Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Wednesday, May 23, 2007 | Reason : Physics and Chemistry | print version Print | Comments

Document 'Einstein - His Life and Universe'

by Walter Isaacson, NYTimes.com

Thanks to Ranjani for the link.

Reposted from:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/books/chapters/0520-1st-isaa.html?_r=3&ref=books&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Albert Einstein. Pacific & Atlantic Photos (1928)

"I promise you four papers," the young patent examiner wrote his friend. The letter would turn out to bear some of the most significant tidings in the history of science, but its momentous nature was masked by an impish tone that was typical of its author. He had, after all, just addressed his friend as "you frozen whale" and apologized for writing a letter that was "inconsequential babble." Only when he got around to describing the papers, which he had produced during his spare time, did he give some indication that he sensed their significance.

"The first deals with radiation and the energy properties of light and is very revolutionary," he explained. Yes, it was indeed revolutionary. It argued that light could be regarded not just as a wave but also as a stream of tiny particles called quanta. The implications that would eventually arise from this theory - a cosmos without strict causality or certainty - would spook him for the rest of his life.

"The second paper is a determination of the true sizes of atoms." Even though the very existence of atoms was still in dispute, this was the most straightforward of the papers, which is why he chose it as the safest bet for his latest attempt at a doctoral thesis. He was in the process of revolutionizing physics, but he had been repeatedly thwarted in his efforts to win an academic job or even get a doctoral degree, which he hoped might get him promoted from a third- to a second-class examiner at the patent office.

The third paper explained the jittery motion of microscopic particles in liquid by using a statistical analysis of random collisions. In the process, it established that atoms and molecules actually exist.

"The fourth paper is only a rough draft at this point, and is an electrodynamics of moving bodies which employs a modification of the theory of space and time." Well, that was certainly more than inconsequential babble. Based purely on thought experiments - performed in his head rather than in a lab - he had decided to discard Newton's concepts of absolute space and time. It would become known as the Special Theory of Relativity.

What he did not tell his friend, because it had not yet occurred to him, was that he would produce a fifth paper that year, a short addendum to the fourth, which posited a relationship between energy and mass. Out of it would arise the best-known equation in all of physics: E=mc2.

Looking back at a century that will be remembered for its willingness to break classical bonds, and looking ahead to an era that seeks to nurture the creativity needed for scientific innovation, one person stands out as a paramount icon of our age: the kindly refugee from oppression whose wild halo of hair, twinkling eyes, engaging humanity, and extraordinary brilliance made his face a symbol and his name a synonym for genius. Albert Einstein was a locksmith blessed with imagination and guided by a faith in the harmony of nature's handiwork. His fascinating story, a testament to the connection between creativity and freedom, reflects the triumphs and tumults of the modern era.

Now that his archives have been completely opened, it is possible to explore how the private side of Einstein - his nonconformist personality, his instincts as a rebel, his curiosity, his passions and detachments - intertwined with his political side and his scientific side. Knowing about the man helps us understand the wellsprings of his science, and vice versa. Character and imagination and creative genius were all related, as if part of some unified field.

Despite his reputation for being aloof, he was in fact passionate in both his personal and scientific pursuits. At college he fell madly in love with the only woman in his physics class, a dark and intense Serbian named Mileva Maric'. They had an illegitimate daughter, then married and had two sons. She served as a sounding board for his scientific ideas and helped to check the math in his papers, but eventually their relationship disintegrated. Einstein offered her a deal. He would win the Nobel Prize someday, he said; if she gave him a divorce, he would give her the prize money. She thought for a week and accepted. Because his theories were so radical, it was seventeen years after his miraculous outpouring from the patent office before he was awarded the prize and she collected.

Einstein's life and work reflected the disruption of societal certainties and moral absolutes in the modernist atmosphere of the early twentieth century. Imaginative nonconformity was in the air: Picasso, Joyce, Freud, Stravinsky, Schoenberg, and others were breaking conventional bonds. Charging this atmosphere was a conception of the universe in which space and time and the properties of particles seemed based on the vagaries of observations.

