the world famous scientist (Figure 2). Four years later Raner again wrote Einstein for further clarification and asked "Some people might interpret (your letter) to mean that to a Jesuit priest, anyone not a Roman Catholic is an atheist, and that you are in fact an orthodox Jew, or a Deist, or something else. Did you mean to leave room for such an interpretation, or are you from the viewpoint of the dictionary an atheist; i.e., 'one who disbelieves in the existence of a God, or a Supreme Being'?" Einstein's response is shown in Figure 3.

Combining key elements from the first and second response from Einstein there is little doubt as to his position: "From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.... I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our being."

Einstein continued to search, even to the last days of his 76 years, but his search was not for the God of Abraham or Moses. His search was for the order and harmony of the world.

http://www.skeptically.org/thinkersonreligion/id8.html

I'll add these too:

Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source . . . They are creatures who can't hear the music of the spheres. (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, 2000 p. 214)


and this:

In the view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognise, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support for such views. (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, p. 214)


and this:

What separates me from most so-called atheists is a feeling of utter humility toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos. (Albert Einstein to Joseph Lewis, Apr. 18, 1953)


http://www.spaceandmotion.com/albert-einst...on-theology.htm

Your quoting of the article was just as the Terms of Service ask - thank you, Kratos . I don't think, however, that MMW was making an accusation about leaving it out (though she might be, I don't know for certain ). It's good to read it here though, for those who aren't going to click the link.

I don't think he's ticked that religious people would reduce his works as "atheism". The article states: Einstein became angry when his views were appropriated by evangelists for atheism. He was offended by their lack of humility and once wrote. I don't know how this can be read in any other way than referring to atheists using his work to support their belief in the non-existence of God - evangelists for atheism.

Just a thought

Least I was nice about it, should have seen my post before I self edited

I know they don't always, just was saying I wasn't trying to hide it. If I was I wouldn't have even bothered to post the proper source. I found this actually half quoted in an atheist blog and looked for a more credible source then an online blog.



Yeah, he is. I should have read it over a few times more.

Yep, it makes more sense now PA. My view was wrong too it seems. It does read 'evangelist for atheism' and not evangelists attempting to discredit atheism. I do see we have a few 'evangelist for atheism' on this very forum by their views. Proselytical mindsets no doubt.

We have facts and scientific laws, but Einstein wanted to go beyond that, he wanted to be able to understand everything that went on behind the scenes, the underlying order of nature (god), they're the thoughts he refers to. That's my understanding of it, at least.

He still definitely mentioned 'God created the world' and even though he did not have the Judeo-Christian God in mind it does not take away from that. There is no denying what he said in his own words. No doubt he was approaching it from a scientific mindset. In my view that is an Intelligent Designer even if the terminology was not in use then. Not that it adds any credence to the Bible or creationism but ID does not have to include either.

What people believe prevails over the truth.

Have you ever talked with a theoretical physicist before? Not to add fuel to the fire, but they often to refer to natural laws as god. I think this is what Einstein was doing when he spoke of god. The laws of the universe, not a god or designer. Einstein was rather cryptic (the stigma of working with too many formula if you ask me), his quotes will be taken differently by different people and I suspect this was his intent.

Reading his quotes though, and those of many contemporary theoretical physicists and theoretical physicists I have had dealings with in my life leads me to believe that Einstein was likely referring to the physicists "god". Either way, with him gone and not here to straighten this out -It seems a silly spat in time to debate his cryptic quotes. I'll have to agree with someone else in another topic that said -While his works in science are certainly commendable, his philosophy may have been lacking.

As a quick aside, ID has been around much longer before Einsteins day. And while they may have not explicitly used the phrase 'intelligent design', the idea was advanced enough that one would think Einstein would be using better wordage if this is what he meant. But alas, If the atheist and theist camps want to claim him, why not ID as well?

In the end does it really matter who gets him? Siding with a long since deceased person, removed from a generation of knowledge, technology and scientific progress, does no credit to one's side. If the cryptic philosophical ramblings of an early 20th century scientist are the best support one can draw for their idea, then I would suggest making an investment in new ideas.

Actually, he was one of the physicists who, before Hubble made his discoveries, was opposed to the idea of an expanding universe because it suggested a beginning and felt too much like divine intervention. He even had reservations about his own theory of relativity because it would only be true in a universe that was either expanding or contracting. He came around to the expanding universe and big bang theory when Hubble proved it. I'm actually not familiar with any quotes from him saying that god created the world.

