Posted on 09/10/2005 4:56:18 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
"Stop telling God what to do!" When Niels Bohr said these words to Albert Einstein - if indeed he ever did - it was probably in exasperation with Einstein's frequent repetition of the phrase "He does not play dice with the universe". The latter is perhaps the most famous of Einstein's many references to religion, although "The Lord God is subtle, but malicious he is not" comes a close second. There are many others too (see box below).
Scientific materialists, who regard all forms of religious belief as superstition, are often puzzled and even embarrassed by Einstein's frequent remarks about God. But conventional religious believers - knowing that Einstein was a Jew - often jump to the conclusion that he was referring to the traditional Judaeo-Christian God, and invoke his authority in support of their own beliefs.
I suspect that both groups have misunderstood Einstein and that we should all read more carefully what he wrote about science and religion. In 1940, for example, he submitted a paper to a conference on this subject in which he clearly stated that, in his view, there could be no "legitimate conflict between science and religion". The main source of conflict between the two, he argued, lay in the concept of "a personal God".
As the physicist Max Jammer describes in his 1999 book Einstein and Religion, that remark created a furore at the time. Many people in the US assumed that by denying the existence of a personal God, Einstein was denying any kind of God. What we now call the "religious right" was then vocal in its criticisms (and probably would be today).
However, Einstein's use of the word "God" was idiosyncratic. Indeed, Banesh Hoffmann - his biographer and former colleague - wrote that we do not know precisely what Einstein meant by the word. Perhaps, however, we can explore some of the things he did not mean.
Religious experience
As has been well documented, Einstein was born into a secularized Jewish family that did not observe any traditional rites. Nevertheless, stimulated by religious instruction from other relatives and at school, the young Einstein had an intensely religious phase that lasted for about a year. It came to what he later called an "abrupt end" at the age of 12, when he concluded that many Bible stories were incredible. At the same time, he discovered Euclidean geometry, which he then thought offered a level of certainty that no religion could.
After that early experience, Einstein never again took part in any formal religious observances - Jewish or Christian - except, perhaps, to attend the weddings or funerals of friends and relatives as a matter of courtesy. Looking back on his brief religious foray, Einstein wrote in his 1949 Autobiographical Notes that it was quite clear "that the religious paradise of youth...was a first attempt to free myself from the chains of the 'merely personal', from an existence dominated by wishes, hopes, and primitive feelings".
Einstein felt that the insights into the universe given by science and mathematics were a greater and surer release from the "merely personal" than religion. He was awestruck by our ability to comprehend the universe, at least in part, and in later life remarked several times that the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible. This kind of awe, he believed, was essential for scientists and, indeed, for human beings.
"The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious," he wrote in a 1931 essay. "A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, our perceptions of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which only in their most primitive forms are accessible to our minds - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute true religiosity; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man." This remark shows that Einstein defined religiosity in his own terms. Indeed, in the essay he goes on to distance himself from orthodox Jewish and Christian religion, expressing his disbelief in the idea that an individual can survive after their body dies or in any kind of final judgement. He was instead satisfied with the "devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature".
Pantheism and the personal God
Einstein's conviction that nature is rational is closely linked to his conception of God: he could not believe that God played dice with the universe, because that would be irrational. He accepted what he believed to be the corollary, namely that human beings have no free will. Einstein's other favourite saying - that the Lord is subtle but not malicious - is related to the same conviction of rationality. "Nature", he concluded, "hides her secret because of her essential loftiness, but not by means of ruse."
For those who regard all forms of religious belief as superstition, it would be attractive to conclude that Einstein simply meant "nature" whenever he used the word "God". Indeed, identifying God with nature is known as pantheism, a belief that is generally attributed to the unorthodox Jewish philosopher Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677). We know that Einstein admired Spinoza greatly and, although he did not share all of his religious views, it would seem plausible to label Einstein a pantheist.
However, in 1929 - during a rare interview with a journalist - Einstein was directly asked if he believed in the God of Spinoza. "I can't answer with a simple yes or no," he replied. "I am not an atheist [and] I do not know if I can define myself as a pantheist." Indeed, pantheists view God and the universe as co-eternal and believe that there was no act of creation, whereas Einstein does seem to have regarded the universe as a creation.
But why did Einstein not believe in a personal God? To answer that question, we have to understand what he meant by the term. I would define a personal God as a God with whom human beings can have a relationship, analogous to those they have with one another. Although this idea might seem to indicate that God has a human form, I think it is perfectly possible to believe in a personal God who is not anthropomorphic. I suspect - but cannot clearly demonstrate - that Einstein sometimes confused the two ideas.
For example, while Einstein certainly did not like anthropomorphism, he still used personal terms, such as subtlety and malice, when speaking about God. Indeed, in his 1929 interview, the best simile he could think of for God was as the author of a whole library of books! Einstein would probably have defended himself by pointing to the limitations of human language, which make it almost impossible to avoid personal terminology completely.