Einstein, however, was not truly a relativist, even though that is how he was interpreted by many, including some whose disdain was tinged by anti-Semitism. Beneath all of his theories, including relativity, was a quest for invariants, certainties, and absolutes. There was a harmonious reality underlying the laws of the universe, Einstein felt, and the goal of science was to discover it.

His quest began in 1895, when as a 16-year-old he imagined what it would be like to ride alongside a light beam. A decade later came his miracle year, described in the letter above, which laid the foundations for the two great advances of twentieth-century physics: relativity and quantum theory.

A decade after that, in 1915, he wrested from nature his crowning glory, one of the most beautiful theories in all of science, the general theory of relativity. As with the special theory, his thinking had evolved through thought experiments. Imagine being in an enclosed elevator accelerating up through space, he conjectured in one of them. The effects you'd feel would be indistinguishable from the experience of gravity.

Gravity, he figured, was a warping of space and time, and he came up with the equations that describe how the dynamics of this curvature result from the interplay between matter, motion, and energy. It can be described by using another thought experiment. Picture what it would be like to roll a bowling ball onto the two-dimensional surface of a trampoline. Then roll some billiard balls. They move toward the bowling ball not because it exerts some mysterious attraction but because of the way it curves the trampoline fabric. Now imagine this happening in the four-dimensional fabric of space and time. Okay, it's not easy, but that's why we're no Einstein and he was.

The exact midpoint of his career came a decade after that, in 1925, and it was a turning point. The quantum revolution he had helped to launch was being transformed into a new mechanics that was based on uncertainties and probabilities. He made his last great contributions to quantum mechanics that year but, simultaneously, began to resist it. He would spend the next three decades, ending with some equations scribbled while on his deathbed in 1955, stubbornly criticizing what he regarded as the incompleteness of quantum mechanics while attempting to subsume it into a unified field theory.

Both during his thirty years as a revolutionary and his subsequent thirty years as a resister, Einstein remained consistent in his willingness to be a serenely amused loner who was comfortable not conforming. Independent in his thinking, he was driven by an imagination that broke from the confines of conventional wisdom. He was that odd breed, a reverential rebel, and he was guided by a faith, which he wore lightly and with a twinkle in his eye, in a God who would not play dice by allowing things to happen by chance.

Einstein's nonconformist streak was evident in his personality and politics as well. Although he subscribed to socialist ideals, he was too much of an individualist to be comfortable with excessive state control or centralized authority. His impudent instincts, which served him so well as a young scientist, made him allergic to nationalism, militarism, and anything that smacked of a herd mentality. And until Hitler caused him to revise his geopolitical equations, he was an instinctive pacifist who celebrated resistance to war.

His tale encompasses the vast sweep of modern science, from the infinitesimal to the infinite, from the emission of photons to the expansion of the cosmos. A century after his great triumphs, we are still living in Einstein's universe, one defined on the macro scale by his theory of relativity and on the micro scale by a quantum mechanics that has proven durable even as it remains disconcerting.

His fingerprints are all over today's technologies. Photoelectric cells and lasers, nuclear power and fiber optics, space travel, and even semiconductors all trace back to his theories. He signed the letter to Franklin Roosevelt warning that it may be possible to build an atom bomb, and the letters of his famed equation relating energy to mass hover in our minds when we picture the resulting mushroom cloud.

Einstein's launch into fame, which occurred when measurements made during a 1919 eclipse confirmed his prediction of how much gravity bends light, coincided with, and contributed to, the birth of a new celebrity age. He became a scientific supernova and humanist icon, one of the most famous faces on the planet. The public earnestly puzzled over his theories, elevated him into a cult of genius, and canonized him as a secular saint.

If he did not have that electrified halo of hair and those piercing eyes, would he still have become science's preeminent poster boy? Suppose, as a thought experiment, that he had looked like a Max Planck or a Niels Bohr. Would he have remained in their reputational orbit, that of a mere scientific genius? Or would he still have made the leap into the pantheon inhabited by Aristotle, Galileo, and Newton?

