Einstein's God

[Chimp]

Interesting Einstein quotes:



http://www.tricity.wsu.edu/~dcarrell/einstein/quotesaboutgod.htm


"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."


"I believe in a Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and actions of human beings."


"I can not accept any concept of God based on the fear of life or the fear of death or blind faith. I can not prove to you that there is no personal God, but if I were to speak of him I would be a liar."


"Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe - a spirit vastly superior to that of man...In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive."


"I cannot believe that God would choose to play dice with the universe."


"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature."


In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of the priests."

"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."


"I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science. [He was speaking of Quantum Mechanics and the breaking down of determinism.] My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance -- but for us, not for God."

"What humanity owes to personalities like Buddha, Moses, and Jesus ranks for me higher than all the achievements of the inquiring and constructive mind."

"The priests, in control of education, made the class division of society into a permanent institution and created a system of values by which the people were thenceforth, to a large extent unconsciously, guided in their social behavior."

"The relativity principle in connection with the basic Maxwellian equations demands that the mass should be a direct measure of the energy contained in a body; light transfers mass. With radium there should be a noticeable diminution of mass. The idea is amusing and enticing; but whether the Almighty is laughing at it and is leading me up the garden path - that I cannot know."

[Heathen Dawn]

Dawkins, from Snake Oil and Holy Water:

If God is a synonym for the deepest principles of physics, what word is left for a hypothetical being who answers prayers, intervenes to save cancer patients or helps evolution over difficult jumps, forgives sins or dies for them?

[Jobar]

Einstein was a pantheist, as was Spinoza.

And, since it seems that every person on Earth has a slightly (or wildly) differing definition for the word 'God', I see no reason why a pantheistic definition is any less valid than a monotheistic definition.

[Heathen Dawn]

Hi Jobar,

Except for adopting a different label, what is the difference between an atheist and pantheist (especially a natural pantheist as in here (http://members.aol.com/Heraklit1/))?

If the universe is synonymous with God, then why do we have two different words?

An atheist calling himself a pantheist (which I did in the past) strikes me as nothing more than a name-game.

Usually by "God" I understand a "personal being", ie having human-like intelligence and feelings, even if He is impersonal in that He does not intervene in the creation. Calling the universe God seems to me a misuse of the word "God". The universe is entirely impersonal, entirely unlike human beings.

I stick to labelling myself an atheist. I don't believe in gods, and I don't believe anything is God. The concept of deity is totally mythical to me.

[Chimp]

I find myself in agreement with Einstein, and it does not matter which of the "ists" he was.

:notworthy

chimp

[Tristan Scott]

Originally posted by Chimp
I find myself in agreement with Einstein, and it does not matter which of the "ists" he was.

:notworthy

chimp

Einstein was a physicist.

[Magic Primate]

Originally posted by Heathen Dawn
Hi Jobar,

Except for adopting a different label, what is the difference between an atheist and pantheist (especially a natural pantheist as in here (http://members.aol.com/Heraklit1/))?

If the universe is synonymous with God, then why do we have two different words?

An atheist calling himself a pantheist (which I did in the past) strikes me as nothing more than a name-game.

Usually by "God" I understand a "personal being", ie having human-like intelligence and feelings, even if He is impersonal in that He does not intervene in the creation. Calling the universe God seems to me a misuse of the word "God". The universe is entirely impersonal, entirely unlike human beings.

I stick to labelling myself an atheist. I don't believe in gods, and I don't believe anything is God. The concept of deity is totally mythical to me.

I agree. Some people seem to do this to try to sneak God in through the back door. But calling nature 'God' is not only meaningless, its really causing a lot of confusion.

[Toto]

Einstein was an atheist in his own words (http://jeromekahn123.tripod.com/thinkersonreligion/id8.html)

From a private letter:

"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."


But, just like Christians claim that Darwin converted on his death bed, that Washington prayed at Valley Forge, Einstein has to be recast as some sort of believer.

It's all Christian mythmaking in action.

[Jobar]

This is far from the first time I've discussed pantheism; see
Here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33316)
here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33304)
here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33228)
here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33356)
and here. (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33359)
Oh, and this one (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=32719&perpage=25&pagenumber=2) is particularly good, I think.

That first link, in particular, addresses HD's and MP's objections.

Just recently, I read that Chinese did not even have a word for God, until Christian missionaries arrived and coined one (which means something like 'above the emperor'.) So I certainly don't dispute that there is some semantic difficulty here, as Taoism is a pantheistic religion/philosophy/moral code. However, the concepts for things like Tao and Brahman are rather lacking in English; see some of the discussions above.

[ex-xian]

Originally posted by Toto

From a private letter:
"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."

But, just like Christians claim that Darwin converted on his death bed, that Washington prayed at Valley Forge, Einstein has to be recast as some sort of believer.

It's all Christian mythmaking in action.
No, Eistien wan not an atheist. If you'll look carefully at that quote, he says that from the standpoint of a Jesuit priest, be would be called an atheist. He also explicitly states that he does not believe in a personal god. This is in harmony with his other pantheistic statements. Einstien was a spinozian--materialist pantheist.

-edited to add-
I did read the link, but it seemed that part of it was missing. I'm willing to be corrected, but that article was far from definitive.

