1. Comment #179715 by Oppomystic on May 13, 2008 at 2:51 pm

Nail plus Coffin = Closed

Not that this will stop the quote-miners. They'll always have their wedges...

Other Comments by Oppomystic

2. Comment #179721 by Mango on May 13, 2008 at 3:08 pm

Nothing new, but the interview's a good length to get in a few Tim Tam slams.

Other Comments by Mango

3. Comment #179729 by Whistler on May 13, 2008 at 3:21 pm

I've just placed a bid on the letter. Wish me luck.

Other Comments by Whistler

4. Comment #179730 by akado on May 13, 2008 at 3:26 pm

yep tis old news but still it's awesome we got more stuff to shove in religious peoples face ;P
yay for einstien! ^.^

Other Comments by akado

5. Comment #179731 by HourglassMemory on May 13, 2008 at 3:28 pm

I was thinking how wonderful the Internet is.
This letter thing only came out, what, yesterday? Two days ago?
And now here we are, listening to Dawkins' opinion in a matter of hours.

It's pretty cool.

Other Comments by HourglassMemory

6. Comment #179735 by ericross on May 13, 2008 at 3:30 pm

I'm not convinced that Einstein was an atheist. It seems more likely that he was a deist -- by saying that he did not believe in a personal god, he was implying that he did believe in some sort of a god. I also read in Time (in an article based on the recently published biography of Einstein) that he repeatedly denied being an atheist.

Anyone care to try to convince me?

Other Comments by ericross

7. Comment #179745 by Martini on May 13, 2008 at 3:50 pm

ericross, is the following YouTube video convincing enough?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qOsDR5sZTk

"It seems more likely that he was a deist -- by saying that he did not believe in a personal god, he was implying that he did believe in some sort of a god."

You're assuming that that sort of god must be a deity. He was referring to a pantheistic sort of god, which is just calling nature "God".


"I also read in Time (in an article based on the recently published biography of Einstein) that he repeatedly denied being an atheist."


He didn't like the word, but that's what he was, by strict definition. His problem with a lot of self-described atheists was that he thought they lacked "wonder."

Other Comments by Martini

8. Comment #179767 by Wosret on May 13, 2008 at 5:09 pm

Saying that he didn't believe in a personal god meant that he didn't believe in a god that was a person. If me wants to call perhaps a singularity that bore the universe god, then fine, whatever. If he wants to call nature god, then that is fine.

Though if you really want to know what he meant by god it is extremely clear, as he said that he believed in Spinoza's god, and spinoza is quite clear on what that is and isn't. Spinoza was also no pantheist. Pantheists consider somethings sacred, and worthy of more than just awe and reverance, where Spinoza did not.

He could have perhaps considered himself a deist, but he would have just been using words differently. If he was refering to something that exists as god, like nature, then he could consider that deism, there is no law that says that he can't define "god" in that way. He would be an atheist though to people that don't share his definition of the word "god" though.

Other Comments by Wosret

9. Comment #179768 by matt_shute-07 on May 13, 2008 at 5:13 pm

[quote]I'm not convinced that Einstein was an atheist. It seems more likely that he was a deist[/quote]

Wasn't he a pantheist?

Dawkins made me chuckle when, in The God Delusion, he described pantheism as "sexed-up atheism". Belief in Spinoza's God certainly requires very little in the way of faith...

Other Comments by matt_shute-07

10. Comment #179769 by Friggertool on May 13, 2008 at 5:29 pm

God does not play dice - Einstein

But he plays a mean game of chess!

Other Comments by Friggertool

11. Comment #179770 by Tack on May 13, 2008 at 5:30 pm

It seems to me one could make a plausible case that Einstein was a deist:

His [the scientist's] 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. [The World As I See It]

(From http://members.aol.com/heraklit1/einstein.htm)

It's sometimes hard not to get the feeling that Einstein flipflops between deism and pantheism.

Other Comments by Tack

12. Comment #179771 by AnnRKeye on May 13, 2008 at 5:42 pm

I second what Tack said. I recently heard, if I remember correctly, that Dawkins thinks science can prove God does not exist. Haven't had a chance to research this, but for now, I tend to disagree.

Other Comments by AnnRKeye

13. Comment #179779 by LeeLeeOne on May 13, 2008 at 5:58 pm

#9 matt_shute 07

very wise indeed you are

(yoda speak - sorry - cheesey but it's sincere)

Other Comments by LeeLeeOne

14. Comment #179783 by ericross on May 13, 2008 at 6:03 pm

I would refer people to this article on the Time Magazine web site. It is an excerpt from Walter Isaacson's recent biography on Einstein.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1607298,00.html

I think it is fair to call Einstein a pantheist (even if he himself seems to have denied it), but that does not really settle the question. Pantheism seems to be a fuzzy concept that is often used as a catch-all for positions that are vague and difficult to classify. The real question is, did Einstein believe in a god that is more than a metaphor for the natural? My answer is a tentative yes, but Einstein was maddeningly unclear. Certainly, though, he was no theist.

For the record, I regard the question as not much more than a curiosity. I don't hang my hat on what Einstein did or didn't believe, and nor should anyone else.

Other Comments by ericross

15. Comment #179785 by b0ltzm0n on May 13, 2008 at 6:21 pm

I second what Tack said. I recently heard, if I remember correctly, that Dawkins thinks science can prove God does not exist. Haven't had a chance to research this, but for now, I tend to disagree.

You can never prove something doesn't exist, but you can surely come closer and closer to being sure something doesn't exist. The more we learn the less theistic gods stand up to scrutiny.

All we can do is continue to clear the fog of ignorance using the best tools at our disposal, and the scientific method seems to be a pretty good tool! Cheers!

Other Comments by b0ltzm0n

16. Comment #179790 by MelM on May 13, 2008 at 6:41 pm

Walter Isaacson's view (not an atheist) on an MSNBC video:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24579466#24579466



The MSNBC article about the letter:
If correct, Brooke's view would again imply that Einstein was not an atheist.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24598856/

John Brooke, emeritus professor of science and religion at Oxford University, said the letter lends weight to the notion that "Einstein was not a conventional theist" --although he was not an atheist, either.

...
Brooke said Einstein believed that "there is some kind of intelligence working its way through nature. But it is certainly not a conventional Christian or Judaic religious view."

If he wasn't an atheist, I'd be disappointed in Einstein, but, I'm with ( #179783 by ericross ) on this:

I don't hang my hat on what Einstein did or didn't believe, and nor should anyone else.

Other Comments by MelM

17. Comment #179793 by zenmite on May 13, 2008 at 6:46 pm

"Pantheists consider somethings sacred, and worthy of more than just awe and reverance"

I'm not sure where you get this. It might be more accurate to say pantheists consider everything sacred rather than 'some' things. But even that is problematic since to consider something sacred you must also consider something else non-sacred or mundane. Saying that everything is sacred is like saying everything is up. But in my view, saying 'everything is god' amounts to the same thing. Might as well say; 'Everything is everything.'

Other Comments by zenmite

18. Comment #179794 by Styrer- on May 13, 2008 at 6:47 pm

Having heard all sorts of quotes, and having read just a little, I conclude, rather boringly, I'm afraid, that Einstein was simply not interested in the idea of religion and of a supreme being's existence or non-existence.

I don't think he gave a flying fuck.

I think the whole God question was a distraction for him, from the scientific work he wanted to press on with.

I think he would think our musings here rather risible.

Richard's answers here quite nicely reflect this, though I am not sure that we can forgive Richard for presenting himself for such an interview without intimating even once that religion is a stinking load of fuck-eyed piss juice drained from the scrotums of faithoholics, spunked over by elderly perverted and grinning virgins, and served in kids' lunches the world over.

Just my take on it.

Best,
Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

19. Comment #179812 by Geodesic17 on May 13, 2008 at 7:59 pm

I've thought it before, and I've seen it written elsewhere, but I'll say it here: Ben Stein is no Einstein.


It is unfortunate that some people see a quote about god and automatically assume that it is about their own god. Thoughts?

Other Comments by Geodesic17

20. Comment #179837 by MelM on May 13, 2008 at 9:06 pm

For what it's worth.

Turns out that John Hedley Brooke has already been discussed both on the Dawkins blog and at PZ's Pharyngula.

According to Wikipedia, he's involved with the Templeton Foundation:

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

In 1998 he joined the Templeton Oxford Seminars Steering Committee...

Other Comments by MelM

21. Comment #179854 by MarcLindenberg on May 13, 2008 at 10:03 pm

Comment #179771 by AnnRKeye

I recently heard, if I remember correctly, that Dawkins thinks science can prove God does not exist.

I don't believe Dawkins thinks that science can prove that god doesn't exist, in the God Delusion I think he makes that clear. He refers to the teapot example (suppose there is a teapot orbiting somewhere between Earth and Mars, but it's so super tiny that our most powerful telescopes cannot pick it up ext... You cannot prove that there isn't a teapot there, but you almost certainly know there isn't) , and the aptly named chapter Why God Almost Certainly Doesn't Exist.
So he shows that the chances that there actually is a god are really slim, but there is always chance, because you don't know.

Other Comments by MarcLindenberg

22. Comment #179857 by mmurray on May 13, 2008 at 10:12 pm

I recently heard, if I remember correctly, that Dawkins thinks science can prove God does not exist.

Have a look at the wikipedia article

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

on a 1-7 scale where 1 = 100% certainty God exists and 7 = 100% certainty that God does not exist Dawkins rates himself a 6.8

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

23. Comment #179859 by mordacious1 on May 13, 2008 at 10:30 pm

Einstein was an atheist. What bothers me is that the god-folk are always trying to label brilliant people as "believers". This is so they can say, "see, smart people believe in god too". It is really pathetic of them. I'm sure that several decades from now we will be reading "Dawkins was really a christian". That is why Richard has said that he will have to tape his last words so there won't be any of this BS after he is dead. I repeat, pathetic.

Other Comments by mordacious1

24. Comment #179872 by Spinoza on May 13, 2008 at 11:05 pm

Einstein was a Spinozist... an atheist about all the gods of all religions, but used the word "God" to refer to the infinite natural universe.

It's a kind of usurping of the term away from idiots.

So there are two ways to look at it:

1. Einstein was a particular sort of Spinozistic atheist.

2. Einstein and Spinoza both believed in the ONLY possible God, the one that actually DOES exist. In this case, everyone ELSE are the atheists.


We atheists could have a little fun with the believers.

Just try this one: "You're the atheist, not me." :)

Other Comments by Spinoza

25. Comment #179885 by MIND_REBEL on May 13, 2008 at 11:45 pm

Einstein wasn't an athiest. He explicitly stated that several times, and actually warned people against stating that he was.

I really wish people would stop trying to rewrite history.

Other Comments by MIND_REBEL

26. Comment #179886 by MaxD on May 13, 2008 at 11:52 pm

MindRebel,
I think that you could in no way call him a deist either. Perhaps a pantheist but it is clear that whatever stuff Spinoza's God (the only God Einstein even seems to have fancied) is, it is not the kind of Godstuff the religious tend to like, endorse or even tolerate very well.

Other Comments by MaxD

27. Comment #179892 by mordacious1 on May 14, 2008 at 12:36 am

What Richard said in the interview, that Einstein used god and religion as metaphors, is correct. It made him sound pantheistic or even deistic, but I have no doubt, nor does Richard, that he was an atheist. Atheist, atheist, ATHEIST. That is E=A3, Einstein=atheist cubed.

I use metaphors like this all the time, it is part of our culture. I try not to, but the word god slips out once in awhile. When something goes wrong I've been known to say "god hates me because I'm an atheist". This doesn't mean I believe in any of this nonsense, and neither did Einstein.

Other Comments by mordacious1

28. Comment #179895 by born-again-atheist on May 14, 2008 at 12:45 am

Einstein was Einsteinian.

Other Comments by born-again-atheist

29. Comment #179900 by Silent.Bomber on May 14, 2008 at 1:16 am

I think Dawkins is being slightly disingenuous here. Einstein explicitly stated that he was not a theist, but he also explicitly stated that he was not an atheist. We should just leave him and start arguing about it: its as if each side is battling for this genius and trying to claim him for their side. He was neither: let's stop fighting over him.

Other Comments by Silent.Bomber

30. Comment #179901 by mordacious1 on May 14, 2008 at 1:20 am

I've read most, if not all, of Einstein's letters and I do not recall any that came close to him saying he was not an atheist. I would love to know what your source of this statement is.

Other Comments by mordacious1

31. Comment #179908 by MIND_REBEL on May 14, 2008 at 1:31 am

"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human understanding, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."

Towards the Further Shore (Victor Gollancz, London, 1968), p. 156; quoted in Jammer, p. 97

"Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics and comes from the same source. They are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures whoâ€"in their grudge against the traditional "opium of the people"â€"cannot bear the music of the spheres. The Wonder of nature does not become smaller because one cannot measure it by the standards of human moral and human aims."

â€" Einstein to an unidentified adressee, Aug.7, 1941. Einstein Archive, reel 54-927

"There lies the weaknesss of positivists and professional atheists who are elated because they feel that they have not only successfully rid the world of gods but "bared the miracles." (That is, explained the miracles. - ed.) Oddly enough, we must be satisfied to acknowledge the "miracle" without there being any legitimate way for us to approach it . I am forced to add that just to keep you from thinking that --weakened by age--I have fallen prey to the clergy "…

â€" From a letter to Maurice Solovine

Other Comments by MIND_REBEL

32. Comment #179910 by MIND_REBEL on May 14, 2008 at 1:38 am

There's absolutely no case for Einstein being an atheist. We actually end up looking really bad trying to make this case.

In order for it to work, we'd have to rewrite history or redefine the word atheist. I say we just stop while we're behind.

Other Comments by MIND_REBEL

33. Comment #179912 by SteveN on May 14, 2008 at 1:40 am

Mind_Rebel

Your quotes don't actually say anything to indicate that Einstein wasn't an atheist. It sounds like he's criticising fanatical or 'professional' atheists for being too dogmatic or intolerant. Many atheists today do the same.

Other Comments by SteveN

34. Comment #179916 by MIND_REBEL on May 14, 2008 at 1:50 am

"I am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."

I dunno man, how else could you interprete this quote anything but "don't call me an atheist".

It seems like it's a real reach.

Other Comments by MIND_REBEL

35. Comment #179924 by mordacious1 on May 14, 2008 at 1:59 am

No, he is just saying he is pissed that people are quoting him supporting their views. Maybe Styrer is right and he just wanted to be left alone on the subject so he could concentrate on science.

Other Comments by mordacious1

36. Comment #179925 by MIND_REBEL on May 14, 2008 at 1:59 am

"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."

This one has been contested lately though. Here's the full story. Most of the objections seem pretty weak and the fact Einstein didn't disavow it and partially confirmed it leads me to believe it's most likely accurate. It was also included as part of his biography that was released a couple years back so objections are certainly part of the fringe opinion.

http://einsteinandreligion.com/spinoza.html#spinozasgod

Other Comments by MIND_REBEL

37. Comment #179934 by Incredulous on May 14, 2008 at 2:31 am

Comment #179794 by Styrer

Richard's answers here quite nicely reflect this, though I am not sure that we can forgive Richard for presenting himself for such an interview without intimating even once that religion is a stinking load of fuck-eyed piss juice drained from the scrotums of faithoholics, spunked over by elderly perverted and grinning virgins, and served in kids' lunches the world over.

Styrer, you really need to come out of your shell and state more clearly what you mean. :)

Other Comments by Incredulous

38. Comment #179939 by ridelo on May 14, 2008 at 2:47 am

What the use of deist, pantheist or atheist gods? I want a theist god to crush my enemies and to glorify myself and I want him now! Who cares what Einstein thought?
Err, just a bit of sarcasm, I suppose...

Other Comments by ridelo

39. Comment #179947 by majikthise on May 14, 2008 at 2:56 am

Mind Rebel,

You seem to have a bit of a bee in your bonnet about this but I can't help thinking you're missing the point somewhat.

Whether Einstein liked being called an 'atheist' or not is neither here nor there. From what he said about the subject, his definitions of 'God' and 'religion' and his disavowal of deities in general, we can see that he most certainly was atheist.

Other Comments by majikthise

40. Comment #179955 by SteveN on May 14, 2008 at 3:10 am

From the quotations provided by Mind Rebel, I get the impression that Einstein indeed wasn't an atheist in the commonly held (but wrong) definition of 'I believe there is no God' but was an atheist in the correct 'I don't believe that there is God' sense, a position sometimes described (wrongly, in my opinion) as agnosticism.

Other Comments by SteveN

41. Comment #179962 by Lula on May 14, 2008 at 3:25 am

What bothers me is that the god-folk are always trying to label brilliant people as "believers". This is so they can say, "see, smart people believe in god too". It is really pathetic of them.

Yes, and I wish we could just leave them to it and not play their game. But they would say our silence proves them right. So I certainly do feel the compulsion to say to anyone who says Einstein believed in "God: "No, you're wrong. Whatever god Einstein may or may not have believed in, he certainly didn't believe in the god you believe in so shut the fuck up."

I agree with Steve N above. I would say Einstein might have put himself at, say, a 6.8 on RD's 7 point scale…

Other Comments by Lula

42. Comment #179967 by MIND_REBEL on May 14, 2008 at 3:32 am

SteveN is correct.

Atheism historically has meant a negative belief in god. It wasn't until recently the definition was reworked(somewhat questionably) to be more appealing to a wider audience. If you place Einsteins statements with the proper context it's clear what he meant.

Other Comments by MIND_REBEL

43. Comment #179969 by Raiko on May 14, 2008 at 3:38 am

I second what Tack said. I recently heard, if I remember correctly, that Dawkins thinks science can prove God does not exist. Haven't had a chance to research this, but for now, I tend to disagree.