The latter, I believe, is the case. His work had a very personal character, a stamp that made it recognizably his, the way a Picasso is recognizably a Picasso. He made imaginative leaps and discerned great principles through thought experiments rather than by methodical inductions based on experimental data. The theories that resulted were at times astonishing, mysterious, and counterintuitive, yet they contained notions that could capture the popular imagination: the relativity of space and time, E=[mc.sup.2], the bending of light beams, and the warping of space.

Adding to his aura was his simple humanity. His inner security was tempered by the humility that comes from being awed by nature. He could be detached and aloof from those close to him, but toward mankind in general he exuded a true kindness and gentle compassion.

Yet for all of his popular appeal and surface accessibility, Einstein also came to symbolize the perception that modern physics was something that ordinary laymen could not comprehend, "the province of priest-like experts," in the words of Harvard professor Dudley Herschbach. It was not always thus. Galileo and Newton were both great geniuses, but their mechanical cause-and-effect explanation of the world was something that most thoughtful folks could grasp. In the eighteenth century of Benjamin Franklin and the nineteenth century of Thomas Edison, an educated person could feel some familiarity with science and even dabble in it as an amateur.

A popular feel for scientific endeavors should, if possible, be restored given the needs of the twenty-first century. This does not mean that every literature major should take a watered-down physics course or that a corporate lawyer should stay abreast of quantum mechanics. Rather, it means that an appreciation for the methods of science is a useful asset for a responsible citizenry. What science teaches us, very significantly, is the correlation between factual evidence and general theories, something well illustrated in Einstein's life.

In addition, an appreciation for the glories of science is a joyful trait for a good society. It helps us remain in touch with that childlike capacity for wonder, about such ordinary things as falling apples and elevators, that characterizes Einstein and other great theoretical physicists.

That is why studying Einstein can be worthwhile. Science is inspiring and noble, and its pursuit an enchanting mission, as the sagas of its heroes remind us. Near the end of his life, Einstein was asked by the New York State Education Department what schools should emphasize. "In teaching history," he replied, "there should be extensive discussion of personalities who benefited mankind through independence of character and judgment." Einstein fits into that category.

At a time when there is a new emphasis, in the face of global competition, on science and math education, we should also note the other part of Einstein's answer. "Critical comments by students should be taken in a friendly spirit," he said. "Accumulation of material should not stifle the student's independence." A society's competitive advantage will come not from how well its schools teach the multiplication and periodic tables, but from how well they stimulate imagination and creativity.

Therein lies the key, I think, to Einstein's brilliance and the lessons of his life. As a young student he never did well with rote learning. And later, as a theorist, his success came not from the brute strength of his mental processing power but from his imagination and creativity. He could construct complex equations, but more important, he knew that math is the language nature uses to describe her wonders. So he could visualize how equations were reflected in realities - how the electromagnetic field equations discovered by James Clerk Maxwell, for example, would manifest themselves to a boy riding alongside a light beam. As he once declared, "Imagination is more important than knowledge."

That approach required him to embrace nonconformity. "Long live impudence!" he exulted to the lover who would later become his wife. "It is my guardian angel in this world." Many years later, when others thought that his reluctance to embrace quantum mechanics showed that he had lost his edge, he lamented, "To punish me for my contempt for authority, fate made me an authority myself."

His success came from questioning conventional wisdom, challenging authority, and marveling at mysteries that struck others as mundane. This led him to embrace a morality and politics based on respect for free minds, free spirits, and free individuals. Tyranny repulsed him, and he saw tolerance not simply as a sweet virtue but as a necessary condition for a creative society. "It is important to foster individuality," he said, "for only the individual can produce the new ideas."

This outlook made Einstein a rebel with a reverence for the harmony of nature, one who had just the right blend of imagination and wisdom to transform our understanding of the universe. These traits are just as vital for this new century of globalization, in which our success will depend on our creativity, as they were for the beginning of the twentieth century, when Einstein helped usher in the modern age.

Excerpted from Einstein by Walter Isaacson Copyright © 2007 by Walter Isaacson . Excerpted by permission.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.

Comments 1 - 22 of 22 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #44011 by Patchell on May 23, 2007 at 7:19 am

 avatarThis guy was on the Colbert report not that long ago. He used the religion without science is blind and science without religion is lame quote to describe Einsteins feelings about God and religion.