Again, his 'god' is nature. He wasn't questioning anything except how the universe works.

He stated he was not a pantheist though so all the theories of he was are not true. Maybe he was a deist?...either way the quotes I have seen definitely point to ID. Not that I care to argue it because he was a genius and has his own merits beyond being used for political ends in theistic debates.



http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/einstein.html

They have shown evidence that the universe is explanding but as far as I remember they havnt actually proved the 'Big Bang' itself.

Too bad it can't be settled if he believed, didn't believe or had no clue. That would have settled the religious debate once and for all, everyone turning to the side of Einstein. Perhaps we should call Einstein god and get it over with.

Awesome quote which oftens applies to me!

Hahahaha yeah, so true. However much of my religious influence stems from Mahatma Gandhi so Einstein would have to be pretty convincing for me to be influence. Though I soooooo love many of Einsteins quotes

WHAT A F*&^%$£ AWESOME FREETHINKER!!!!!!

Well, you can't prove anything completely, but you can prove things beyond a reasonable doubt. Sure there's room for the Big Bang to be wrong, but it has been essentially confirmed ever since the discovery of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, which is like the echo of the big bang.

On a non-smartarse level Could a Christian then essentially confirm God exists because creation is an effect or echo of God?

I have to go with that too. Plato elaborated on the idea of a singular God being responsible for the creation of us and the universe but in the way of God being the natural laws of how we came to be. The laws of the universe were explained by Plato as God. Timaeus is his work on this. I believe Einstein saw them in a similar way.

*smartarse alert*

If we were to refer to the universe as a 'creation' then this implies a creator. This is why scientists refer to the universe as "the universe". I would think that there could be no confirmation of God's existence because, although the evidence we have gathered from cosmology indicates the observable universe had a beginning (hence the Big Bang theory) - this evidence does nothing to suggest that beginning was guided by some intelligence.

If we looked out into space and saw a big "Made by Yahweh" tag then yes. The CMBR wasn't just something they saw and crammed into the Big Bang theory, it was predicted that, if the Big Bang theory was correct, there'd be a very faint source of radio waves coming from every direction in the sky. If that isn't proof I don't know what is.

Even so enough scientist on a personal level do believe in God. They do not allow this belief to affect their work nor do they see science as proving God. They though have come to understand science and God serve two different purposes and neither cancel each other out. For those who do believe they cancel each other out that is fine just not necessarily true.

I love quotes by Einstein. There's so much to learn from arguably the greatest human mind of all time. I like his quote, "God does not play dice with the universe." In this quote Einstein mentions both God and the universe. He's acknowledging his recognition in the spectacular way that God designed everything.

*sigh*

Again, no. This quote, like many others which have also been taken out of context, has nothing to do with god, religion or philosophy. Einstein was commenting on quantum physics. He believed that everything in physics was deterministic, with every definite action having a definite outcome, so he was displeased with the apparent random nature found in quantum mechanics.

When he talks about 'god' like this, he's referring to the underlying order of physics that he was searching for. Anything that an average person would recognize as a god, he viewed as a childish superstition, as the thread title states.

He definitely believes in a god that created this world. We can ignore the following quote if we wish to deny that.



http://www.physics2005.org/einstein.html

I have to disagree with you hear Yeti.

Einsteins quote was about quantum mechanics and the problems he saw with it rather than the way "God designed everything".

Heisenberg taught us it is impossible to both know location and speed to a certainty (this is simplified for any physics buffs out there). The uncertainty principle, Heisenberg's legacy, left the state of physics with a certain randomness, which is seen in QM today. Einstein disliked the idea of a non-predictable, random universe. He, as someone pointed out already, believe the universe was not expanding or contracting -it simply was. He felt that an expanding universe implied beginnings, which he thought smacked of deities.

Einstein believed in Newton's deterministic universe, an assumption that almost every branch of science makes save one. -QM. That assumption being "Thing's don't just happen". Gods just don't create universes, particles just don't teleport across vast distances of space, etc etc.

The problem was born when Max Planck discovered that all energy comes in packets, he called "quanta". Newtonian physics fails miserably at describing the nature and behavior of quanta. Over the next decades, physicists founds that quanta had extremely weird behavior. Just observing it caused changes in behaviors, you could never be sure where it was and it was very hard to predict how it would act. Despite this weird behavior, evidence kept compiling that this is how the universe behaved.

Einstein came to loath this, his quote you provided is in relation to this. As Raptor had described (as well as others), Einstein referred to natural laws, as god. Much like Plato and many other Greek philosophers.
All Einstein is saying in this quote is; He doesn't think that the universe is a random place, natural laws should be capable of describing nature, but with some aspects of quantum mechanics there is no descriptive law, -that is the universe is "throwing dice".

I'll have to agree with Raptor's sigh at this point. I don't think again, this quote is referring to god, but rather how the underlaying physical laws of the universe allowed for the emergence of what we see today. Einstein believed the universe was always here, never created, but eventually he was forced to confront this possibility as false as evidence mounted for a beginning to the universe.

We can ignore the following thread if we wish to accept that: Childish superstition: Einstein's letter.

I've already explained that exact quote, and even my last post in this thread applies to it. The 'god' here is the underlying order of nature, the true equations going on behind the curtain, the ones which give us the physical laws; the ones that Einstein, a physicist, spent his life pondering.

He still believes a god created this world. Far from the point that you offered before which stated he did not believe in a creator. It is accepted that he did not believe in the Judeo-Christian concept of God but no one is saying that he did. Your points above is not dismissed just your earlier point when you claimed he did not believe in a creator.

Einstein was also a near death experiencer, drowning accident

Now you've done it, we'll have religious people fighting over who gets to tag the universe first.

Beginning as in 'the creation of the universe'?

I am not orthodox Christian but why would the evidence or proof have to be a big Sign that says 'Made by Yahweh?'




The big bang in my view may be one of many processes the universe goes through occasionally or cyclically in my view. However when scientists say that time and space are the result of the big bang and therefore the big bang didnt occur in time and space then how does 'nothing' become something unless time and space potential was already there before the big bang?

And if such potential was already there before the big bang (and therefore an actual in its own right) then we cant say the universe started after and during the big bang because it was already there in some form to be the cause of it.

Just inquiring.

Wow, it's like a battle field here! -puts on helmet-

Okay, actually, I was wondering, how many of you believe he's vouching for God, even though you are Athiest or vice-versa? I'm just... curious, is all.

Personally... I've become confused. If it's one thing he's not, though, it's that he's vouching to the extreme over either side.

He has his own view that is in between agnosticism and theism. It is scientifically oriented. It was his quotes that seem to be as highly conflicting as the Bible might be for some. In these cases instead of picking one quote and ignoring the rest the best thing to do is see how they all interconnect to get a more valid view of what Einstein believed. He said he does not believe in pantheism, a personal god, or atheism. He does believe a god created the world.

I really wish you would quit pretending to know the mind of Einstein. Claiming him to the "believes in a creator of the universe" camp is just as bad as claiming him to the atheist or theist camp. Most of his quotes are cryptic, many more are unsourced and likely not even made by him. You are aware of what Einstein's problem with an expanding universe was, correct? He disliked the notion because he thought that implied the universe had an origin, and he disliked the idea of a universal origin because he thought that gave too much room for a creator. So how you come to "He does believe a god created the world", I don't know.

Edit:
You know, I read another post of yours in which you described how unethical it is for historians to lead people to certain conclusions, Einstein clearly stated why he did not like the expanding universe model. Despite that, here you are, leading people to a conclusion that coincidently fits your world view (I've read some of your other posts and realize you are in the ID camp). So a case of the pot calling the kettle black? We can let the readers decide.

Its not so much that "the big bang didn't occur in time and space" as it is, time and space are a result of the big bang. The potential for time and space was in the small dense baby universe or singularity or whatever you wish to call it. So its not a case of "something from nothing", its a case of a realization of a potential that lay within the singularity.

Picture it like this, let's say you have balloon, squished down to incredibly small dimensions. Before you squished it down, you had marked little "X"s all over the surface in varying places. When the balloon is in this super small, super dense state all points are essentially the same, or so close to being the same measuring the difference would impossible.

Now let's picture blowing up the balloon from this extremely squished state. The points remain the same points but the fabric of balloon expands. The fabric, our representation of space in this case, was there all along. It always had the potential to be much larger and different, but in the extremely small state all points in the fabric were essentially equivalent. The expanded fabric of the balloon did not come from nothing, it was there all along.

I hope this helps, if not let me know and I'll try and think of a better example to explain it.