Print
Childish superstition: Einstein's letter makes view of religion relatively clear
by Guardian UK
Thanks to SPS
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/12/peopleinscience.religion
Childish superstition: Einstein's letter makes view of religion relatively clear
Scientist's reply to sell for up to £8,000, and stoke debate over his beliefs
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." So said Albert Einstein, and his famous aphorism has been the source of endless debate between believers and non-believers wanting to claim the greatest scientist of the 20th century as their own.
A little known letter written by him, however, may help to settle the argument - or at least provoke further controversy about his views.
Due to be auctioned this week in London after being in a private collection for more than 50 years, the document leaves no doubt that the theoretical physicist was no supporter of religious beliefs, which he regarded as "childish superstitions".
Einstein penned the letter on January 3 1954 to the philosopher Eric Gutkind who had sent him a copy of his book Choose Life: The Biblical Call to Revolt. The letter went on public sale a year later and has remained in private hands ever since.
In the letter, he states: "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."
Einstein, who was Jewish and who declined an offer to be the state of Israel's second president, also rejected the idea that the Jews are God's favoured people.
"For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them."
The letter will go on sale at Bloomsbury Auctions in Mayfair on Thursday and is expected to fetch up to £8,000. The handwritten piece, in German, is not listed in the source material of the most authoritative academic text on the subject, Max Jammer's book Einstein and Religion.
One of the country's leading experts on the scientist, John Brooke of Oxford University, admitted he had not heard of it.
Einstein is best known for his theories of relativity and for the famous E=mc2 equation that describes the equivalence of mass and energy, but his thoughts on religion have long attracted conjecture.
His parents were not religious but he attended a Catholic primary school and at the same time received private tuition in Judaism. This prompted what he later called, his "religious paradise of youth", during which he observed religious rules such as not eating pork. This did not last long though and by 12 he was questioning the truth of many biblical stories.
"The consequence was a positively fanatic [orgy of] freethinking coupled with the impression that youth is being deceived by the state through lies; it was a crushing impression," he later wrote.
In his later years he referred to a "cosmic religious feeling" that permeated and sustained his scientific work. In 1954, a year before his death, he spoke of wishing to "experience the universe as a single cosmic whole". He was also fond of using religious flourishes, in 1926 declaring that "He [God] does not throw dice" when referring to randomness thrown up by quantum theory.
His position on God has been widely misrepresented by people on both sides of the atheism/religion divide but he always resisted easy stereotyping on the subject.
"Like other great scientists he does not fit the boxes in which popular polemicists like to pigeonhole him," said Brooke. "It is clear for example that he had respect for the religious values enshrined within Judaic and Christian traditions ... but what he understood by religion was something far more subtle than what is usually meant by the word in popular discussion."
Despite his categorical rejection of conventional religion, Brooke said that Einstein became angry when his views were appropriated by evangelists for atheism. He was offended by their lack of humility and once wrote. "The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/12/peopleinscience.religion
Childish superstition: Einstein's letter makes view of religion relatively clear
Scientist's reply to sell for up to £8,000, and stoke debate over his beliefs
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." So said Albert Einstein, and his famous aphorism has been the source of endless debate between believers and non-believers wanting to claim the greatest scientist of the 20th century as their own.
A little known letter written by him, however, may help to settle the argument - or at least provoke further controversy about his views.
Due to be auctioned this week in London after being in a private collection for more than 50 years, the document leaves no doubt that the theoretical physicist was no supporter of religious beliefs, which he regarded as "childish superstitions".
Einstein penned the letter on January 3 1954 to the philosopher Eric Gutkind who had sent him a copy of his book Choose Life: The Biblical Call to Revolt. The letter went on public sale a year later and has remained in private hands ever since.
In the letter, he states: "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."
Einstein, who was Jewish and who declined an offer to be the state of Israel's second president, also rejected the idea that the Jews are God's favoured people.
"For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them."
The letter will go on sale at Bloomsbury Auctions in Mayfair on Thursday and is expected to fetch up to £8,000. The handwritten piece, in German, is not listed in the source material of the most authoritative academic text on the subject, Max Jammer's book Einstein and Religion.
