Einstein and God

[RobRoy]

I remember reading somewhere, perhaps on these very forums, that the relationship between Einstein and his beliefs in God were greatly misunderstood. Further, that Einstein's quotes which include God are often taken out of context.

Can someone please explain the relationship between Einstein and his beliefs about God?

[Undesired Walrus]

Like Hawking ('We will finally know the mind of God'), Einstein allegedly used 'God' as a word for the laws of the Universe. His famous phrase 'God does not play dice..' is best viewed after observing the following quote from Sagan:

The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity.

He may have been a deist, but as for his views on a personal God, these words from a recently auctioned letter sheds huge swathes of light on the question:

"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,"

[Dr Adequate]

Some quotes (http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/einstein.htm).

[Egg]

Those quotes would appear to be a fairly cherry picked list. I think a more balanced view is needed in order to get a better picture. That list, for instance, does not include the following quotes:

When directly asked if he believed in the God of Spinoza: "I can't answer with a simple yes or no," he replied. "I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God." (1929)

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." (1941)

"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognise, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views."
(Statement to German anti-Nazi diplomat and author Prince Hubertus zu Lowenstein around 1941, as quoted in his book Towards the Further Shore : An Autobiography (1968) )

My suspicions are that it can be pretty hard to pin down his beliefs as they were probably changing throughout his life.

I know if someone had access to as many quotes from me throughout my life as they do from Einstein, one could probably draw all kinds of conclusions about what I believe, some of which would be contradictory (especially if taken 20 years apart).

[Undesired Walrus]

Those quotes would appear to be a fairly cherry picked list.

I quoted "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses.. Bible a collection of.. primitive legends which are.. pretty childish.", as it was written in a private letter. I'd argue that a this has more insight into his personal thoughts than public statements. Therefore, I don't think the accusation of cherry picking is fair. I wouldn't have much quarrel with the claim he was a deist, but I think we can quite clearly see he was certainly not a theistic man.

[H3LL]

Science does not require personalities to be science.

Religion cannot function without personalities.

It matters not one jot what Einstein, or any great scientist believes (Newton believed all sorts of strange stuff).

Imposing the personality requirements of religion into the scientific world is repugnant and unnecessary.

E will continue to equal MC2 and to be a useful tool until evidence is presented that it is either wrong or that a better tool is available.

Einstein believing in fairies, pixies, elves or nothing at all is irrelevant.

The childish fixation of the absolute necessity of personalities in the minds of the religious has no place in science.

The mere suggestion that it is important should be met with the simple sentence "His/Her beliefs or lack of them do not matter. What matters is evidence - and only evidence".

You could then add "Religions demand acceptance without any evidence whatsoever" - If you were so inclined.



As to what Einstein actually believed - no one knows except Einstein - he's not telling - and I don't care.

[H3LL]

I sometimes wonder why the religious assume that their pathetic compulsion to abase themselves before a perceived superior personality and to grovel in worship is shared by the scientific community.

Do they assume that science require a personality to worship and that Einstein is to science what Jesus is to Christians?

Are they incapable of thinking outside the cage of their servitude?

I would propose that it is Einstein's work and evidence that is important and far from being held in a position of worship by science, is just the opposite.

Any scientist would be absolutely delighted if they could show the world that Einstein's work is wrong and no longer an appropriate tool. Should someone achieve such a thing all of Einstein's work would perhaps fade from the world much like the ideas about Phlogiston.

Would any credible scientist, once faced with evidence he has discovered that Einstein was very wrong, decide not to publish because it would destroy Einstein's work. I think not.

[Undesired Walrus]

Science does not require personalities to be science.

Religion cannot function without personalities.

It matters not one jot what Einstein, or any great scientist believes (Newton believed all sorts of strange stuff).

Imposing the personality requirements of religion into the scientific world is repugnant and unnecessary.

Who in this thread is saying such things?

The beliefs a man such as Einstein had about the Universe are interesting.

[RobRoy]

It matters not one jot what Einstein, or any great scientist believes (Newton believed all sorts of strange stuff).