Other Comments by Patchell

2. Comment #44049 by debaser71 on May 23, 2007 at 8:21 am

yeah he did and I rolled my eyes

Other Comments by debaser71

3. Comment #44050 by Mango on May 23, 2007 at 8:23 am

 avatarEintstein's feelings about religion are no more valid than mine or yours, Patchell. But unfortunately the "cult of celebrity" that Einstein has gives his words disproportionate authority on the matter. Although Dawkins specifically thinks about and argues over whether there appears to be a God, Einstein did not and only made flippant remarks that indicates he was a fence-sitter and not out to ruffle theistic feathers.

Other Comments by Mango

4. Comment #44072 by sane1 on May 23, 2007 at 8:53 am

 avatarIsacson's book is getting great reviews, but he is all too eager to say Einstien believed in "god." And then he may describe the "god" as the mystery of nature.

Other Comments by sane1

5. Comment #44100 by krogercomplete on May 23, 2007 at 10:14 am

"Eintstein's feelings about religion are no more valid than mine or yours, Patchell."



I think the objection was that the author misrepresented Einstein's views by failing to describe exactly what he meant by "religion" (the classic mistake Dawkins points out in TGD).

Other Comments by krogercomplete

6. Comment #44102 by Bonzai on May 23, 2007 at 10:15 am

Einstein's "religion" is not theistic and personal. Others describe that as "awe", "mystery" and Einstein called that in another instance as "music of the spheres". It has nothing to do with rligion in the conventional sense so people should stop flogging a dead horse. We have been through that.

Other Comments by Bonzai

7. Comment #44106 by Spinoza on May 23, 2007 at 10:21 am

 avatarEinstein did believe in "God"... He was an atheist about the Judeo-Muslim-Christian personal God, of course... but he CLEARLY believed in Spinoza's "God" (he said so, many times).

Like Spinoza, he DID refer to "Natural infinite Substance" as "God"... And like Spinoza, he can clearly be construed as an atheist by believers in the personal God of religion (and should be).

But certainly, it's crystal clear what he believed. His favourite book, by the way, was Spinoza's Ethics (he read it to his sister when she was in the hospital, and told her that it was the greatest book ever written).

It's a great book for anyone to read, albeit one of the most difficult to comprehend (and also happens to be my personal favourite, and one of the major subjects of my specialization in philosophy).

He PROVES the existence of "God" geometrically, from axioms and definitions... and choses to refer to the entity he has established as necessary, as "God".

However, this God is identical with the entirety of the natural universe, ALL its constituents, us humans, our passions, thoughts, and physical bodies... and an infinite number of other modes considered under an infinity of attributes, only two of which are available to us humans.

In any case... Whether this book delves into that or not... it's quite clear what Einstein believed, and it was certainly a brilliant view of the cosmos.

Other Comments by Spinoza

8. Comment #44113 by pewkatchoo on May 23, 2007 at 10:37 am

 avatarSpinoza. What are you burbling on about? Talk English man.

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

9. Comment #44117 by knldgspwr on May 23, 2007 at 10:44 am

OK, so he was a pantheist.

Other Comments by knldgspwr

10. Comment #44150 by Healing One on May 23, 2007 at 1:09 pm

Einstein's "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" quotation in context.

For example, a conflict arises when a religious community insists on the absolute truthfulness of all statements recorded in the Bible. This means an intervention on the part of religion into the sphere of science; this is where the struggle of the Church against the doctrines of Galileo and Darwin belongs. On the other hand, representatives of science have often made an attempt to arrive at fundamental judgments with respect to values and ends on the basis of scientific method, and in this way have set themselves in opposition to religion. These conflicts have all sprung from fatal errors.

Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

Though I have asserted above that in truth a legitimate conflict between religion and science cannot exist, I must nevertheless qualify this assertion once again on an essential point, with reference to the actual content of historical religions. This qualification has to do with the concept of God. During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution human fantasy created gods in man's own image, who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate to influence, the phenomenal world. Man sought to alter the disposition of these gods in his own favor by means of magic and prayer. The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old concept of the gods. Its anthropomorphic character is shown, for instance, by the fact that men appeal to the Divine Being in prayers and plead for the fulfillment of their wishes.