One of the country's leading experts on the scientist, John Brooke of Oxford University, admitted he had not heard of it.
Einstein is best known for his theories of relativity and for the famous E=mc2 equation that describes the equivalence of mass and energy, but his thoughts on religion have long attracted conjecture.
His parents were not religious but he attended a Catholic primary school and at the same time received private tuition in Judaism. This prompted what he later called, his "religious paradise of youth", during which he observed religious rules such as not eating pork. This did not last long though and by 12 he was questioning the truth of many biblical stories.
"The consequence was a positively fanatic [orgy of] freethinking coupled with the impression that youth is being deceived by the state through lies; it was a crushing impression," he later wrote.
In his later years he referred to a "cosmic religious feeling" that permeated and sustained his scientific work. In 1954, a year before his death, he spoke of wishing to "experience the universe as a single cosmic whole". He was also fond of using religious flourishes, in 1926 declaring that "He [God] does not throw dice" when referring to randomness thrown up by quantum theory.
His position on God has been widely misrepresented by people on both sides of the atheism/religion divide but he always resisted easy stereotyping on the subject.
"Like other great scientists he does not fit the boxes in which popular polemicists like to pigeonhole him," said Brooke. "It is clear for example that he had respect for the religious values enshrined within Judaic and Christian traditions ... but what he understood by religion was something far more subtle than what is usually meant by the word in popular discussion."
Despite his categorical rejection of conventional religion, Brooke said that Einstein became angry when his views were appropriated by evangelists for atheism. He was offended by their lack of humility and once wrote. "The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility."
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Monday, May 12, 2008 | PermalinkComments 1 - 46 of 46 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #179142 by mindpath on May 12, 2008 at 6:55 pm
I hope Dinesh D'Souza gets his grubby paws on that letter. Other Comments by mindpath
3. Comment #179143 by JamesDB on May 12, 2008 at 6:55 pm
This is nice bit of news but in the end really doesn't make a difference. It doesn't matter who is on whos side, just that the evidence doesn't support the religious. Having einstein now proven to not believe in religion is just another thing that will be disputed anyway seeing as christians don't pay attention to evidence. Other Comments by JamesDB
4. Comment #179147 by AfraidToDie on May 12, 2008 at 7:24 pm
I am curious as to the timings of these writings compared to when he was quoted as saying "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."? Was this from his early years? And then in his later years he referred to a "cosmic religious feeling". At most, he sounded like a deist? Perhaps he just didn't want to be labelled with the scarlet "A"? Other Comments by AfraidToDie
5. Comment #179167 by JerryD385 on May 12, 2008 at 8:04 pm
"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."AfraidToDie - this quote from Einstein should help you understand what he meant by his own "religious" beliefs
Other Comments by JerryD385
6. Comment #179199 by HourglassMemory on May 12, 2008 at 9:29 pm
Wow.If it's old news, it's only old in the sense that he expresses what we already supposed he thought.
But you have it here, Einstein saying that religions are childish superstisions and that god for him is an expression of human weakness.
It's like someone just recently interviewed him.
Other Comments by HourglassMemory
7. Comment #179204 by heathen2 on May 12, 2008 at 9:34 pm
Even if Einstein believed in a Jewish or Christian god - which clearly he didn't - it still would not make the idea of god(s) a true one. Pretty much what James is saying I think. Other Comments by heathen2
8. Comment #179210 by King of NH on May 12, 2008 at 10:08 pm
I agree. Einstein could believe what he wanted, and this does not change whether that belief was true or not. Einstein rejected the idea of an expanding universe, but scientists don't let that stop them from insisting on the expansion model's reliability. If Dawkins suddenly lost his [censored] mind and started speaking in tongues and preaching "the good word," I would hardly follow. The evidence still stands against the supernatural.
But I do find that, like Sagan, the "religion" of truely seeing and understanding the universe as described by Einstein is better poetry than the Bible ever offered. For this, I am glad he was who he was.
Other Comments by King of NH
9. Comment #179219 by black wolf on May 12, 2008 at 10:47 pm
I get the impression that Brooke interprets Einstein's view inaccurately by taking the quotes out of their time frame.Despite his categorical rejection of conventional religion, Brooke said that Einstein became angry when his views were appropriated by evangelists for atheism. He was offended by their lack of humility and once wrote. "The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility."