[John Page]

Originally posted by Chimp
Interesting Einstein quotes:
........."I cannot believe that God would choose to play dice with the universe."
Interesting indeed. If Einstein's god existed, that existence is contrary to the results of experiments in quantum mechanics yielding event probabilities that can be simulated by die rolling, coin tossing and the like.

Cheers, John

[Tristan Scott]

Originally posted by John Page
Interesting indeed. If Einstein's god existed, that existence is contrary to the results of experiments in quantum mechanics yielding event probabilities that can be simulated by die rolling, coin tossing and the like.

Cheers, John

I would think that Einstein's god would be existence itself.

The mystery of all mysteries.

[Heathen Dawn]

Einstein never did like quantum mechanics.

[Toto]

Originally posted by ex-xian
No, Eistien wan not an atheist. If you'll look carefully at that quote, he says that from the standpoint of a Jesuit priest, be would be called an atheist. He also explicitly states that he does not believe in a personal god. This is in harmony with his other pantheistic statements. Einstien was a spinozian--materialist pantheist.

-edited to add-
I did read the link, but it seemed that part of it was missing. I'm willing to be corrected, but that article was far from definitive.

He didn't believe in a personal god. He used the term god to refer to the universe, in a playful sense, not in the sense that he believed everything was infused with a mystical sense. What more do you want?

Do you think Jesuit priests define atheism differently from the rest of us?

[Toto]

Here's a better site, with more complete quotations:

Einstein on religion (http://atheisme.ca/citations/cit_en_Einstein.html)

"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."

From a letter to an atheist who had asked about Einstein's alleged religious beliefs, 1954

. . .

And so, just what was Einstein's philosophical stance as regards the "god" question? It is clear from his statements that he can honestly be considered an agnostic, or an atheist, or possibly a pantheist in the tradition of Spinoza, but that he was most certainly not a theist. In particular, Einstein rejected theism as a basis for morality. Furthermore, he was aware than some religious apologists were deliberately misrepresenting his views.
In other words, Einstein was evidently an atheist but was apparently of the opinion that it was ungracious to say so in a forthright manner. With all due respect to the great scientist, some of us choose to disagree with him on this last point.



I attended a lecture from the person who dug up the letters cited above. Einstein only shied away from the harshness surrounding the word atheist, but he fits the definition of atheism that we use. He can be considered a pantheist, because a lot of pantheists are atheists who do not like the sound of the word atheism, but he doesn't appear to have described himself as a pantheist.

[ex-xian]

Originally posted by Toto
He didn't believe in a personal god. He used the term god to refer to the universe, in a playful sense, not in the sense that he believed everything was infused with a mystical sense. What more do you want?

Do you think Jesuit priests define atheism differently from the rest of us?
Then why did he specifically say that he believed in the god of spinoza? Spinoza's god was material and non-personal. Nothing mystical...all natural. And a Jesuit would probably consider someone who didn't believe in a personal god to be an atheist. Just as the ancient romans considered xians atheists b/c they didn't believe in the roman gods.

What more would I want? A quote where he explicity says that he does not believe in any god whatsoever. In all the discussions I had on this issue, no one has been able to produce one.

[ex-xian]

Originally posted by Toto
Here's a better site, with more complete quotations:

Einstein on religion (http://atheisme.ca/citations/cit_en_Einstein.html)



I attended a lecture from the person who dug up the letters cited above. Einstein only shied away from the harshness surrounding the word atheist, but he fits the definition of atheism that we use. He can be considered a pantheist, because a lot of pantheists are atheists who do not like the sound of the word atheism, but he doesn't appear to have described himself as a pantheist.
If you use that definition of pantheism, then fine. But I've never heard a pantheist describe themselves as an atheist who just didn't like the sound of the word.

It seems to me that your link misrepresents Einstien's position. Yes, he did not believe in a personal god or in a mystical foundation of ethics. But in all the quotes, the only time he referred to himself as an atheist was in speaking of the jesuit definition. To blatantly call him an atheist is, IMO, as wrong as the xians calling him a traditional theist.

[Toto]

Originally posted by ex-xian
If you use that definition of pantheism, then fine. But I've never heard a pantheist describe themselves as an atheist who just didn't like the sound of the word. . . .

I know at least one person who is explicitly pantheist because he does business in Orange County California and doesn't feel that he can come out to his neighbors as an atheist.

Einstein didn't believe in a personal god or anything supernatural. When you get beyond the personal god, whether you believe in "god" depends on how you define "god", so there's no way you can say you don't believe in any god whatsoever, with no qualifications.

In the fifties in this country, everybody had to believe in something. (Eisenhower's rule.) Calling yourself an atheist was akin to labeling yourself a misfit.

[RTS]

Wasn't Einstein's most publicized period of his life at the height of the McCarthy inquiries?

And you all wonder why he parsed his words so carefully; purposefully leaving ambiguity about the "God" issue.

Until you've walked a mile in his shoes...

P.S. His reverence for the natural, objective universe as revealed by scientific method was his religion. And this truth is what reveals truth in reality.

[xorbie]

I do not think it is meaningless to say things like "The universe is God." I personally think math is close enough to what many would consider God to me. I find listening to music and observing nature to be a very spiritual and deeply religious experience, as well as I can define these two. The problem with the objection is that it presupposes that the word God has no meaning, and that the new meaning of it is "universe." Ths is not how I see it. I am using the word (in this case "spiritual" and "religious") to mean what I believe they are generall considered to mean.