But it is surprising that Einstein used such personal terms when talking about God, given that he saw his lifelong devotion to science as an attempt to transcend the "merely personal" in his own life; this suggests that he thought a personal God would be a limited God. Whatever he meant by "personal God", Einstein remained consistent in his opposition to the idea until the very end of his life.
Cosmic religion
Although Einstein was not always consistent in what he said about God, there is a consistent theme running through his thoughts on religion - a theme that he called "cosmic religion". He used this term to reflect the awe he felt when confronted with the universe and our ability to begin, at least, to comprehend it. Writing in 1930, he saw hints of this cosmic religion in the Psalms and the Hebrew prophets, and more clearly in Buddhism. This cosmic religion, he wrote, "knows no dogma and no God conceived in man's image; so that there can be no church whose central teachings are based on it".
Einstein's dislike of organized religion is clear. Many people today, according to opinion polls, have similar ideas. They profess to believe in the spiritual - or even in God - yet rarely or never enter a church, mosque or synagogue. However, Einstein should not be regarded as their precursor. Their "new-age spirituality" is often anti-scientific, whereas Einstein's cosmic religion was based firmly on a profound understanding of the physical universe, and of its underlying mathematical structure.
Einstein also often referred to his feelings of mystery and awe. The mystery, it seems to me, had three elements. Why is there anything at all? Why is the universe rational and ordered? And how can we, with our limited human minds, understand and appreciate at least something of that ordered rationality? I believe he used the word "God" as a shorthand for all this because he could think of none better.
Einstein's condemnation of anthropomorphic images of God is at one with the most profound insights of all religions. He knew very well that the second commandment (which Jews and Muslims have kept more strictly than Christians) says we should not make any graven image and bow down and worship it. On that theme, Einstein agrees with the Hebrew prophets, whom he saw as forerunners of his cosmic religion.
Whether or not he meant more than their denunciations of idols when he denied belief in a personal God, I do not know. However, Einstein's cosmic religion differs both from orthodox monotheism and from scientific materialism because of his conviction that science and religion must work together to explore the mysteries that fascinated him. That, surely, is the meaning of another of his famous sayings: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Box:
Einstein on God and religion
*[Quantum] theory yields much, but it hardly brings us close to the Old One's secrets. I, in any case, am convinced He does not play dice. (1926, in a letter to Max Born)*I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual who survives his physical death.... (1930, from an essay)
* We see a universe marvellously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand those laws. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations. (1929, part of his reply to the question: "Do you believe in the God of Spinoza?")
* What I am really interested in is whether God could have created the world in a different way; in other words, whether the requirement of logical simplicity admits a margin of freedom. (Mid-1940s, remark reported by Ernst Gabor Straus, then Einstein's assistant)
* Then I would feel sorry for the good Lord. The theory is correct anyway. (1919, reply to his assistant, Ilse Rosenthal-Schneider, who asked what he would have done had Eddington's eclipse measurements not supported general relativity)
* Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. (1941, from an essay)
Why would it bother him? Most people go through life utterly ignorant of most "facts" they profess to believe in. Basic science, basic math, basic economics, basic history, basic geography, etc may be at odds with their belief but that does not stop them from having it. And most seem quite happy in their ignorance.
Given that sheer number of other ridiculous beliefs people have about everyday things, why should throwing one more ridiculous belief on that stack bother anyone? The only thing that ever bothers me about the beliefs of others is the extent to which I have to pay for the stupid ones they carry.
And make no mistake, the number of trivially falsifiable beliefs that your average person carries is truly astounding. A belief on the order of the Resurrection is relatively insignificant by comparison, even if it was false.
Einstein actually wrote a pretty good book on music. Many scientists are accomplished musicians.
Although I have never read it, it was covered by Hofstader in his book Godel, Escher and Bach: The Eternal Golden Braid
Sixth cousin?
I think my wife might be a sixth cousin. That's reaching pretty deep.
No, why would you think I thought that?
Belief in the Resurrection is not something that requires faith. It is a historical event better documented than anything in Ancient History. It would be like saying belief in the success of the American Revolution requires faith. Belief in Aristotle, Plato and Socrates is unquestioned by most rational people, and their doings are scarcely documented.
As reinforcement, the end of the road for the Disciples of Christ was a gruesome death, because of their unfailing message of the truth of the Resurrection.
Islam was propagated by individuals that could rape and pillage as reward for their faith, and we don't question the existence, words and doings of Mohammad of which was far less documented than Christ's life 800 years before him.
Liberals are deluded by their revisionist view of reality and we can spot them by their fruits. Whereas most Christians aspire to a higher set of standards upon which personal responsibility is a key to the success of a free society.
People are miraculously transformed by accepting the pardon that Jesus offers through His death. People who become personally responsible, when they were complete flakes days before. Ask some of your Christian friends who did not grow up in a Christian tradition.