Nobody, certainly, will deny that the idea of the existence of an omnipotent, just, and omnibeneficent personal God is able to accord man solace, help, and guidance; also, by virtue of its simplicity it is accessible to the most undeveloped mind. But, on the other hand, there are decisive weaknesses attached to this idea in itself, which have been painfully felt since the beginning of history. That is, if this being is omnipotent, then every occurrence, including every human action, every human thought, and every human feeling and aspiration is also His work; how is it possible to think of holding men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an almighty Being? In giving out punishment and rewards He would to a certain extent be passing judgment on Himself. How can this be combined with the goodness and righteousness ascribed to Him?

Source: Einstein's Ideas and Opinions, Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium, published by the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm

Other Comments by Healing One

11. Comment #44157 by konquererz on May 23, 2007 at 1:39 pm

 avatarNice post Healing One, I have always wanted to get a read on exactly where that quote came from. Sounds like he didn't want to not believe in god, but didn't see a way that religions god could exist in paradox with the world we live in.

Other Comments by konquererz

12. Comment #44158 by Michelle on May 23, 2007 at 1:39 pm

Spinoza,

Is it reasonable to say that Einstein used the word "god" as another word for "reality"?

Thanks

Other Comments by Michelle

13. Comment #44164 by John P on May 23, 2007 at 1:55 pm

 avatarYes, I get confused when they (whoever "they" are) try to philosophize God. Calling God the sum total of everything is really calling him nothing. Maybe that's why I never "got" philosophy.

Prove he exists first. Then start quibbling over his characteristics.

Other Comments by John P

14. Comment #44183 by stephenray on May 23, 2007 at 2:45 pm

What does it matter what Einstein believed about god?

He believed, he didn't believe, he believed, he didn't believe...

It is only enlightening about Einstein, it tells us nothing about the existence of god nor of the correctness of overlapping magisteria.

When reading RD I did think he got close to painting himself into a corner about Einstein in TGD. Yes, Einstein was the most insightful scientist of the century, probably since Newton. He was also brought up in a Europe which was even more strictly religious than today, and not even a giant intellect is guaranteed to shake off a childhood indoctrination.

Other Comments by stephenray

15. Comment #44187 by Edouard Pernod on May 23, 2007 at 3:02 pm

 avatarI've always found it tiresome how people on both the belief and non-belief sides of the fence are always clamoring to find something quotable by Einstein which supports their views. What he says doesn't lend itself well to co-opting by either party. That's what makes Einstein great. He was a rugged individualist that couldn't be fit into any one box. His ideas about "God" seem rather vague and not supported by any evidence beyond Einstein's own personal impressions, but that's fine with me. His opinions about God are far less interesting or consequential than his opinions which completely rewrote the way we see ourselves, the world, the Universe, Newton and lots of other assumptions. THAT is where the usefulness of his words lie, not in some aside remark about what he thinks about God or Religion. I see no sane reason to use Einstein's words to promote a particular religious or anti-religious view, since that was not his area of expertise and he spent little time talking about it, except in vague cursory terms that had more to do with personal impressions than any profound inquiry.

Other Comments by Edouard Pernod

16. Comment #44190 by the great teapot on May 23, 2007 at 3:09 pm

I have always considered reading a bit of Spinoza, thanks spinoza you have just convinced me of the errors of my ways.

Other Comments by the great teapot

17. Comment #44239 by MIND_REBEL on May 23, 2007 at 8:14 pm

 avatarEinstein is a bit overated. It's a shame he tarnished his legacy by caving in to the religious nutcases. Whatever, personally, i think Weinstein is much more important, and can understand that religion is truly a nightmare and the worst thing to happen to the human race.

Other Comments by MIND_REBEL

18. Comment #44251 by Dr Benway on May 23, 2007 at 9:36 pm

 avatarThanks, Healing One, for a reminder of the complete quote.

Einstein's God is impersonal and doesn't intervene in human affairs. This God is effectively a symbol representing that which is beyond our present powers of representation.

"Religion" as used by Einstein seems akin to ethics.