Einstein wrote that in 1936.
"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."
Albert Einstein, 1954.
Brooke said that Einstein became angry when his views were appropriated by evangelists for atheism. He was offended by their lack of humility...
The 'leading expert' on Einstein, who wasn't aware of the letter, which is widely known even among non-experts, thusly spoke.
The Andreas Idreos Professorship of Science and Religion within the Faculty of Theology at Oxford is held by Professor John Hedley Brooke, formerly Professor of the History of Science at Lancaster University.
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~theo0038/biogbrooke.html
Brooke also writes this:
The Doctrine of the Fall(my emphasis; I find it a bit disconcerting that a lecturer on the history of science doesn't bother to substantiate essential claims with evidence)
The second creation account in Genesis (Gen. 2.4-3.end) gives more emphasis to the origin of the human race than does the first account. It includes a number of key assertions upon which the Christian understanding of salvation is based. These include the unity of man and woman, the unity of the human species, the sin of our first parents and the consequences of the fall from divine favour.
The story thus provides a mythological explanation of the current and fallen state of humanity.
The story emphasises that "God fashioned man (adam) from the dust of the soil [adamah]". There is no intention of suggesting that those who told and re-told this story ever had any evolutionary understanding in mind; they were no doubt thinking in terms of a clay image into which God then breathed life. Nevertheless, we could regard the phrase as providential, and accept it as an abbreviated and 'poetic' expression of the Earthly evolution of humankind. It is a serious error, however, to try to interpret either Genesis 1 or 2 in terms of evolutionary theory, not only because our understanding of evolution will undergo changes in the future, but because of the need to respect the intentions and world-views of the biblical authors.
http://www.counterbalance.net/perspevo/brooke2-frame.html
Counterbalance is funded by the Adrian M. Wyard Charitable Trust. Adrian Wyard is a member of the Templeton Foundation's advisory board.
http://www.counterbalance.net/bio/wyard-body.html
So who's appropriating Einstein's views again? Brooke is hardly an unbiased, objective source on Einstein. I'm a bit surprised that the article's author, PhD holder in evolutionary genetics, didn't pick up on Brooke's somewhat partisan stance.
Other Comments by black wolf
10. Comment #179224 by mmurray on May 12, 2008 at 10:57 pm
While this is good PR it would not make any difference to the existence of Gods if he had believed unless he had either new evidence or a new argument. Relativity isn't true because Einstein believed it, it is true because of Einstein's arguments in its favour and experimental confirmation. While on great physicists and religion Wikiquote has some nice Feynman quotes:
"Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool."
"The remark which I read somewhere, that science is all right as long as it doesn't attack religion, was the clue I needed to understand the problem. As long as it doesn't attack religion it need not be paid attention to and nobody has to learn anything. So it can be cut off from society except for its applications, and thus be isolated. And then we have this terrible struggle to try to explain things to people who have no reason to want to know. But if they want to defend their own point of view, they will have to learn what yours is a little bit. So I suggest, maybe correctly and perhaps wrongly, that we are too polite."
"It doesn't seem to me that this fantastically marvelous universe, this tremendous range of time and space and different kinds of animals, and all the different planets, and all these atoms with all their motions, and so on, all this complicated thing can merely be a stage so that God can watch human beings struggle for good and evil" which is the view that religion has. The stage is too big for the drama."
Michael
Other Comments by mmurray
11. Comment #179225 by black wolf on May 12, 2008 at 11:07 pm
Regarding my above post, how come almost every time I check on statements that come from theology groups, I find that they quote-mine, misinterpret and misrepresent philosophers, historians and scientists. From theology at Oxford to the Australian Catholic Church, can we trust anything they write without taking the burden of checking on them first? I've come to serious doubts about their interest in honest dialogue. Other Comments by black wolf
12. Comment #179230 by passutoba on May 12, 2008 at 11:54 pm
mordacious..old news yes, but this is fairly explicit compared to most of what has been attributed to Einstein before and this will hopefully reach a wider audience. Although of course, we all know some of the audience will have their fingers in their ears and are saying 'nnnanaaaannaa Einstein believed in god...nnnaaaanaaaa'Other Comments by passutoba
13. Comment #179234 by JammyB on May 13, 2008 at 12:23 am
"His position on God has been widely misrepresented by people on both sides of the atheism/religion divide but he always resisted easy stereotyping on the subject."Opinion slipping into news here? This sounds like an attempt to "balance" the argument by claiming each side are as bad as each other, without providing any source. I'd love to know where a prominent atheist has lied for FSM about this.
"Brooke said that Einstein became angry when his views were appropriated by evangelists for atheism. He was offended by their lack of humility and once wrote. "The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility.""
The quote presented does not support the statement made. Not that it would matter if it were true.
Other Comments by JammyB
14. Comment #179238 by born-again-atheist on May 13, 2008 at 12:29 am
I think the issue here is Einstein simply didn't like to be labelled by others. He preferred to be called only what he was willing to call himself. Other Comments by born-again-atheist
15. Comment #179249 by Blueangel on May 13, 2008 at 1:10 am
Childish superstition! I don't know why I like the slimmest Mp4-v1 very much,and it makes me have my memory in childhood.chinablueangelOther Comments by Blueangel
16. Comment #179276 by tieInterceptor on May 13, 2008 at 2:43 am
Despite his categorical rejection of conventional religion, Brooke said that Einstein became angry when his views were appropriated by evangelists for atheism. He was offended by their lack of humility and once wrote. "The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility."
really? well, they could add on the article this other letters, that point that if anything he was for sure more on the side of Agnosticism than anything else.
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.
Albert Einstein 1954
A man's ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
Albert Einstein 1930
Other Comments by tieInterceptor
17. Comment #179282 by Duff on May 13, 2008 at 3:12 am
This piece seems an attempt by the Templetonian Ilkdom to soften the blow of the "childish" comment.Other Comments by Duff
18. Comment #179285 by Incredulous on May 13, 2008 at 3:34 am
I don't know if anyone has read the comment associated with this article in the guardian. If you want an example of murky and strange thinking read this.http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/andrew_brown/2008/05/faithless_einstein.html
Other Comments by Incredulous
19. Comment #179288 by gyokusai on May 13, 2008 at 3:56 am
We have a thorough discussion on this on Pharyngula right now, and we found out some interesting things indeed about Brooke (mostly from comment #60 onwards). Just a teaser:
Darwin thought the Christian doctrine of damnation damnable, yet in his response to the sublime still supposed he deserved to be called a theist.
Yes, it's from the Einstein expert.
Check out our discussion at:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/05/einstein_on_gods_and_judaism.php
^_^J.
Other Comments by gyokusai
20. Comment #179306 by Dinah on May 13, 2008 at 5:14 am
Re Comment #179225 by black wolf...how come almost every time I check on statements that come from theology groups, I find that they quote-mine, misinterpret and misrepresent philosophers, historians and scientists. From theology at Oxford to the Australian Catholic Church, can we trust anything they write without taking the burden of checking on them first?
The answer is probably no. I'm not sure if this is deliberate, or whether they have simply lost the ability to distinguish between truth and falsehood - always assuming they ever had that ability. Anything which serves to uphold their version of god and the supernatural probably counts as the truth in their eyes. Besides, anyone who believes in god and the supernatural must have a rather tenuous hold on reality in the first place.
Other Comments by Dinah
21. Comment #179321 by Colwyn Abernathy on May 13, 2008 at 5:48 am
The second creation account in Genesis (Gen. 2.4-3.end) gives more emphasis to the origin of the human race than does the first account.
ORLY? Says you...If the second has more emphasis...WHY ARE THERE TWO OF THEM?
I can never get a straight answer from theists on that.
Other Comments by Colwyn Abernathy
22. Comment #179328 by Michael P. on May 13, 2008 at 5:58 am
mindpath wrote:I hope Dinesh D'Souza gets his grubby paws on that letter.
Let's hope not; he'll probably try to destroy it.
Other Comments by Michael P.
23. Comment #179342 by jimbob on May 13, 2008 at 6:24 am
Wasn't it Einstein who also observed that the difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limits?Other Comments by jimbob
24. Comment #179346 by IQHQ on May 13, 2008 at 6:28 am
If any of you are to appropriate Einstein's authority in relation to how childish a belief in a "personal" God may be (quite rightly), you nevertheless must pay heed to what the great man also said about "evangelical atheism". Giving these latter considerations honest consideration may only result in a modification of tone and temper (as opposed to substance), but nevertheless they are important considerations, and worth taking into account.
Other Comments by IQHQ
25. Comment #179352 by irate_atheist on May 13, 2008 at 6:44 am
24. Comment #179346 by IQHQ -
"Brooke said that Einstein became angry when his views were appropriated..."
Let's examine that part of the sentence. Even the first four words, perhaps:
'Brooke said that Einstein...'
No source cited. No direct quote. Nothing.
Just .'Brooke said'.
Unsubstantiated third hand statement (unless Brooke can show he met Einstein, and that Eintein said it to him. In which case, we would still only have Brooke's word for it).
Einstein may have held this view - but statements that claim he did should be backed up with evidence.
Evidence, please.
Other Comments by irate_atheist
26. Comment #179452 by Kinobe on May 13, 2008 at 9:04 am
Right now, this is the most-read article on the guardian website, which shows the level of attention it is getting. So, although this is nothing new to any of us, it may well be new to a lot readers who may not be so familiar with the debate over Einstein's religious views (or lack thereof). In particular, some of those people may be from the "Einstein was religious" camp. So I think it's all good.Other Comments by Kinobe
27. Comment #179477 by IQHQ on May 13, 2008 at 10:08 am
Get your head out of your arse, Irate....Walter Isaacson, in his recent biography on Einstein, makes this point quite explicit, citing several letters to prove it.
And anyway, before you get up on your high horse, do you honestly believe that Brooke, a fellow biographer, would just casually attribute false perspectives to the great man, and what's more do so without a shred of proof?
Get real, and stop being such a bore (Evidence! I demand evidence! Evidence!!!)
Other Comments by IQHQ
28. Comment #179548 by MrPickwick on May 13, 2008 at 11:36 am
Hi people! Heres a wav file of Dakwins on this matter. BBC Radio Scotland. Tuesday, 13.
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=LSPNZ2ZI
[2:27 minutes; 12MB]
Other Comments by MrPickwick
29. Comment #179551 by Lucas on May 13, 2008 at 11:45 am
RD - Do you think you could buy this letter and have it scanned and posted here?Colwyn - The two creation accounts were written by two different people, or groups of people, at different times. (This is why we need more education in the history of religion.) That's why you get no answer from theists; as far as they're concerned, God wrote it.
Other Comments by Lucas
30. Comment #179555 by Steve Zara on May 13, 2008 at 11:48 am
Irate - PM for you. Other Comments by Steve Zara
31. Comment #179559 by Colwyn Abernathy on May 13, 2008 at 11:54 am
Lucas:
Colwyn - The two creation accounts were written by two different people, or groups of people, at different times. (This is why we need more education in the history of religion.) That's why you get no answer from theists; as far as they're concerned, God wrote it.
See, I knew that because it's the most logical answer. As well as the "make him in OUR image". I get that the "our" means "the holy trinity" from them, citing yet ANOTHER alleged fulfullment of prophesy. But doesn't it make MORE sense that to make the idea of a single omnipotent being palatable to a largely pantheistic population, an author would use language that would be recognisable to them. After all, monotheistic faiths seem perfectly comfortable with assimilating pagan symbols into their rituals and practices, why not language?
EDIT:
IQHQ:
do you honestly believe that Brooke, a fellow biographer, would just casually attribute false perspectives to the great man, and what's more do so without a shred of proof?
Yes. He's human, with a religious bias (apparently) and so it's very possible he could make such a biased error. Without citation, I cannot take such a claim seriously either.
Other Comments by Colwyn Abernathy
32. Comment #179564 by riandouglas on May 13, 2008 at 11:58 am
Colwyn: As well as the "make him in OUR image".