Scientism is a belief system that bases reality on a purely materialistic worldview. Anything supernatural can be considered superstition.
A person who follows Scientism is easy to spot. A conservative with a broken moral compass. Dr. James Dobson is the enemy, as well as a certain School Board member from Kansas.
Followers of Scientism also hate that the Founders chose to say: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Unalienable rights are derived from the Creator, not the conceptions of mankind.
If that's the case, how come there is no documentation outside of the Bible? How come contemporaneous and near-contemporaneous historians make no mention of Jesus, let alone of the resurrection?
You sound like my ex-wife and her church friends. They told me I had to give up being a scientist because science was Satanic because it was not in accordance with the literal interpretation of the Bible. Even heard preachers say it is better to be uneducated and poor, but go to heaven than to go to college and lose your salvation. She was very pentacostal.
Out of curiosity, if evidence for the existence of Jesus (let alone the resurrection) were so ironclad, how come early Christians had to go and insert forged accounts into Tacitus and Josephus? I have no problem with you believing whatever it is you'd like to believe, but please do not state that it is historical record, for it is not. It is simply faith.
Which is a bit odd when you think about it, because alot of his theories themselves were not proven till we had the technology to do it.
Yes, it is odd, and maybe that means your first statement should be reconsidered. Einstein was a theoretician, maybe the best ever. Perhaps he was so good because he accepted and understood empirical results and their implications so well before anyone else. Even now there is a satellite dedicated to observing frame dragging around the Earth called Gravity Probe B. There are probably very few theoreticians who have even one of their predictions verified. Here we are over a hundred years later still working on Einstein's. I would say his work borders on the mystical.
You've got me wrong. I have always said science is fun, and occasionally helpful.
Science is by definition amoral and should therefore not be worshiped. The pursuit of knowledge can become a God to many. Knowledge or traditions concieved by men cannot endow unalienable rights.
Reputable Historians don't try to deny the truth of Jesus Christ's existence. You've been reading some Liberal crackpots rendition of History. Be careful who you choose to believe. Look into their other writings to test their fruits. They are going against all of recorded History to make these spurious claims.
So you are saying that evidence not acquired through the scientific method is invalid. Our justice system is based on evidenciary methods that fall outside of science. Is it completely invalid as well.
The world was forever turned upside down by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Within one generation Christianity had spread throughout the majority of the Western world.
Whether Jesus existed or didn't exist, the only source is the Bible, and it seems strange to me that his contempories didn't mention him. But you're not just saying that his existence is a historical fact, you're saying that the resurrection is, and that's patently false. I'm not trying to tell you your faith is wrong, but please don't tell me that it is a matter of historical record, because there's simply no evidence for it.
You've been reading some Liberal crackpots rendition of History.
Josephus was a liberal? Don't tell me my sources are liberal, tell me what your sources are, other than the Bible, that confirm the historical basis of the resurrection. You say it's a proven historical fact. Ok then, show me the history.
So you are saying that evidence not acquired through the scientific method is invalid.
I haven't said anything of the kind. I would, however, like a single non-biblical account of the resurrection from someone who was alive at the time. That seems like a very low burden to me.
Within one generation Christianity had spread throughout the majority of the Western world.
Within one generation, people from Mongolia to Nicaragua were quoting Lenin, and he was still wrong.
"The originators of Western Civilization" -- it would help your argument to indicate who you are including and excluding from this roster?
Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Lucretius, Pliny, Thucydides, Aeschylus, Tacitus, Hammarabi of Babylon, Thales, Heraclitus, Apollonius of Rhodes, Herodutus, Cleisthenese, Solon, Josephus, Sophocles &c. &c. &c. -- that is a fraction of the names I would list among the founders of our western culture--but living in the pre-Christian era, would take exception to you statement above
"Spread" is a bit generous--very small number of Christians are found in a few places within the Roman Empire within 'one generation'--they would have been outnumbered by cultists of every variety (chiefly religious cults from Persian and Egypt). Constantine, who adopted Christianity as the official state religion, was not even born until circa 274 AD--and even at the time, Christianity was still very much a minority cult
History of the early church is a fascinating topic, but let's endeavour to get matters of historical record as accurate as we can, it helps the debate!
A further thought occurs on this point: it is demonstrable that Islam "spread" among a larger number of people and over a greater geographical area within one generation than did Christianity--but that does not make Islam 'true.' I really do think the speed of dissemination of any particular set of beliefs has no bearing on the truth of those beliefs, it really is a red herring that does nothing, with all due respect, to advance your argument here.
Gutenberg Project: Mark Twain page..
And there is more..
Much, Much, More..
All copyright-free.. ( public domain )
QM is actually very well known. It is the most precise branch of science there is. We just don't know why it's that way. And it certainly didn't agree with Einstein's sense of aesthetics. But I would think that he grudgingly accepted it as it was experimentally proved.
Which religion is true, which sect within those religions, which set of personal religious beliefs within those sects?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.