Back story: My wife asked me this question, and I only had limited knowledge. I did some research, but couldn't come up with much. I decided to ask the folk here, since they are generally quite knowledgeable and a decent discussion would probably give me a balanced view.

I like my wife, and wanted to give her the answer she requested. I was curious myself about this. In that regard, it does matter at least one jot, to me and another jot to my wife. But thanks for your opinion, even if it didn't add to the discussion.

[pgwenthold]

If you ask the looney religious, they will tell you that:

Einstein was a christian, because although he denied believing in anything but the "god as the laws of the physics," he said "God does not play dice with the universe." Meanwhile, Hitler was an atheist, even though he said, "I believe that by killing the Jews I am doing the work of God and Jesus Christ."

No, it's not supposed to make sense.

[Egg]

I quoted "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses.. Bible a collection of.. primitive legends which are.. pretty childish.", as it was written in a private letter. I'd argue that a this has more insight into his personal thoughts than public statements. Therefore, I don't think the accusation of cherry picking is fair. I wouldn't have much quarrel with the claim he was a deist, but I think we can quite clearly see he was certainly not a theistic man.
I'm aware of that quote and where it comes from. It's hard to know what credence we put on that above all other information. Was he close to Eric Gutkind? Might he have just disliked the message in the book he had been sent and responded accordingly? As far as I'm aware this isn't a letter to his closest friend and intellectual ally. I'm not sure your argument about a personal letter carries as much weight as you suggest.

I know there was plenty of excitement from some quarters about that letter. Rumour has it that Richard Dawkins put in a high bid for it at auction. I don't like the idea that he gets used to support atheist views, mostly because apparently, he didn't like it. I wouldn't be comfortable with him being used to support religious views either since he considered many of them childish. That said, some of his quotes are great and I guess we can all take what we want from them.

Arguably a deist is a type of theist, but yes it's clear that any kind of God Einstein did believe in was not personal. By "cherry picked" I was referring to the list Dr A linked to.

[westprog]

Meanwhile, Hitler was an atheist, even though he said, "I believe that by killing the Jews I am doing the work of God and Jesus Christ."


Do you have a source for that quote? It doesn't appear on Google.

[paximperium]

Do you have a source for that quote? It doesn't appear on Google.
I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord's work.

- Adolf Hitler, Speech, Reichstag, 1936

[Third Eye Open]

Why is it so important to everyone what Einstein thought about gods? He was a physicist, not a philosopher.

Does anyone care what Dinesh D'Souza's has to say about quantum data buffering?

[paximperium]

Why is it so important to everyone what Einstein thought about gods? He was a physicist, not a philosopher.

Does anyone care what Dinesh D'Souza's has to say about quantum data buffering?
I doubt anyone cares what D'Souza has to say..at all.

[Cavemonster]

Does anyone care what Dinesh D'Souza's has to say?

Fixed that for you.

[westprog]

I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord's work.

- Adolf Hitler, Speech, Reichstag, 1936

Not really the same, is it?

[Third Eye Open]

I doubt anyone cares what D'Souza has to say..at all.

Well, some other philosopher then. That is just the first name I thought of.

What I mean is, why do people care what scientists think about gods? It's not like they are experts in the area.
In the same way no one cares what philosophers think about science, unless it involves ethics.

[gentlehorse]

Well, some other philosopher then. That is just the first name I thought of.

What I mean is, why do people care what scientists think about gods? It's not like they are experts in the area.
In the same way no one cares what philosophers think about science, unless it involves ethics.

Maybe some feel that if Einstein believed in god, then their personal beliefs might somehow be validated. Others might simply be understandably curious. I mean we're talking about Einstein, for Christ's sake: arguably one of the greatest minds ever. I can certainly see why some would be interested in what he might have said about whether there is or isn't a god, his definition of god, etc.

[westprog]

Maybe some feel that if Einstein believed in god, then their personal beliefs might somehow be validated. Others might simply be understandably curious. I mean we're talking about Einstein, for Christ's sake: arguably one of the greatest minds ever. I can certainly see why some would be interested in what he might have said about whether there is or isn't a god, his definition of god, etc.

