Subtle are Einstein's thoughts

"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.

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".

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.

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."

"Belief in the Resurrection is not something that requires faith. It is a historical event better documented than anything in Ancient History"

Outside of the Bible, show me this vast documentation.

The documented persecution of Christians during the first century is legion. Why do you think the persecution took place? These people were celebrating the Resurrection of the Lord, Jesus Christ and refused to bow their knee to any other authority. How much more evidence is needed to satisfy your skepticism? To answer your other question: These early Christians must appear to you as deluded psychos. How could they not within the context of your worldview?

"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."

You don't? Why not? How do you reconcile that with your belief in Christianity?

The evidence for the methods of Islam is the Taliban. The evidence for Christianity is a free society based on personal responsibility ie. USA. (Liberals want to tear that down with the Amoral relativism, which equals personal irresponsibility, to the extent of supporting the Taliban over a Judeo/ Christian America).

"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."

This has WHAT to do with this discussion?

Everything. Traveling down the path of Scientism leads to Amoral Chaos. When the chips fall, followers of Scientism cherish retaining their own authority, over being told what is right and wrong. Each man's ethics is based solely on their own perception at the time. Or the man with the biggest gun makes the rules.

"Scientism is a belief system that bases reality on a purely materialistic worldview. Anything supernatural can be considered superstition."

Science (not your bogey-man *Scientism*) has no choice but to base it's theories on natural, material causes and lines of evidence. It is not because use of supernatural causes is *superstition* that scientists shun the supernatural; it's because there is no objective way to test or verify any supernatural cause or line of evidence. That was Galileo's method. That was Newton's.

The outgrowth of Scientism is materialitic relativism. If it feels good and doesn't directly hurt someone else, do it. This is why privacy is so much more important to the followers of Scientism. They rail against the "Moralist" who they see are trying to infringe on their privacy (Liberals are not followers of Scientism, for they could not adhere to a desire for truth for more than two minutes).

Followers of creationism hate that the Founders did NOT say anything about the Resurrection or Christ in the Declaration of Independence. Saying that we are endowed by our Creator with certain attributes is another way of saying those attributes are there naturally. It is our nature as people to have them. Very in line with a more or less Deistic world view.

Creationists are very comfortable reading the writings of the Founders of the United States of America. One does not pray continually to a Deistic God. Only a personal Savior can draw one to the humility evidenced by many of the Founders.

"Unalienable rights are derived from the Creator, not the conceptions of mankind."

That is one view.

If you don't believe the Founders were making a direct assault on the Sovereignty of Man via the Monarchy in England, you may want to follow my link above and brush up on what the Founders were saying to one another at the time. After your research you will know the view they intended.

"The documented persecution of Christians during the first century is legion. Why do you think the persecution took place? These people were celebrating the Resurrection of the Lord, Jesus Christ and refused to bow their knee to any other authority. How much more evidence is needed to satisfy your skepticism?"

When did I ever say that I thought there was no evidence for the existence of Christians? This only shows that people believed what was told them. I asked for evidence outside the Bible that the Resurrection took place. You have provided none. You have only shown that people have believed it happened. Big whoop!

"To answer your other question: These early Christians must appear to you as deluded psychos. How could they not within the context of your worldview?"

That is not an answer to my question, it's just another dubious assumption you have made. You have a habit of assuming things. Check your premises.

"The evidence for the methods of Islam is the Taliban."

I was not talking about the relative merits of Christianity and Islam. You said earlier, "...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."

You don't question the words and doings of Mohamed? The source for these words and doings is the Koran. If you don't question the words and doings of Mohamed (which are contained in the Koran), you are forced to conclude he was the last Prophet of Allah. I repeat, how do you reconcile this with your professed Christianity?

BTW, it wasn't 800 years. I'll let you check and find out when Mohamed lived.

" The evidence for Christianity is a free society based on personal responsibility ie. USA."

That is evidence for the goodness of Constitutional government based on individual rights. Christian states (Ones with a predominantly Christian population) had existed for over a thousand years before the formation of the USA. The percentage of them one would consider free states is exceedingly low. By your logic then, the conclusion would be that Christian states produce tyranny as most states with predominantly Christian populations have been unfree.

"Everything. Traveling down the path of Scientism leads to Amoral Chaos. When the chips fall, followers of Scientism cherish retaining their own authority, over being told what is right and wrong. Each man's ethics is based solely on their own perception at the time. Or the man with the biggest gun makes the rules."