I thought the "our" was because the genesis accounts were cribed together from polytheistic myths. Hence the El, Elohim, council of gods etc.
Other Comments by riandouglas
33. Comment #179567 by Colwyn Abernathy on May 13, 2008 at 12:02 pm
riandouglas:
I thought the "our" was because the genesis accounts were cribed together from polytheistic myths. Hence the El, Elohim, council of gods etc.
Hmmm...I hadn't heard that before. Interesting. The trinity is an answer I get from Christians when I press them on it.
Other Comments by Colwyn Abernathy
34. Comment #179572 by riandouglas on May 13, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Colwyn, thats because that has to be the answer, given the "Truth" they submit to. Other Comments by riandouglas
35. Comment #179580 by Colwyn Abernathy on May 13, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Indeed. A truth that is infallible, and therefore, beyond questioning and doubt. That's what I find MOST distasteful about dogma: an infatuation with and pride of ignorance.
It's like what Chris Rock says when he talks about the difference between black people and niggas:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpUSElgJcyI
Starts at 2:58
"Nuttin make a nigga happier than NOT knowing the answer to your question."
What I find so funny is that you can replace the racial with the religious, and it'd STILL make sense.
Other Comments by Colwyn Abernathy
36. Comment #179590 by riandouglas on May 13, 2008 at 12:17 pm
I'm not sure that the "truth" is beyond doubt. Somehow it has become indispensible.You can doubt and question it all you want (hey, the bible asks us to, right), but whatever you do, you have to come up with "the truth".
Other Comments by riandouglas
37. Comment #179604 by Colwyn Abernathy on May 13, 2008 at 12:28 pm
"You can doubt and question it all you want (hey, the bible asks us to, right)
Which is ironic, for the ONLY unforgivable sin, evidently, is to deny the holy spirit exists, and to come to that conclusion, first you must doubt and question it. ;)
Other Comments by Colwyn Abernathy
38. Comment #179627 by Friend Giskard on May 13, 2008 at 12:52 pm
black wolf wrote,...how come almost every time I check on statements that come from theology groups, I find that they quote-mine, misinterpret and misrepresent philosophers, historians and scientists. From theology at Oxford to the Australian Catholic Church, can we trust anything they write without taking the burden of checking on them first? I've come to serious doubts about their interest in honest dialogue.
What is so surprising? Consider their predicament.
They have no evidence. They have no rational arguments. Smoke and lies is all they will ever have.
For them, honesty simply isn't an option.
Why is anyone still surprised by this?
Other Comments by Friend Giskard
39. Comment #179724 by notsobad on May 13, 2008 at 3:12 pm
"Einstein became angry when his views were appropriated by evangelists for atheism. He was offended by their lack of humility..."source?
Other Comments by notsobad
40. Comment #179728 by Friend Giskard on May 13, 2008 at 3:19 pm
39. Comment #179724 by notsobad on May 13, 2008 at 3:12 pm
avatar"Einstein became angry when his views were appropriated by evangelists for atheism. He was offended by their lack of humility..."
source?
I'd like to know that too. Treat with suspicion.
Other Comments by Friend Giskard
41. Comment #179746 by AfraidToDie on May 13, 2008 at 3:50 pm
3. Comment #179143 by JamesDB - This is nice bit of news but in the end really doesn't make a difference. It doesn't matter who is on whos side, just that the evidence doesn't support the religious. Having einstein now proven to not believe in religion is just another thing that will be disputed anyway seeing as christians don't pay attention to evidence.
You are correct in that it would not sway our (collective atheist) opinion if Einstein was a theist. However, I consider it very important that statistically a high percentage of the upper echelon of scientist profess atheism. Rationalism (which I believe is the strong suit of science), is our mantra. And having Einstein (toward the upper tier of the very top scientists I would assume) in the atheist camp is of great consequence in my mind.
Other Comments by AfraidToDie
42. Comment #179972 by irate_atheist on May 14, 2008 at 3:40 am
27. Comment #179477 by IQHQ -Why should I? I'm enjoying the view.
Get your head out of your arse, Irate....
And anyway, before you get up on your high horse, do you honestly believe that Brooke, a fellow biographer, would just casually attribute false perspectives to the great man, and what's more do so without a shred of proof?He might do. I don't know the man's character well enough to judge either way.