Einstein was one of the greatest minds who ever lived. But he got his girlfriend pregnant, with unpleasant results. Smart people can do stupid things, and believe stupid things. (The reverse is not true).

It remains interesting exactly what Einstein's opinions on religion may have been. Not that his opinion is necessarily more valid than anyone else's, but that it sheds some light on an interesting man.

[paximperium]

Not really the same, is it?
Really? In what way is it different?

[paximperium]

Well, some other philosopher then. That is just the first name I thought of.

What I mean is, why do people care what scientists think about gods? It's not like they are experts in the area.
In the same way no one cares what philosophers think about science, unless it involves ethics.
My apologies but I rarely have that great a respect for philosophers just because they are an "expert" in philosophy.

While I respect certain aspects of philosophy especially epistemology and certain interesting metaphysical mind-games; philosophy is filled with the detritus of useless naval-gazing and useless semantic games.

I can respect Einstein or just about anyone who can give a good logical justification for his/her/its belief. So, I would care what Einstein said about philosophical concepts if it was logical and well justified.

My 2 cents.

[tyciol]

I think Einstein had vague deist beliefs.

[Tricky]

This comes up all the time, usually about Einstein or Darwin. One thing people should always remember is that they both lived long lives. That gave them plenty of time to say plenty of things. I've only been on these forums eight years, and not only have my beliefs in some matters changed, but I'm sure any serious student of my history (I'm taking applications) would discover that I have made some statements, sometimes years apart, that are outright contradictory.

Einstein was a thoughtful human, and like most, he probably had moods, shuffled beliefs around in his head, said things off-the-cuff and even maybe sometimes dissembled when talking to a reporter. We shouldn't treat his quotes like they are monuments to be etched in stone.

It is well recorded that Darwin lost his religion over the course of his lifetime. Some claim (with poor evidence) that he regained it on his death bed. You would expect any book of Darwin's quotes to show variability in beliefs. Why not Einstein?

[Third Eye Open]

My apologies but I rarely have that great a respect for philosophers just because they are an "expert" in philosophy.

While I respect certain aspects of philosophy especially epistemology and certain interesting metaphysical mind-games; philosophy is filled with the detritus of useless naval-gazing and useless semantic games.

I can respect Einstein or just about anyone who can give a good logical justification for his/her/its belief. So, I would care what Einstein said about philosophical concepts if it was logical and well justified.

My 2 cents.

I agree with you about the value of philosophy in that I think it has very little. I just find it odd that instead of listening to or caring about the words of someone who has spent their whole life writing about and disusing and debating the topic at hand, people find more importance in a scientist saying 'yes there could be a god'.

[paximperium]

I agree with you about the value of philosophy in that I think it has very little. I just find it odd that instead of listening to or caring about the words of someone who has spent their whole life writing about and disusing and debating the topic at hand, people find more importance in a scientist saying 'yes there could be a god'.
Beats me.

I believe it's a a kind of self-affirming Argument from Authority justification for someones belief ie. "Einstein is smart therefore he must be right/Einstein believed in god/did not believe in god, he was smart maybe I'm smart too?"

I quote Thomas Jefferson more often than Einstein since Jefferson has written extensively on this and has some justifications for his deistic claims unlike Einstein who we have less of his writings about his thoughts on religion.

[Tricky]

I agree with you about the value of philosophy in that I think it has very little. I just find it odd that instead of listening to or caring about the words of someone who has spent their whole life writing about and disusing and debating the topic at hand, people find more importance in a scientist saying 'yes there could be a god'.
Perhaps, but one of the many things I learned here is the difference between philosophy and Philosophy. No, I don't have much use for those guys like Cant and Spitguard and goCarte and such, but little-p philosophy is simply the way you think about what you think.

Skepticism is a philosophy. The scientific method is a philosophy. Your personal morality is a philosophy. You don't have to discuss dueling isms or p-zambonis to engage in philosophy. You just have to think about thinking.

[H3LL]

I've been admonished for reading too much into the OP.

For that I apologise, but would like to say why I reacted so. Rightly or wrongly that is for you to judge:


The implication of the OP, although not specifically stated, is that it is somehow important what Einstein thought about gods. Darwin is also subjected to minute scrutiny on the same topic.

This is deliberate, dishonest, calculated misdirection from the religious lobby and should be treated with the contempts it deserves as is their attempts to apply unnecessary and unwanted religious requirements to science and scientists.

Is Howard Hanson's (Musical Set Theory) religious position discussed? Is Agner Krarup Erlang's (Queueing Theory) thoughts on gods endlessly dissected? Does Max Horkheimer (Critical Theory) need to justify his beliefs? Are Murray Gell-Mann and George Zweig's (Quark Theory) church-going activities important to their contributions? Is pretending Newton was an atheist even slightly useful or helpful in any way whatsoever?

I think not.

Yes, I suppose from a biographical perspective, speculation, because speculation is all it can be, on Einstein's god beliefs may be slightly interesting (not!) despite the fact that we have no way of knowing what they are.

What is very apparent is the religious lobby consider it important for their own business needs and acquisition of more grovellers - not a noble reason IMHO.

The fact that they do consider it important should raise alarm bells straight away.

Why pander to them?

Einstein's god beliefs are unknown. Period.

[westprog]

Really? In what way is it different?

The two phrases say entirely different things. Only one mentions killing Jews. Only one mentions Christ.

The convention is that if I write

Hitler said Jesus wanted him to kill the Jews.

then that's a potentially debatable paraphrase.

If I write

Hitler said "Jesus told me to kill the Jews".

then I'm making a specific quote and it is meant to be accurate.

When you're making accusations of inconsistency against some vaguely defined group and using supporting quotes to justify them, then you need to make sure that the quote is reasonably accurate. In this case, it wasn't.

[paximperium]

The two phrases say entirely different things. Only one mentions killing Jews. Only one mentions Christ.

The convention is that if I write



then that's a potentially debatable paraphrase.

If I write



then I'm making a specific quote and it is meant to be accurate.

When you're making accusations of inconsistency against some vaguely defined group and using supporting quotes to justify them, then you need to make sure that the quote is reasonably accurate. In this case, it wasn't.
Would you agree that a more accurate paraphrase for that quote from Hitler is that he is saying that "Killing the Jews is accomplishing, God's work."

Beats me. I don't care much care for using some genocidal madman's words to malign an opposing belief...now if theist would do the same.

[westprog]

Would you agree that a more accurate paraphrase for that quote from Hitler is that he is saying that "Killing the Jews is accomplishing, God's work."


I don't mind paraphrasing where it's acknowledged to be such.

[paximperium]

I don't mind paraphrasing where it's acknowledged to be such.
No contention there.

[Egg]

I've been admonished for reading too much into the OP.

For that I apologise, but would like to say why I reacted so. Rightly or wrongly that is for you to judge:


The implication of the OP, although not specifically stated, is that it is somehow important what Einstein thought about gods. Darwin is also subjected to minute scrutiny on the same topic.

This is deliberate, dishonest, calculated misdirection from the religious lobby and should be treated with the contempts it deserves as is their attempts to apply unnecessary and unwanted religious requirements to science and scientists.

Is Howard Hanson's (Musical Set Theory) religious position discussed? Is Agner Krarup Erlang's (Queueing Theory) thoughts on gods endlessly dissected? Does Max Horkheimer (Critical Theory) need to justify his beliefs? Are Murray Gell-Mann and George Zweig's (Quark Theory) church-going activities important to their contributions? Is pretending Newton was an atheist even slightly useful or helpful in any way whatsoever?

I think not.

Yes, I suppose from a biographical perspective, speculation, because speculation is all it can be, on Einstein's god beliefs may be slightly interesting (not!) despite the fact that we have no way of knowing what they are.

What is very apparent is the religious lobby consider it important for their own business needs and acquisition of more grovellers - not a noble reason IMHO.

The fact that they do consider it important should raise alarm bells straight away.

Why pander to them?

Einstein's god beliefs are unknown. Period.
Although probably used in a metaphorical sense, Einstein seemed to have brought such speculations on himself by mentioning God when he was talking about his work. Also his work was related to the universe and everything, which are traditionally theologically related.