Scientism is a figment of your paranoia. Your conclusions are not supported by your evidence. I am talking about science only using natural, material causes as explanations and evidence and you are talking about moral relativism. You are evading the subject, which is scientific methodology. If you want to bring up relativism though, it should be pointed out that supernatural causes are inherently subjective and relative. There is no way to reproduce them or to test them. We can all claim our own special supernatural explanations and none of us would be able to tell the other they were wrong, or provide evidence that we were right. It is the height of epistemological relativism. And it is what you are trying to push.

"If you don't believe the Founders were making a direct assault on the Sovereignty of Man via the Monarchy in England, you may want to follow my link above and brush up on what the Founders were saying to one another at the time."

The *link above* had dozens and dozens of links to long primary documents from the the time of the ancient philosophers to about 1800. I will not wade through all that. If you have a point, make it a little more concisely.

As to the your above quote, it is false. The British Monarchy was not a representation of *The Sovereignty of Man*. In fact, while the Monarch was not longer considered the ruler by Divine Right, the structure of society was considered part of the order of God's plan. There were far more Christian pretensions in the apologetics for Monarchy than were ever used in the arguments for republican rule. The founders were for the most part not theocrats.

"After your research you will know the view they intended."

I think you need the study more then I do.

bondserv" The evidence for Christianity is a free society based on personal responsibility ie. USA."

CarolinaGuitarman That is evidence for the goodness of Constitutional government based on individual rights. Christian states (Ones with a predominantly Christian population) had existed for over a thousand years before the formation of the USA. The percentage of them one would consider free states is exceedingly low. By your logic then, the conclusion would be that Christian states produce tyranny as most states with predominantly Christian populations have been unfree.

Thank you, CarolinaGuitarman, for making this vital point, I am in strong accord with you on this one. While I have an unshakeable belief in our constitutional guarantees of freedom of worship (including the freedom from worship), and come from a very strong Christian background (I'm still something of a recovering Born Again), I have grown very, very dubious about the political agenda of some American Christians.

[1] In the first place, as you note, for something like 1200 years, the dominant political power in Europe was the Church; much of this era is rightly characterised as the Dark Ages. The Protestant Reformation, while seeking to address some of the corruption that had arisen within the Church, also led to the theocratic nightmare of Calvin's Geneva and a few centuries of devastating wars of religion. The modern agenda of some Christians--to re-introduce Church authority into national political institutions--ignores the fact that Christendom has already been there (with disasterous results), and that other established religions (Islam the most obvious example) that do wield a political role (such as the Taliban in Afghanistan) have also resulted in appalling regimes. I think the lesson is pretty unambiguous: secular power in the hands of anyone who also claims divine authority is a fast path to the most dreadful tyranny.

And I hold it is demonstrable that our Founding Fathers, to whom the wretched carnage of the European religious wars (among competing Christian sects) of the 17th century were still vivid, were hugely concerned to build a 'wall of separation' between Church and State precisely to protect the new republic from such theocratic tyranny. This is not at all a matter of trying to second guess the religious beliefs of the Founders (they varied enormously: John Adams was devout to the point of reluctance to travel on the Sabbath, while Jefferson appears very close to being a Freethinker), but it is a pointless exercise to selective 'quote mine' to establish religious views of any of them, it's all beside the point. The point is, they framed a Constitution designed to protect the new republic from, inter alia, religious tyranny. That, I believe, is the intent behind the motto novo ordo seclorum ('In God We Trust' didn't come in until the crisis of the Civil War, and 'under God' was slipped into the flag salute during the McCarthy era).

And it is my own belief (to which I welcome challenges) that conservative politcal principles are both sound and worthy on rational grounds and simply do not need any further appeal to divine or other authority to be true. For example, I hold that abortion is repugnant, for it gives rise both to dreadful personal tragedies and also severe social ills--the statistics alone on this one make the case. My belief here strictly informs for whom I can vote, and if you have a petition to sign on this one or are engaged in other legitimate forms of political activity on this issue, please send me an invitation to help, I'd be glad to. But if you ask me to help you bomb a medical clinic in the name of 'God's higher law'--sorry, but I'm calling the cops to bust you.

Now, I have been jumped on and beaten up on my point here--that rational grounds are sufficient for conservative principles--by religious-minded folks who appear to misunderstand this as affirming something along the lines of 'rational principles are sufficient for securing personal salvation,' or something. I am NOT asserting this! That is a religious question to which each individual must find his own answer. Please keep the matter separate (as the framers of the Constitution went to such pains to keep separate) from political issues!

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.