An example would be this. Let's say you (for some reason), didn't believe the color red existed. You have seen the color, but you insist it is actually just yellow. I point to a house and say "this is what I consider red." You would say "this is meaningless, how does considering this house red add any meaning to it? How does it change what it is? You are only redifining red to mean yellow." The problem her eis that I am not redifining red, but rather saying that it was not what you thought it was, but rather did exist in a form you had not considered.

And yes, I know this analogy is seriously flawed, and yes there are still considerations to be made about a pantheistic God and sitll some problems. But I am too tired right now to deal with that.

[Heathen Dawn]

A god is, basically, a human intelligence with a few extended attributes: above us locally, immortal, hears prayers, very powerful, often omniscient. With polytheistic or monotheistic gods, such as the Roman gods or the Christian god, you have this description right. With the god of Deism you scratch out some of the attributes (such as hearing prayer), but you still have a human intelligence above us. But the god of Einstein, the universe itself, does not fit the basic definition of god at all. As we all know, the universe does not possess human intelligence, it does not hear prayer, and it does not have a mind or plan. Therefore I see no sense at all in calling the universe "God".

[xorbie]

See? That is my point. I personally do not agree with that definition of God... mine would be more "the source of good, the source of beauty, the source of everything" type of thing. To many, the entire universe is like this. To me, math and music represent a lot of this.

[John Page]

Originally posted by xorbie
See? That is my point. I personally do not agree with that definition of God... mine would be more "the source of good, the source of beauty, the source of everything" type of thing. To many, the entire universe is like this. To me, math and music represent a lot of this.
I know I'm twisting your words but its the best way to make ny point. Here goes.

Beauty is a perception of the mind. The entire universe is not in the mind. Therefore the source of beauty, which is god, is in the mind. Therefore, god is not in the entire universe.

Cheers, John

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Heathen Dawn
Hi Jobar,

Except for adopting a different label, what is the difference between an atheist and pantheist (especially a natural pantheist as in here (http://members.aol.com/Heraklit1/))?

If the universe is synonymous with God, then why do we have two different words?

An atheist calling himself a pantheist (which I did in the past) strikes me as nothing more than a name-game.

Usually by "God" I understand a "personal being", ie having human-like intelligence and feelings, even if He is impersonal in that He does not intervene in the creation. Calling the universe God seems to me a misuse of the word "God". The universe is entirely impersonal, entirely unlike human beings.

I stick to labelling myself an atheist. I don't believe in gods, and I don't believe anything is God. The concept of deity is totally mythical to me.

There are very good reasons for playing games with words, as religious zealots have persecuted non-believers extensively. In Einstein’s day, it was worse than it is today, though obviously not as bad as in the Dark Ages. A couple of others in this thread have suggested this as well:

Originally posted by Toto
I know at least one person who is explicitly pantheist because he does business in Orange County California and doesn't feel that he can come out to his neighbors as an atheist.

Einstein didn't believe in a personal god or anything supernatural. When you get beyond the personal god, whether you believe in "god" depends on how you define "god", so there's no way you can say you don't believe in any god whatsoever, with no qualifications.

In the fifties in this country, everybody had to believe in something. (Eisenhower's rule.) Calling yourself an atheist was akin to labeling yourself a misfit.

Originally posted by RTS
Wasn't Einstein's most publicized period of his life at the height of the McCarthy inquiries?

And you all wonder why he parsed his words so carefully; purposefully leaving ambiguity about the "God" issue.

Until you've walked a mile in his shoes...

P.S. His reverence for the natural, objective universe as revealed by scientific method was his religion. And this truth is what reveals truth in reality.

One must take care not to confuse public pronouncements with private beliefs. David Hume, for example, called Christianity "Our most holy religion" while he was exposing it as foolishness:

I am the better pleased with the method of reasoning here delivered, as I think it may serve to confound those

* Nov. Org. lib. ii. aph. 29.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PAGE 130
dangerous friends or disguised enemies to the Christian Religion, who have undertaken to defend it by the principles of human reason. Our most holy religion is founded on Faith, not on reason; and it is a sure method of exposing it to put it to such a trial as it is, by no means, fitted to endure. ...

... So that, upon the whole, we may conclude, that the Christian Religion not only was at first attended with miracles, but even at this day cannot be believed by any reasonable person without one. Mere reason is insufficient to convince us of its veracity: And whoever is moved by Faith to assent to it, is conscious of a continued miracle in his own person, which subverts all the principles of his understanding, and gives him a determination to believe what is most contrary to custom and experience.

An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (http://www.etext.leeds.ac.uk/hume/ehu/ehupbsb.htm), Section X, Part II.

So, would anyone imagine, after Hume has just explained why belief in miracles is moronic, is truly a Christian, because he called Christianity "Our most holy religion"? He explicitly stated (elsewhere) that he believed in God, but, of course, it was not smart to publicly say anything else, and as it was, he got into enough trouble with what he did say. (He was very good at knowing the limits of what he could get away with saying, so he never ended up in jail, but it did cost him a job he wanted at a university.)

Even today, there are reasons to claim to believe in God when one does not, because so many religious people will discriminate against you if you tell them you don't.

So, back to Einstein: It makes perfect sense that he would say that he believed in God no matter what he believed.