I think with Darwin there's an interest because of the whole creationist vs evolutionist thing which has grown up and how some on either side there are the extremes saying you can't be both religious and scientific. Interestingly, it would appear that Darwin himself was a theist when he developed his theory.

I think, however, that using either of their religious beliefs (or lack of) to support either theism or atheism is fallacious.

[RobRoy]

I've been admonished for reading too much into the OP.

For that I apologise, but would like to say why I reacted so. Rightly or wrongly that is for you to judge:


The implication of the OP, although not specifically stated, is that it is somehow important what Einstein thought about gods. Darwin is also subjected to minute scrutiny on the same topic.

This is deliberate, dishonest, calculated misdirection from the religious lobby and should be treated with the contempts it deserves as is their attempts to apply unnecessary and unwanted religious requirements to science and scientists.

If it helps, this was not then, nor is it now, my intention. This was information gathering with which I'd hoped to impress my wife. Nothing more. I wasn't laying a trap or trying to build a case either for or against God in regards to Einstein. My only unstated aim was trying to answer a pretty girl's question in the hopes of furthering her regard for me, and perhaps getting a little play on the side. :cool:

[westprog]

My only unstated aim was trying to answer a pretty girl's question in the hopes of furthering her regard for me, and perhaps getting a little play on the side. :cool:

This forum was set up to answer the fundamental questions of the universe, not to provide you with nookie.

[kbm99]

This forum was set up to answer the fundamental questions of the universe, not to provide you with nookie.

However, it's well recognized that "How can I get me some nookie" IS one of the fundamental questions of the universe. In that light, your criticism is null and void.

[westprog]

However, it's well recognized that "How can I get me some nookie" IS one of the fundamental questions of the universe. In that light, your criticism is null and void.

In any case, I'm not sure that the technique is universally applicable. RobRoy might turn down the lights, play some soft jazz, and put on his Barry White voice to say "Heeeey, baby, did you know that Einstein was somewhat ambivalent about his religious beliefs?" Just doesn't work for me.

[RobRoy]

In any case, I'm not sure that the technique is universally applicable. RobRoy might turn down the lights, play some soft jazz, and put on his Barry White voice to say "Heeeey, baby, did you know that Einstein was somewhat ambivalent about his religious beliefs?" Just doesn't work for me.

And yet it works for Mrs. RR, so whatcha gonna do? Not answer my questions any more on the off chance that I'm just asking them in order to do the mommy-daddy dance with my beloved? :jaw-dropp

Wait, please don't stop answering my questions! It's my only shot and appearing edjumacated!:eye-poppi

[H3LL]

I think, however, that using either of their religious beliefs (or lack of) to support either theism or atheism is fallacious.

That'll do it.

We have something that we both agree upon. This is probably a first for me and Egg. :D

Tangental topicisation is probably not modable so I might be safe. ;)

I'll let the thread return to 'Einstein quotes to seduce with'. :cool:

[Hokulele]

I'll let the thread return to 'Einstein quotes to seduce with'. :cool:


"You see, wire telegraph is a kind of a very, very long cat. You pull his tail in New York and his head is meowing in Los Angeles. Do you understand this? And radio operates exactly the same way: you send signals here, they receive them there. The only difference is that there is no cat."


No?

[westprog]

And yet it works for Mrs. RR, so whatcha gonna do? Not answer my questions any more on the off chance that I'm just asking them in order to do the mommy-daddy dance with my beloved? :jaw-dropp

Wait, please don't stop answering my questions! It's my only shot and appearing edjumacated!:eye-poppi

I just feel used, that's all.

[RobRoy]

I just feel used, that's all.

I'll send flowers and provide cab fare next time. :o

[P.J. Denyer]

This forum was set up to answer the fundamental questions of the universe, not to provide you with nookie.

The fundamental questions of the universe will still be there tomorrow, the opportunity for nookie may not.

As former poet lauriet Sir John Betjamen said in an interview when asked if, while looking back over his long and distinguished life there was anything he regretted or would like to have done differently, "I wish I'd had more sex".