RD basically says it's a scientific question because there would be ways in which god-questions could be empirically determined. For example (as in TGD), if paleontologists found the remains of Jesus, and DNA analysis proved that he had no father, you could answer the question as to whether the virgin-birth is true or at least possible with purely scientific methods (let's ignore here that the virgin-thing may be a translational error, anyway).

Likewise, God could very obviously intervene and show him/her/itself/themselves, and thus determine the ultimate question of his/her/its/their existence with purely scientific proof.

I tried to disagree with him here, wondering whether this just concerned 'particular' gods (which are the ones we all, including Dawkins, are mainly concerned with, anyway - we're taking atheism, after all), but it's so far impossible for me.

It would be tough enough to find any sort of 'god'-thing that falls outside the proveable category because if so, you basically can't say anything about it - and then, theists, deists and/or scientists might not agree to call it 'god', either. Such a thing might even have a natural cause we're not aware of yet, and thus would undeniably be a testable scientific hypothesis, therefore not supernatural, therefore not meant when RD talks about 'gods'.

The only thing I could yet find myself disagreeing with in TGD was the agreement with whoever complained that God would be an "underachiever" if he merely had set the process rolling at the very, very, very, very beginning (probably long before evolution begun). *laugh* If I, as a future scientist, was able to invent something utterly simple that takes course by itself up to the point of it developing something like this planet and whatever is on it - all by itself, that's exactly what I would do: Sit back and watch!!!

The mind-work would have been the great achievement, not the action (provided I had calculated ahead of time that something like this would happen and not just thrown stuff together to see what happens). Such a god is still unlikely and comes with lots of problems, but I'd still not call that underachieving. ;)

Other Comments by Raiko

44. Comment #179976 by notsobad on May 14, 2008 at 3:44 am

Well said but it's not like the fundies are gonna listen or stop lying if they already know.

Other Comments by notsobad

45. Comment #179978 by Lula on May 14, 2008 at 4:01 am

The point that I want to highlight is one that RD made at the end, and was spot-on: The fact that one particularly clever person believed this, that, or the other has no logical bearing on the argument, but people are nonetheless swayed.

The argument from authority is logically fallacious, but people are still influenced by other people's opinions - and are not entirely wrong to do so. Almost all of what we know, we have had to take on "faith" at some point. There is simply no time to attempt to trace all knowledge back to a source of what might be termed objective evidence. So, we trust tertiary sources that we have some reason to trust more than others; and we trust different sources to different degrees.

It is not, therefore, unreasonable to ask questions such as "how many scientists/ intellectuals etc. believe in a god" - as long as you take care when drawing conclusions. We can certainly look at the data - and that shows a clear inverse correlation between education and religiosity, or intelligence and religiosity. From that, I would draw the conclusion that education and intelligence are corrosive to faith in a god. Even, that belief in a god is an uneducated, or stupid, idea.

To what extent is this evidence against the existence of a god? There is no logical argument here, but does this data sway you? Should it?

Other Comments by Lula

46. Comment #179981 by JernJane on May 14, 2008 at 4:09 am

I want to slap Einstein for being so damned poetic. Now we have to clean up his mess. :P

(Yes, I'm joking.)

Other Comments by JernJane

47. Comment #179987 by NJS on May 14, 2008 at 4:19 am

Do people think his reluctance to accept Quantum theory was down to his "belief" in the order of the universe or was his belief in the order a result of his rejection of quantum theory?

Overall I'm more "tolerant" of vague definitions of belief that go beyond the planet like Deism - its the Abrahamic God and his obviously human imagined friends that we need to reject more if that makes sense.

Other Comments by NJS

48. Comment #179990 by NJS on May 14, 2008 at 4:24 am

I also want to say that people bring up EInstein to try and argue against the notion that religion is rejected by the intelligent and since he is "the most intelligent man ever" his beliefs are interesting - especially if they suggest theism.

My own view is that intelligent people who do have faith either compartmentalise as is iften argue or I see it as a bit of a character flaw (I know that sounds bad) in that they haven't the strength/courage to reject the indoctrination. It certainly shouldn't be used for point scoring on an indivisual basis as I beleiev on the whole the correlation between lack of education/intelligence and religiosity holds.

Other Comments by NJS

49. Comment #180006 by Karlsson on May 14, 2008 at 4:59 am

Einstein being or not being an atheist is important... why?

Other Comments by Karlsson

50. Comment #180007 by TIKI AL on May 14, 2008 at 5:15 am

Perhaps Einstein wanted to remain somewhat foggy on religion to prevent potential funding problems by godbots.

Other Comments by TIKI AL