[ex-xian]

Originally posted by Pyrrho
So, back to Einstein: It makes perfect sense that he would say that he believed in God no matter what he believed. [/B]
So, in other words, no matter what he actually said, we should assume he really meant that he was an undercover atheist. The difference in Einstien and Hume was that we actually have statements by Hume that indicate he was an atheist. Nothing of the sort has been shown to have been said he was an atheist.

I still see no reason to take his comments other than their face value. That he was a materialist-pantheist. Why is this so opposed in the atheist community?

[Heathen Dawn]

Originally posted by ex-xian
I still see no reason to take his comments other than their face value. That he was a materialist-pantheist. Why is this so opposed in the atheist community?

I think the reasons for opposition (my reasons too) are set out loud and clear by Richard Dawkins in his article Snake Oil and Holy Water (http://www.forbes.com/asap/1999/1004/235.html): giving a false impression of science-religion convergence.

[ex-xian]

Here are some quotes that support the pantheistic position.
My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior Spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. The deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning Power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.
Lincoln Barnett, The Universe and Einstein

You will hardly find one among the profounder sort of scientific minds without a peculiar religious feeling of his own . . . .His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.
Ideas and Opinions

Certain it is that a conviction, akin to religious feeling, of the rationality and intelligibility of the world lies behind all scientific work of a higher order. The firm belief, which is bound up with deep feeling, in a superior mind revealing himself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God, which may, therefore be described in common parlance as `pantheistic' (Spinoza).
Einstein, The World as I See It

In the next quote, answering the question of whether or not his concept of god was the same as spinoza's, he explicity says that he was not an atheist, also rejects the term pantheist. Ultimately, he seems to have been epistemologically agnostic, but regarded god as universal-material ontologically.

I can't answer with a simple yes or no. I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see a universe marvellously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations. 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.
Denis Brian, Einstein, A Life

[ex-xian]

Originally posted by Heathen Dawn
I think the reasons for opposition (my reasons too) are set out loud and clear by Richard Dawkins in his article Snake Oil and Holy Water (http://www.forbes.com/asap/1999/1004/235.html): giving a false impression of science-religion convergence.
I agree with everything Dawkins said in the article. But it's as misguided to paint Einstein as something he isn't for the atheist, as it is for the theist.

[Jobar]

Well said, ex-xian; as much as I admire Dawkins, I'll have to say he is wrong in that article. IMO Einstein's objections to pantheism are closely tied with the objections which HD and others have stated here; the professor realized that the 'theos' in pantheism cannot be equated to the common understanding of the word. The reason I use it is because English has no proper word to express the concept of a non-personal, non-localized 'god'. I have considered calling myself a Zen or Taoist atheist; as some of you are aware, there are also sects of Hinduism which are explicitly atheist.

I've seen arguments in this very forum that these Eastern 'religions' aren't religions at all. I find that argument shallow; it appears abundantly obvious to me that Buddhism, Taoism and Hinduism *are* religions, even though the god-concepts therein are extraordinarily different from what we Western thinkers conceive. There are more concepts of God, Horatio...

[Scandal]

Hi All,

I may not be reading Einstein's quotes correctly but I don't agree that Einstein equates the Universe with God.

IMO Einstein sees God's handiwork revealed in the Universe.

[ex-xian]

Originally posted by Jobar
Well said, ex-xian; as much as I admire Dawkins, I'll have to say he is
wrong in that article. IMO Einstein's objections to pantheism are closely
tied with the objections which HD and others have stated here; the
professor realized that the 'theos' in pantheism cannot be equated to the
common understanding of the word. The reason I use it is because
English has no proper word to express the concept of a non-personal,
non-localized 'god'. I have considered calling myself a Zen or Taoist
atheist; as some of you are aware, there are also sects of Hinduism
which are explicitly atheist.

I've seen arguments in this very forum that these Eastern 'religions' aren't
religions at all. I find that argument shallow; it appears abundantly
obvious to me that Buddhism, Taoism and Hinduism *are* religions, even
though the god-concepts therein are extraordinarily different from what we
Western thinkers conceive. There are more concepts of God,
Horatio...
Thanks, Jobar. Nice paraphrase, BTW. I too have a difficult time finding
words to express what I mean when I say "god." Currently, I believe that
god exists but in a panentheistic system. But if I tell an atheist that I
believe in god, they tend to equate me with an average theist, and if I tell
an average theist that I don't believe in their god, I get lumped in
with
the atheists. While I'd rather be considered an atheist by the theists than
vice versa, I still feel stuck. Incidentally, that's one reason, I'm
attracted to
the idea of the Brights.

Originally posted by Scandal
Hi All,

I may not be reading Einstein's quotes correctly but I don't agree that
Einstein equates the Universe with God.

IMO Einstein sees God's handiwork revealed in the Universe.

A belated welcome to the Infidel's, Scandal. Which quotes do you see as
refering to god's handiwork? On the contrary, Einstien explicity rejected
the notion of a personal god.

[Scandal]

Hi ex-xian,

The quotes I see Einstein refering to God's handiwork:

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists...."

"Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe...."

I am not disputing that he rejected the idea of a personal God only that he did not equate God with the Universe.

[ex-xian]

Originally posted by Scandal
Hi ex-xian,

The quotes I see Einstein refering to God's handiwork:

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists...."

"Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe...."

I am not disputing that he rejected the idea of a personal God only that he did not equate God with the Universe.
To say that he believes in spinoza's god is equating god with the universe. That was how god/universe was described in spinonza's systme.

[Scandal]

ex-xian,

My ignorance in regards to Spinoza!

However, does a "spirit manifested in the LAWS of the Universe" express to you that spirit IS the Universe?

Thanks for the reply.....

[Pyrrho]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Pyrrho
So, back to Einstein: It makes perfect sense that he would say that he believed in God no matter what he believed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by ex-xian
So, in other words, no matter what he actually said, we should assume he really meant that he was an undercover atheist.


No, we should not assume that he was an atheist. What I am saying is this: Saying that one believes something that one's society finds acceptable means nothing, because one may be motivated to say it regardless of whether it is true or not.

One must look at the general trends of what someone says, and consider what it all means. And, of course, one should remember that people often change their minds over the course of their lives, so believing or disbelieving something at 20 does not equate with believing or disbelieving that thing at 50.




Originally posted by ex-xian
The difference in Einstien and Hume was that we actually have statements by Hume that indicate he was an atheist. Nothing of the sort has been shown to have been said he was an atheist.


You obviously have not even paid attention to the quotes provided by others above. There is much to suggest that he may have been an atheist, though obviously he may not have been.

Incidentally, this is what Einstein had to say about David Hume:

If one reads Hume's books, one is amazed that many and sometimes even highly esteemed philosophers after him have been able to write so much obscure stuff and even find grateful readers for it. Hume has permanently influenced the development of the best of philosophers who came after him. Ideas and Opinions, Part I: Ideas and Opinions, "Remarks on Bertrand Russell's Theory of Knolwledge", Albert Einstein, Wings Books, p. 21.




Originally posted by ex-xian
I still see no reason to take his comments other than their face value. That he was a materialist-pantheist. Why is this so opposed in the atheist community?

I think he may well have been a "materialist-pantheist". But what is the difference between that and an atheist?

It seems to me he could be accurately described as an atheist with a "cosmic religious feeling" (his words; see the above book, pages 36-54). He obviously did not like the label "atheist", but that is irrelevant to whether or not it accurately describes his opinions. Certainly, if we take "atheist" to mean "not a theist", then he was an atheist, according to what he stated.

[Heathen Dawn]

IMO, the word "god" belongs in the same class as "ghost", "fairy", "soul", "phlogiston", "humours" and suchlike. It has so irrational a baggage that I have decided not to use it anymore, except when debating (or f***king).

[Scandal]

Heathen Dawn,

You said: "It has so irrational a baggage that I have decided not to use it anymore, except when debating (or f***king)."

:D

[Scandal]

No, I would not describe Einstein as an atheist or a pantheist.

He said: "I cannot believe that God would play dice with the universe."
He refers to God and the universe as separate.

He also said: "I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature."
Again, IMO he refers to REASON/God manifesting Itself in nature. Not equating REASON as nature.

So, he does believe in a God (not a personal, fairy god) who is separate from nature, IOW, he is not a pantheist.

[Toto]

Originally posted by Scandal
No, I would not describe Einstein as an atheist or a pantheist.

He said: "I cannot believe that God would play dice with the universe."
He refers to God and the universe as separate.


Are you sure about that quote? I though he said "God does not play dice." But in any case, I think that God is used here clearly in a metaphorically sense. Does any theologian who believes in God talk about God playing dice?

He also said: "I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature."
Again, IMO he refers to REASON/God manifesting Itself in nature. Not equating REASON as nature.

So, he does believe in a God (not a personal, fairy god) who is separate from nature, IOW, he is not a pantheist.

All of these statements are consistent with using "god" as a metaphor for the laws of physics. It stretches the language beyond all recognition to say that "the Reason that manifests itslef in nature" refers to god.

You can't parse a few of Einstein's statements, as if you were quoting Biblical verses, and claim that you have some indication of his thinking. We know that Einstein did not believe in a personal god, that he said some would define him as an atheist, that he often used the word God in a metaphorical sense when talking about the laws of physics. You could classify him as an agnostic or an atheist or a pantheist, depending on how you defined those terms.

[Scandal]

Toto,

Oh please, of course he was speaking metaphorically.

What I am trying to get at is that IMO Einstein was blown away by physics, so much so that he suspected SOMETHING was behind it!

I am sorry if you cannot accept that.

[ex-xian]

Originally posted by Scandal
Toto,

Oh please, of course he was speaking metaphorically.

What I am trying to get at is that IMO Einstein was blown away by physics, so much so that he suspected SOMETHING was behind it!

I am sorry if you cannot accept that.
You're taking a few quotes out of context and trying to make them say what you, a theist, want them to say. Now I understand the reasons people are so adamant about Einstien's anti-theism.

How can reconcile your position with Einstien's own statements that directly contradict it?

Stephen Hawking said "God not only plays dice, but he throws them where we can't see them." He also describes himself as a Platonic realist and positivist. These beliefs, and that quote, are identical to the arguments you are using to make Einstien believe in a transcendent god, but he is an atheist. Once again, you're misunderstanding what you're reading.

[Toto]

Originally posted by Scandal
. . .
What I am trying to get at is that IMO Einstein was blown away by physics, so much so that he suspected SOMETHING was behind it!

I am sorry if you cannot accept that.

There is no evidence that Einstein thought that anything or anyone was behind the laws of physics.

Sagan was the one who smoked dope, not Einstein. And even he didn't think there was anybody out there pulling the strings.

[ex-xian]

Originally posted by Toto
There is no evidence that Einstein thought that anything or anyone was behind the laws of physics.

Sagan was the one who smoked dope, not Einstein. And even he didn't think there was anybody out there pulling the strings.
True, true. And in Sagan's works you get a sense that he was awestruck and mystified by the structure and order of a string-puller-less universe.

[Scandal]

Toto and ex-xian,

We are not talking about Sagan.

Einstein said: "From my 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."

Is this the only quote that comes close to Einstein admitting that he is an atheist? IMO it is pretty weak. He is denouncing the idea of a personal God. The definition of a theist is belief in the existence of a god or gods. Not necessarily belief in a personal God.

Here are a couple of other quotes that I think support my contention:

"That deep emotional conviction of the presence of a SUPERIOR REASONING POWER, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God"

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable SUPERIOR SPIRIT who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."

Caps are mine. You must admit that at the very least Einstein was a deist.

Scandal

[Ottman Out]

A very basic question: What exactly is a "personal god"? Is it (1) a god that has certain attributes of a person, or is it (2) a god that takes an interest in people? I thought it was (1), but some of Einstein's quotes make it look like he thought it meant (2).

If one believed in some kind of a "force" behind the laws of nature, and believed further that this "force" took no interest in the goings-on on our planet, obviously such a force could not be a personal god in sense (2), but could it still be a personal god in sense (1)?

And if one further believed that this postulated force was not a personal god in sense (1), but still something outside the universe, why should anyone assume that this "something" outside the universe was somehow less a god than the personal god of Christianity?

Personally, I do find statements such as "god is the universe" to be prima facie meaningless, but statements such as "god is the force behind the laws of nature," if they are meaningless, are much less obviously so.

[Toto]

A "personal god" is a god that intervenes in the affairs of men - blessing the good, tripping up the evil, making things come out right in the end, or whatever.

If you don't have a personal god, you have a god which is virtually indistinguishable from the laws of physics (because it cannot be detected), whether you call yourself a deist or an agnostic or a pantheist.

Einstein did not label himself (probably had better use of his time) but he was quizzed on the matter by a skeptic who wrote two letters to him to clarify the matter. You can read the results in Michael R. Gilmore, "Einstein's God", Skeptic Magazine, Vol. 5, no. 2, 1997, which can be found at www.skeptic.org in the archives - http://www.skeptic.com/archives50.html


The following article is copyright ©1997 by the Skeptics Society, P.O. Box 338, Altadena, CA 91001, (626) 794-3119. Permission has been granted for noncommercial electronic circulation of this article in its entirety, including this notice.

We all know Albert Einstein as the most famous scientist of the 20th century, and many know him as a great humanist. Some have also viewed him as religious. Indeed, in Einstein'a writings there is well-known reference to God and discussion of religion (1949, 1954). Although Einstein stated he was religious and that he believed in God, it was in his own specialized sense that he used these terms. Many are aware that Einstein was not religious in the conventional sense, but it will come as a surprise to some to learn that Einstein clearly identified himself as an atheist and as an agnostic. If one understands how Einstein used the terms religion, God, atheism, and agnosticism, it is clear that he was consistent in his beliefs.

Part of the popular picture of Einstein's God and religion comes from his well-known statements, such as: "God is cunning but He is not malicious."(Also: "God is subtle but he is not bloody-minded." Or: "God is slick, but he ain't mean." (1946)

"God does not play dice." (On many occasions.)

"I want to know how God created the world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." (Unknown date.)

It is easy to see how some got the idea that Einstein was expressing a close relationship with a personal god, but it is more accurate to say he was simply expressing his ideas and beliefs about the universe.

. . .

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 {not reproduced on the web}). 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."

. . .

Although not a favorite of physicists, Einstein, The Life and Times, by the professional biographer Ronald W. Clark (1971), contains one of the best summaries on Einstein's God: "However, Einstein's God was not the God of most men. When he wrote of religion, as he often did in middle and later life, he tended to...clothe with different names what to many ordinary mortals--and to most Jewsa--looked like a variant of simple agnosticism...This was belief enough. It grew early and rooted deep. Only later was it dignified by the title of cosmic religion, a phrase which gave plausible respectability to the views of a man who did not believe in a life after death and who felt that if virtue paid off in the earthly one, then this was the result of cause and effect rather than celestial reward. Einstein's God thus stood for an orderly system obeying rules which could be discovered by those who had the courage, the imagination, and the persistence to go on searching for them"

Note from that article that Einstein's secretary, Helen Dukas, censored the word atheist when that letter was first published. I guess you had to have been around in the 50's to know what it was like then.

AFAIK, the article in Skeptic is the final word, and has never been rebutted or superceded.

[RTS]

"Personally, I do find statements such as "god is the universe" to be prima facie meaningless,..."

Very Correct. And Einstein was not disposed to meaningless concepts.

The following is from my thread "The cognitive content of God"

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=60252


[ Naturalistic theism ] is a trend in religious philosophy to identify God with nature. This would differ from our SUPERnatural God. These religionists/deists suggest that God is not above or beyond the natural universe but that he is omnipresent and indeed is the natural universe. George Smith has this to say of such a notion: "If one declared a belief in god, while stipulating that the term "god" was used as a synonym for the continent of North America, one's assertion would understandably be ignored or rejected as irrational. To expand this concept of god to include Europe, Asia, the planet Earth, our solar system--or the entire universe--is equally absurd."

[Ottman Out]

Originally posted by Toto 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.Too bad they don't have Figure 3 online. Does anyone know what is in Figure 3?

[Ottman Out]

Originally posted by RTS
George Smith has this to say of such a notion: "If one declared a belief in god, while stipulating that the term "god" was used as a synonym for the continent of North America, one's assertion would understandably be ignored or rejected as irrational. To expand this concept of god to include Europe, Asia, the planet Earth, our solar system--or the entire universe--is equally absurd."That's a great quote!

[Toto]

Originally posted by RTS
"Personally, I do find statements such as "god is the universe" to be prima facie meaningless,..."

Very Correct. And Einstein was not disposed to meaningless concepts.

...

Why do you say that Einstein was not disposed to what you think are meaningless concepts? Especially when writing about religion, outside his area of technical expertise?

[Toto]

Originally posted by Ottman Out
Too bad they don't have Figure 3 online. Does anyone know what is in Figure 3?

It includes these words:

"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."

I have seen it, and I don't recall anything that would contract this.

[Heathen Dawn]

George Smith has this to say of such a notion: "If one declared a belief in god, while stipulating that the term "god" was used as a synonym for the continent of North America, one's assertion would understandably be ignored or rejected as irrational. To expand this concept of god to include Europe, Asia, the planet Earth, our solar system--or the entire universe--is equally absurd."


I second that. The word "God" is fully booked. It shouldn't be used except for what it originally meant: a human-like intelligence existing before humans did. As for the universe, it's the universe, nothing more. It's a very fascinating universe, true. But it doesn't fit the description of a god or gods by any stretch of imagination. Human-like intelligence wasn't at the beginning, it arose when the brain of a group of primates got large enough.

[markfiend]

Even if Einstein did believe in a god (of whatever kind), so what?

Chimp, your argument appears to be of the form: Einstein believed in a deity
Therefore God exists
I'm not sure whether this is an appeal to authority or just a non-sequitur.

[RTS]

Originally posted by Toto
Why do you say that Einstein was not disposed to what you think are meaningless concepts? Especially when writing about religion, outside his area of technical expertise?

Not only was Einstein the most renowned physicist of his time, Einstein was a most accomplished and renowned philosopher. He was also so very, very knowledgeable of religious concerns. His religious knowledge was derived from both personal experience and personal research.

Why do you think religion was outside his area of technical expertise?

[the_cave]

Originally posted by RTS
George Smith has this to say of such a notion: "If one declared a belief in god, while stipulating that the term "god" was used as a synonym for the continent of North America, one's assertion would understandably be ignored or rejected as irrational.

Uh, by whom? Some, surely. But I can imagine a number of nature-worshipers who might take it at face value.

I myself wouldn't really have a problem with it. The continent of North America is a pretty impressive object, and is responsible for most of our nutrition, as well as the most of the materials for our housing. Not to mention our water...and a lot of sublime aesthetic experiences. If a pantheist called it "god", well, although I would disagree, I would have to admit it is a candidate for the term.

[Toto]

Originally posted by RTS
...
Why do you think religion was outside his area of technical expertise?

He made up his own definition of god, for one thing.

[the_cave]

Originally posted by Toto
A "personal god" is a god that intervenes in the affairs of men - blessing the good, tripping up the evil, making things come out right in the end, or whatever.

If you don't have a personal god, you have a god which is virtually indistinguishable from the laws of physics (because it cannot be detected), whether you call yourself a deist or an agnostic or a pantheist.

Fair enough, but then the nature of those laws then becomes the issue.

Although Einstein stated he was religious and that he believed in God, it was in his own specialized sense that he used these terms. Many are aware that Einstein was not religious in the conventional sense, but it will come as a surprise to some to learn that Einstein clearly identified himself as an atheist and as an agnostic. If one understands how Einstein used the terms religion, God, atheism, and agnosticism, it is clear that he was consistent in his beliefs.

Hey wait a minute, first of all, how can he be "clearly" both an atheist and an agnostic? Secondly, if it all depends on how he uses the terms, and if he was not religious "in the conventional sense", presumably the terms "atheist" and "agnostic" were not used by him in the conventional sense.

"From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist..."

Telling that he used a Jesuit priest as his reference point...rather than, say, a Unitarian minister...it's clear that "atheism" described some aspect of his beliefs. Yet it's also clear that "God" also described some aspect of his beliefs. Is it so hard to understand?

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.

Well, ahem, yes, that part is clear...

Look, it really doesn't make any difference to me what he was, but it seems to me that ascribing names and pronouns to a thing in a repeated and non-ironic manner is to acknowledge in it it some form of coherent being. Einstein thus appears to have viewed the universe, and the laws behind it, as a kind of totality, a coherent whole, perhaps not personal, yet not entirely without will or purpose. And so he distinguised his attitudes from the kinds of atheism and agnosticism which ascribed no such being to the cosmos.

In my opinion, anyway ;)

[RTS]

Originally posted by Toto
He made up his own definition of god, for one thing.

"God" is a 'definitional term'. There are as many definitions of God as there are people who use the term. And no two people's definition of "God" is exactly the same. So, as far as Einstein making up his own definition of God disqualifying his perspective... well, that means that everyone without exclusion is equally disqualified.

I consider myself to be a "weak atheist", but if "I" were to define the definitional term "God", it would be -- a personal understanding of the 'golden spiral' within everything in nature and its integral relation to Planck's constant.