I've no complaint with Einstein. I think "caving in to the religious nutcases" is a bit strong.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

19. Comment #44266 by Steven Mading on May 24, 2007 at 12:31 am

Einstein (and Spinoza) simply used a different definition of "god" that was so different from the mainstream that to be honest and forthright they should have just used a different word or made up a new one. If I claim I own an automobile, and then later on explain myself further by saying "well, it only has two wheels, and it doesn't have an engine, and instead I have to pedal it, but to me that's an automobile" then I'm really not being honest - what I'm talking about isn't an automobile. It's a bicycle. That's what the pantheistic "god" is like - If you have a strong sense of wonder about the universe itself then we already have a word for the thing you find wonder about - it's called "the universe". Calling it "god" just feeds people useful propaganda soundbites to use later. (To revisit my bicycle example, If I was to go on and describe how my two-wheeled no-engine "automobile" doesn't pollute and gives me good excercise, people who prefer automobiles to bicycles could pull that statement out and claim I was saying automobiles have those properties when I wasn't really talking about automobiles at all, but about bicycles.

People pull out Einstein's god quotes as if he was talking about 'god' when he was just talking about the universe itself, and using dangerously sloppy language to do so.

If you're a pantheist, please don't describe the thing your talking about with the word "god" - you're just setting yourself up for misunderstanding and misquoting later on.

Other Comments by Steven Mading

20. Comment #44307 by Bonzai on May 24, 2007 at 8:24 am

Comment #44266 by Steven Mading

People pull out Einstein's god quotes as if he was talking about 'god' when he was just talking about the universe itself, and using dangerously sloppy language to do so.


There is a thing called style in writing. It is not "sloppy" to make a point poetically using metaphores. Einstein's invocation of the word "God" conveyed succinctly and powerfully the sense of reverence he felt. "Plain language" could not communicate that with the same effectiveness. It made sense given the cultural context. If the reader takes things too literally because his single tracked mind can only understand the striped down, bland language of a technical manual, it is not the fault of the writer. Einstein never said he was writing a philosophical dissertation, these were personal reflections.

The words of famous people are bound to be misquoted and quoted out of context to lend credence to various agendas. The determined person may even make up his own "quotes" when all else fail, just consider Darwin's death bed conversion. In any case citing famous people is not an argument so instead of lambasting Einstein's for using language that is liable for misquotation it is better to point out the fallacy of invoking authority and insist that citations must be made in context.

Einstein didn't call himself an "atheist" because in his view people who labelled themselves this way in his days were aesthetically challenged and were remarkably lacking in imagination. I think he might have a point after reading some kneel jerk posts on this thread and others concerning Einstein. Einstein was an individualist and the ultimate independent thinker, he hated all labels and 'movements' with equal passion. To him an organized atheistic movement,--probably afflilated with political radicalism of various stripes in his time,-- was as contemptible as organized religions.

Other Comments by Bonzai

21. Comment #44378 by Roll on May 24, 2007 at 12:58 pm

Tx for the quote Healing. That was new to me, and putting it in context made a lot more sense.

If anything I'm even more in awe of this thinker that could get outside his doctrinal upbringing, and help to describe phenomena to his contemporaries in their own language.

What a giant of a human being. You can toss off to yourselves however you like, about how you fancy his religious leanings were. The matter is inconsequential. He is the father of our times.

Other Comments by Roll

22. Comment #44396 by Steven Mading on May 24, 2007 at 1:47 pm


Einstein's invocation of the word "God" conveyed succinctly and powerfully the sense of reverence he felt.

The fact that he also had to often qualify what he meant afterward proves that it was not a succinct way to get the point across. To judge whether it was succinct or not you have to add the later qualifications he had to give and consider them part of the necessary verbosity.

Einstein didn't call himself an "atheist" because in his view people who labelled themselves this way in his days were aesthetically challenged and were remarkably lacking in imagination. I think he might have a point after reading some kneel jerk posts on this thread and others concerning Einstein.

You're not doing a good job of defending Einstein if you attribute beliefs in incorrect stereotypes to him like that. I don't think he was that dumb.

Other Comments by Steven Mading
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: