Childish superstition: Einstein's letter makes view of religion relatively clear

[kskiska]

Source: The Guardian

"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."

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/12/peopleinscience.religion

[mike_c]

1. no problem-- xtians and other religions folks are all smarter...

...than Einstein. What did he know, anyway?

[Name removed]

21. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[charlie]

44. Mike is kidding n/t

[mike_c]

47. (scratches head....)

I could have sworn I'd replied to you already, but now my reply appears to be missing. Maybe I hit cancel instead of post. Wouldn't be the first time, LOL.

Yes, that was a bit tongue in cheek. I should probably use the sarcasm smilie more often.

Thanks for the Zeitgeist link. I'd seen parts but hadn't actually sat through the whole thing before. It's incredibly powerful.

[earth mom]

49. Opps, Sorry then.

:hi:

[gabby garcia]

2. similar to my beliefs..

..he embraced the view that god is a creative force that manifests itself in the wonders of nature.

[panader0]

3. For me the term "God" means the totallity of being

Rocks, dogs, idiots, quasars, muons, did I mention idiots? EVERYTHING Even the space in between.

[stratomagi]

6. They call that Pantheism

Its just stretching the definition of God to include everything thus rendering the entire notion meaningless. If you apply Occam's razor you can prove the fallacy in it. God is eternal, all of the matter/energy in the universe is eternal. If everything that ever was was always there, there is no necessity for an eternal God to produce it.

[Indenturedebtor]

12. You didn't at all disprove what he was saying

I ended up getting into a screaming match with my wife about exactly these two posts (yours and what you responded to) the other night. The beer didn't help for sure.

A notion that the universe has a sort of consciousness and a "purpose" all it's own is not meaningless. It is a faith unto itself, that by the way is not at all incompatible with modern science.

Allowing your emotions to connect with reality as described by modern science and calling it religion doesn't make you weak. Entertain the idea that it may land you closer to the truth of things.

Worshiping "the whole" is not the same as worshiping seperate elements of the whole. In fact I would say that Monotheism is closer to Pantheism in that regard than a general reverence for the oneness of the universe: in which there is no value without relation to the whole, rather than ascribing seperate individual characteristics and powers to facets of the whole.

Very different indeed. As a matter of fact it is a sort of faith within a faith. See Kabalism... though I think it a more primitive manifestation of the school of thought.

------

Simply because "love" can be reduced to a cascade of chemicals and electrical potentials doesn't reduce it's power or it's enigma. It is perhaps more worthy of reverence when you consider both it's elements and it's totality.

--------

On edit: the poster you were responding to made no mention of creation. Indeed it seems you are being disingenuous with your reply: He didn't even mention consciousness, or any purpose. Simply "Adonai Echad" or God is One.

[stratomagi]

18. Didn't know I was causing domestic troubles.

So we don't cause any confusion here is what dictionary.com says god is:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/god

On that note I'd like to begin by saying that I doubt the universe as an entity is self aware, unless you include ourselves as part of the universe then you can say part of the universe is self aware, but I doubt most of the matter in the universe has knowledge of its intent beyond the properties of physics, its not like theres an asteroid saying, you know i'm getting bored with this path, why don't I go see what's over by that other star system. Purpose in the universe there is no doubt that there is a purpose to the universe just as much as there is purpose to a blade of grass. Meaning however is usually imbued onto something by an observer. The moon for example stabilizes the rotation of the earth and is one of the many factors that make life possible here, however I doubt the moon would acknowledge its part in the creation of life much in the same way a meteor impacting earth would acknowledge its part in destroying life. It has purpose insofar as the physical properties of the universe go, but any meaning of these events is given by us.

I fail to see how your understanding of the universe is compatible to modern science. Modern science uses empirical evidence to explain natural phenomena. It ultimately suggests that the universe is governed by rules but does not suggest that the universe has an awareness of what it is doing. In science you need to be able to reproduce something an infinite amount of times, not just say well it seems to work this way.

"Allowing your emotions to connect with reality as described by modern science and calling it religion doesn't make you weak. Entertain the idea that it may land you closer to the truth of things." :wtf:

Sounds like hyperbole to me. To me it is more amazing the way this universe works because there isn't some master plan. I'm in awe of it, but I wouldn't say I worship it.

Monotheism is in no way close to Pantheism. Monotheism is worship of an invisible entity somewhere where we can't see him that apparently created everything. Monotheists worship this deity and not necessarily its creation. Explains how we can get away with wars and pollution. Pantheism is just an intellectual dishonesty much the same way Agnosticism is or in an unrelated arena Libertarianism. Its just a way of saying fuck it, the invisible guy in the sky is too much for me, so i'll just say that same guy is everything that exists out of convenience. So getting back to what I said at the beginning I highly doubt a self aware universe.

-

"Simply because "love" can be reduced to a cascade of chemicals and electrical potentials doesn't reduce it's power or it's enigma. It is perhaps more worthy of reverence when you consider both it's elements and it's totality." :wtf:

I'm missing the point of why you added this. It is worthy of reverence because it is only a cascade of chemicals and electrical potentials that manifests love. I think that makes it more powerful, not less. So is by the way the feeling that love is powerful or enigmatic.

-

I admit the poster didn't mention god as a creator but I outright reject the notion of Pantheism...you can't have the definition of God as some supreme spooky being that controls everything and then say well really the spook is everything. Its just stretching the definition. There'd be no reason for science because god would just be god and the spook does what he wants regardless. So it doesn't matter how many times you repeat a chemical reaction in a lab because really its only happening because god is allowing it, its not based on any unalterable physical properties of atoms, no if you repeat this reaction 1 million times on the millionth try you may get chocolate pudding because god is bored.

[Silent3]

43. The space between one atom and the next...

...is quite large, at least on the scale of atoms.

Sadly, however, the space between one idiot and the next, on the scale of idiots, is far too small.

[jeff30997]

4. Butbutbut...

Intelligent design is Science right?And,and physics and that horrible Evolution theory are just

fairy-tales!That's what Einstein truly means right? :rofl:

K&R BTW.:)

[ronnie624]

5. "evangelists for atheism"

What a ridiculous euphemism.

The author couldn't resist throwing a bone to the religious.

[stratomagi]

9. Oh really? Check this out.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/11/dems.religion/index.html

"Our proposal in manifesto is to join forces with all those who support a civil public square. ... a vision of public life in which people of all faiths -- which, of course, means no faith -- are free to enter and engage public life on the basis of their faith," said evangelical leader Os Guinness.

[ronnie624]

10. Okay, I checked it out. What of it?

Since Os Guinness is a Christian evangelist and not an atheist, I don't understand your point.

[stratomagi]

11. I guess I don't understand your point

I thought you took "evangelicals for atheism" as a euphemism to say evangelicals as proponents of atheism...since what you had in quotes was entirely out of context of the sentence in the article. The quote I gave was to demonstrate in that regard that truth is stranger than fiction.

[ronnie624]

14. The author of the article used the term "evangelicals for atheism"

in reference to someone who promotes atheism, although I have never known anyone who actually promoted or preached atheism.

An evangelical could not possibly be an atheist, because the term refers specifically to a Protestant who preaches the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John of the New Testament.

In my experience, the term 'evangelicals for atheism' is used by the faithful, in an attempt to equate skeptical, rational thought to a belief in gods, demons, angels and such. I find the term rather abrasive and irritating. That is why I referred to it as a 'euphemism'.

[stratomagi]

19. This is the way I understood the line.

"Einstein became angry when his views were appropriated by evangelists for atheism."

I understood it to mean that Einstein was angry because evangelicals understood his views to imply he was an atheist.

[ronnie624]

27. Well, one or the other of us certainly misunderstood.

But the last paragraph is rather ambiguous.

How strange that this topic was moved to the Religion/Theology forum, considering the article was about a letter from Albert Einstein.

[moggie]

34. A letter about religion

Why is it strange for an article about religious belief to be moved to the forum devoted to that subject? Apologies if you were joking, but I've seen this "why did you move this article about religion to the religion forum?" question before, and I've never understood it.

[54anickel]

33. Microsoft used the term "evangelist" for as long as I worked with them.

I'm guessing he was using evangelicals in that same sense. :shrug:

[ronnie624]

36. e·van·gel·i·cal:

adjective
Definition:

1. of Protestant churches emphasizing personal salvation: relating or belonging to any Protestant Christian church that emphasizes the authority of the Bible and salvation through the personal acceptance of Jesus Christ

2. relating to Christian Gospels: relating to or based on the Gospels of the Christian Bible

3. with strong beliefs: enthusiastic or zealous in support of a particular cause and very eager to make other people share its beliefs or ideals

<http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861609459/evangelical.html>


On might wish to grasp for the third definition, but the fact of the matter is, atheism is not a belief, it is a lack there of.

[54anickel]

37. O-tay! Cripes you people are so serious. It's just a fucking word. If you take it

all the way back to it's Greek roots it means a message/messenger/I bring a message it's also happens to be the root of angel. It was later attached to the idea of good news/gospel/belief system. Message is still a legitimate, and more accurate, use of the term.

But thank you for the lesson in how to use a dictionary to somehow prove there is one and only one definition of ALL words because you must for some fucking reason be assured that everyone adheres to your desire to understand atheism as non-belief "not a belief, it is a lack there of".


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism
a·the·ism
–noun 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Or from your preferred dictionary...http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/search.aspx?q=atheism

Atheism:
The denial of or lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods. The term atheism comes from the Greek prefix a-, meaning “without,” and the Greek word theos, meaning “deity.”

[ronnie624]

38. We do not exist in ancient Greece.

We exist in the contemporary United States, so I prefer to adhere to the definitions of the current version of the English language. It eliminates confusion and helps to convey ideas and thoughts in an organized and accurate manner.

The definition offered by your source is incorrect. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in anything that cannot provide an explanation of physical phenomena through scientific inquiry. There is no such thing as an atheistic doctrine.

Encarta is not my preferred source. You referenced Microsoft, therefore I provided a definition from their dictionary.

[54anickel]

40. Oh dear lord ---- scratch that. "We exist in the comtemporary United States"....

and we tend to use dictionaries as the source for definitions (like your quote of evangelism) UNLESS they don't jive with what you believe the definition is (atheist). I'm cool with that. And you know what?....the dictionary defintion of evangelist doesn't jive with the Mircosoft's definition that I gave as example either.

They're just friggin words!!!!

As a side note, how you derived the need to use Microsoft's Encarta in this discussion on Microsoft using the term evangelist for their engineering/marketing/development employees boggles my mind.


http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/events/bb905079.aspx

[ronnie624]

42. In fact,

this the first time you've mention "engineering/marketing/development employees", so I could not possibly have considered it in my previous messages.

I hope I did not upset you too much 54anickel.

Good day.

[54anickel]

45. Upset? No, not really. Just got lost on the turn you took from my original post. Forgot I was in

the R/T Forum! ;-)

Have a good day as well ronnie624.

[HeresyLives]

7. K & R

in spite of them tossing in the 'bone to the religious', because at least they got the first part right.

Edited to clarify the sentence

[alfredo]

8. It was that damn Samuel Clemens that put those thoughts in his head.

[jimmyfungus]

13. DON'T THROW THE BABY JESUS OUT WITH THE BATH WATER

I think it is hard to judge someone's complete view of God, and their spiritual beliefs from just one letter. No one is a devoutly spiritual person from the day of birth to the day of death. People have doubts at one time or another...they change their mind...they have a bad day, and don't feel to warm or fuzzy about God,..then the next day they might have an entirely different outlook. You have to take in account everything the man wrote and said on the subject, not just consider one letter.

_____________________________________________

the world's of politics, religion, and self-improvement all topped on one mystical pizza: http://spiritual-political-self-help.blogspot.com /

[uberllama42]

48. This new letter is one example of many in which Einstein disavowed

any belief in a personal God. He used God as a metaphor for the laws of physics. He generally spoke to an audience sophisticated enough to understand the rhetorical device, but it often forced him to clarify that he did not believe in a personal God. It has been well established that Einstein was not religious in the supernatural sense.

This is an extensive discussion on Einstein and his position on God:
http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/einsteinsgod/transcript.shtml

[melody]

15. Meanwhile we the agnostics accept that everyone has a different opinion

And while I admire Einstein's science, his sense of ontology is as subjective as anyone else's.

The religious people have their orthodoxy, the more fundamentalist scientists have theirs and the agnostics of the world
know we can't balance our own checkbook so we'll leave the mysteries of the universe to the far future when someone might
figure it out.

[TZ]

24. You know the minds of all atheists "and fundamentalist scientists" do you?

( a term which is incredibly arrogant and stupid by the way as much as anyone who uses derogatory terms for believers)I would say many atheists say that this is THEIR personal belief. Some say otherwise but to claim that only agnostics are in the right of things is arrogance of the highest accord. The reason why I find this interesting is so many believers use the argument that if a physics genius believes in God that must be proof of God. I think what Einstein really thought is relavant because so much woo is often pushed in the name of Einstein and I hate to see a brilliant scientist hijacked to push agendas that are not so scientifically based.

[melody]

25. There are plenty of fundamentalist scientists

Fundamentalism is a manner of thinking. There are "fundamentalist" everything. Do we call fire by that name because that's what it has always been called? No, we know something is fire because it's warm and heats things and burns, etc. Just so, if someone thinks in fundamentalist ways, they are a fundamentalist. You can be a fundamentalist atheist, for heavens sakes. Scientists don't get a free ride because we emotionally want to protect them. They go by the laws of logic like everyone else.

The only thing "incredibly arrogant" is for someone to step in and suggest that they among all people understand the secrets of the universe. That "understanding" amounts to religion, no matter how we depict it.

[trotsky]

26. Then DU is full of fundamentalist Democrats.

Not many of us would be willing to compromise on our party's core values, would we?

Welcome to the fundamentalist label, melody!

[TZ]

32. Show me a scientist that says they know all the secrets of the universe

Seriously. I have never heard any of the scientists I worked with say that.
What they will say is just because they don't know an answer to the question is NO REASON to say "God did it!"
Slapping labels on groups you obviously don't know anything about makes one look foolish Melody!
You are suggesting because you don't know an answer to something everyone else is incapable of knowing that.
Talk to a real physicist sometime (someone like R_A for example). They can't answer all the questions but they can give you a pretty good reason why God created the earth in six days is scientifically impossible.

[rumpel]

16. a quote

“The religion of the future should transcend a personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both natural and spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description…If ever there is any religion that would cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism.”
-Albert Einstein

[54anickel]

35. Couple more...

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."

"Information is not knowledge."

"Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish."

"Everything that can be counted does not necessarily count; everything that counts cannot necessarily be counted."

"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods."


And one I've heard attributed to him (tongue in cheek) along with the "simple as possible" above.... "Anything that fits in a nutshell probably belongs there"

[Cobalt-60]

17. Thumb Rule

If the religion wants cash payments, it's bullshit.

[stratomagi]

20. Scientology?

[truthisfreedom]

22. Good for Einstein.

I always liked the man.

[jonnyra]

23. God and religion

are a vestige of our ancient bewilderment of our world. Ancient minds had to process what they saw going on around them so they invented gods in their minds that control rain and thunder and emotions etc. They then decided to offer sacrifices to these gods to keep them happy...animals, people, fruits. Elaborate stories were created about the gods and passed on through generations of early man. They knew nothing of science and math so their only explanation was gods were floating around in the sky controlling everything.

And here we are 1.4 million years later or some such number and humans still need to explain their world by way of a gods controlling everything. The tribal wars in the middle east are often the result of different beliefs in who rose to heaven first...who was the real son of god or some other ridiculous reason to kill each other. Crazy Christians think Jesus is coming back any time now...that gods brought hurricanes to New Orleans due to people dressing in costumes...that Jews are somehow the chosen favorites of their god. There are those who think god is always watching over them, protecting them until something catastrophic happens in their lives and then, well god works in mysterious ways.

Religion is always used to suppress or control the masses, divide nations and peoples, win elections...whatever. The best thing that could happen is for humanity to finally drop this ancient cave man thinking and start getting on the job of figuring out how to feed hungry people and stop making war. Unfortunately we are probably another couple of hundred thousand years of evolution away from that day.

[Hugabear]

28. Religion is the opiate of the masses

It's a crutch for those who are too weak or unwilling to think for themselves, to take accountability for their own lives. It's so much easier when people can just say "I'm in god's hands" and then just live their lives blindly, attributing everything good or bad to god. It's a CRUTCH for the feeble-minded.

How ANYONE in a modern civilized society can still believe in the supernatural is beyond me. And it absolutely floors me when people who believe that a virgin woman gave birth to some Messiah make fun of "made up" religions like Mormonism and Scientology.

[dysfunctional press]

29. "god" is the manifestation of your own personal conscience.

you are your own god- the only one who really judges what's in your heart is yourself.

[ozone_man]

30. This should dispel any notions that he was religious

or believed in God, though he sometimes used "religious" to describe his feelings about science or the cosmos. Spiritual would have been a better word and he uses that also, but it's also a word derived by theists.

I think his use of "religious" was to appease religionists, but also to explain that one can derive spirituality from reason, science, and the natural world, as well as ethics and morality. Religion was a set of childish superstitions.

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
-- Albert Einstein, 1954, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side

More quotes:

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/qframe.htm

[shrike]

31. I think he didn't like to be pigeonholed

I've also read comments by Einstein in which he expresses his impatience with atheists who are so caught up in their hatred of the "opiate of the masses" that they can't hear "the music of the spheres." (His words.)

Einstein was also quoted as saying he thought Jesus, "The Nazarene," was very likely a real person, something I thought I'd mention since we have all these "Jesus was imaginary" debates on DU.

Einstein was such a brilliant man that I think both sides wanted to claim him for their own. Though he definitely fell more into the non-religious camp, he didn't want to be a card-carrying member, IMO. Maybe he wanted to keep people guessing.

[ladjf]

39. Einstein would not have been allowed to teach in many of the

public and private schools in the U.S. because of his realistic views about religion. For that matter,neither would Jefferson or Franklin.

[Disturbed]

46. Human beings created gods, not the other way around.

The need for explanations is strong.

[ladjf]

50. It's a simple as that.