Walter Isaacson, in his recent biography on Einstein, makes this point quite explicit, citing several letters to prove it.Now that's more like it! A pointer to some evidence. Splendid!
Other Comments by irate_atheist
43. Comment #179993 by Lula on May 14, 2008 at 4:27 am
You are correct in that it would not sway our (collective atheist) opinion if Einstein was a theist. However, I consider it very important that statistically a high percentage of the upper echelon of scientist profess atheism. Rationalism (which I believe is the strong suit of science), is our mantra. And having Einstein (toward the upper tier of the very top scientists I would assume) in the atheist camp is of great consequence in my mind.
Yes. I made a comment to this effect here
Other Comments by Lula
44. Comment #180013 by IQHQ on May 14, 2008 at 5:33 am
IrateLook, i must apologize for being a little rude to you in my response.
I am a court lawyer by profession, and I deal in matters of "evidence" every day... so, like you, I know how important it is not to make unsubstantiated remarks.
Likewise, I admit that it's possible that someone like Brooke (who has affiliation with Templeton) could very well "make up" something like this. Nevertheless, don't you think that it is highly unlikely??? As with science, there is a peer-review system (albeit an informal one) in literature. Without evidence, the making of such assertions would soon result in his disgrace.
Therefore, I just got a bit annoyed that you couldn't respond to the substance of my point by simply taking it on a hypothetical at the very least. Anyway, no sweat. C ya.
p.s:~ check out the Isaacson book.. it's pretty good, especially so for the letters
Other Comments by IQHQ
45. Comment #180038 by Edouard Pernod on May 14, 2008 at 6:14 am
It is argumentatively worthless to say Einstein is on either side, unless one is intending to make a fallacious argument by association, saying that because Einstein either was religious or not, then you are right and the people you are arguing with are wrong. It's silly to invoke his opinion on the matter when there is already a stupefying amount of evidence indicating that the God of religious mythology is a fantasy. All this letter does is confirm what we already knew: Einstein was indeed an iconoclast and a man who didn't compartmentalize his mind in order to keep cherished preconceptions safe from evidence. Other Comments by Edouard Pernod
46. Comment #181265 by riki on May 16, 2008 at 7:50 pm
New Scientist have just posted a follow up article on this. "Was Einstein religious?"http://www.newscientist.com/blog/space/2008/05/was-einstein-religious.html
Other Comments by riki
Upcoming Events:
About this site
Mailing List Signup: Enter your email
Go to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Richard Dawkins Articles | Comments | Tour Journal
Atheist Resources | Local Groups
Debate Points | Latest Responses
Audio Books
The God Delusion
Read by
Richard Dawkins &
Lalla Ward
The Ancestor's Tale
Read by
Richard Dawkins &
Lalla Ward
On the Origin of Species
Read by
Richard Dawkins
Links:
Quotes of Note:
"Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration--courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and, above all, love of the truth."
H.L. Mencken
"Beliefs are what divide people. Doubt unites them."
Peter Ustinov
"The trouble is that God in this sophisticated, physicist's sense bears no resemblance to the God of the Bible or any other religion."
Richard Dawkins
"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet."
Napoleon Bonaparte
"The sermon was based on what he claimed was a well-known fact, that there were no Atheists in foxholes. I asked Jack what he thought of the sermon afterwards, and he said, "There's a Chaplain who never visited the front.""
Kurt Vonnegut
Other Recommended Reading
God: The Failed Hypothesis
Victor J Stenger
American Theocracy
Kevin Phillips
Before the Dawn
Nicholas Wade
Why Darwin Matters
Michael Shermer
Read the 1st Chapter!
Against All Gods
A C Grayling
More Books
Adjust font size: 
"If this book doesn't change the world -- we're all screwed."
-Penn (Penn & Teller)
The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins
Over 1.5 million copies sold
DVDs
'Voices of Science' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'AAI 2007 Conference' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Original Program' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
1. Comment #179141 by mordacious1 on May 12, 2008 at 6:55 pm
This is old news. Most people should know this by now.Other Comments by mordacious1