Does that disqualify my definition of "God", and to mean less and be less accurate than a believer's definition (or anyone's definition for that matter)?

The only difference between my definition and the 'religious' definition is my definition has a provable element.

Everybody's definition of "God" is made up !!!

[John Page]

Originally posted by RTS
Everybody's definition of "God" is made up !!!
Agreed, therefore all gods are personal?

[RTS]

Originally posted by John Page
Agreed, therefore all gods are personal?

Everybody's definition of the the made-up concept of "God" is personal. There is NO evidence outside of the mind of the believer that proves any definition of "God" to be real.

[RTS]

Originally posted by RTS
George Smith has this to say of such a notion: "If one declared a belief in god, while stipulating that the term "god" was used as a synonym for the continent of North America, one's assertion would understandably be ignored or rejected as irrational.

Originally posted by the_cave
Uh, by whom? Some, surely. But I can imagine a number of nature-worshipers who might take it at face value.

Well, I must admit... I have a pet rock that I found in a cave on the eastern shore of North America that I view as "God". :D :notworthy :D

[John Page]

Originally posted by RTS
Well, I must admit... I have a pet rock that I found in a cave on the eastern shore of North America that I view as "God". :D :notworthy :D
Greenland?

[Jobar]

From this thread, (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33356&perpage=25&pagenumber=1) which is one of those I linked to on page 1:

Amos: ...the transcendence of God can be described and evidence of this is found in the transparency of different mythologies from around the world. We can describe the same idea of God using words and phrases that are taken from various mythologies and still know what we are trying to say.

Jobar: You know, I have been trying to find the common ground where 'different mythologies' and science can stand comfortably together, for most all my adult life. To do this, I examine the individual elements and beliefs of the thousands of religions for similar ideas, and then see if these ideas can be fitted within the always-skeptical worldview of science. The similarities I find are the same, I am sure, as what you refer to as the 'transparency of different mythologies'.

Most of the elements of mythology and religion fall away, pared by the sharp blade of Occam's Razor and the fact that those elements contradict observed reality. We have no least objective evidence for reincarnation, the immortality (or existence) of the soul, heaven and hell as physical (as opposed to psychological) places, or any verifiable supernatural entities- including a God apart from 'creation'.

'Most' is not 'all', though. I find that the idea of transcendence, of the union of the finite with the infinite, and of the mundane with the mystical- those ideas withstand my skeptical scrutiny. Like the identity of matter and energy, or the difficulties in defining reality at the quantum level, I can't really claim that I *understand* it- I do not always have clear and readily explainable concepts. There are convergences between the scientific and pantheistic view which are clear to me, though.

I want to address some of my fellow infidels on why I call myself an atheist/pantheist. I've said numerous times that the meaning of 'theos' here is not the Western one, and I am comfortable using 'pantheist' to describe myself. I have seen some who used mystic or Buddhist or Taoist- I object to none of those, but use pantheist to indicate that I draw my ideas from all those different traditions, and not just one of them. I am aware that some find pantheist rather grating- but just like the common English uses of such words as 'goodbye' or 'spirited' or 'heavenly' or 'hellish', we can use the meaning we wish without having to carry the superstitious baggage too.


What about this- God is the universe considered as infinite. We speak of the *observable* universe, and as a pantheist I would say that certainly all we see may be called 'God'- but what we see is not all there is of the universe.

I wrote lots more on this topic in the thread above; if you are interested and read it, let me note that I am addressing an 'RD' who has since changed his name to ConsequentAtheist who still appears from time to time. (His old name was ReasonableDoubt; to make things more confusing, since he changed it, another user has signed on with the same name, and, IIRC, is a theist. Damn, you can't tell the actors without a program...)

And, so I can claim that I'm not going completely off topic here, let me point out that Erwin Schrodinger, whose famous Equation for Particle Motion lies at the heart of quantum mechanics, was expressly a pantheist.

[Scandal]

Toto and ex-xian,

I've gone over the thread and I apologize to you both for sounding a bit snooty and disrespectful of your views.

:o

[Scandal]

ex-xian,

I agree, you said: "To blatantly call him an atheist is, IMO, as wrong as the xians calling him a traditional theist."

I do not believe we can call the man a theist in the traditional sense and as others have already pointed out, IMO, we cannot pin down a definition for God. Consequently, can we even pin him down as an agnostic, pantheist or deist?

[Scandal]

Toto,

You said, [b]"If you don't have a personal god, you have a god which is virtually indistinguishable from the laws of physics (because it cannot be detected), whether you call yourself a deist or an agnostic or a pantheist."

I disagree. A deist can distinguish a God from the laws of physics and can call It the 'first cause'.

[Toto]

That's why I said virtually indistinguishable, unless you think that you can observe the First Cause.

[Scandal]

Toto,

Nope, I cannot observe the First Cause, I can only speculate.....

:D

[Diadectes]

Einstein was a pantheist, as was Spinoza.

This is slightly misleading. Spinoza did not say that the universe was God, or even that it was divine - he said it was just one manifestation of the infinite atributes of God (we are only aware of two - extension and thought), in much the same way that a wave on an ocean is one of the attributes of an ocean, but cannot be said to be the ocean. And, in any case, by time he wrote the Ethics, Spinoza was actually becomming more and more reluctant to adopt the term 'God'.