Albert Einstein considered himself to be a religious man. He put it this way:

"Behind all the discernible concatenations, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force is my religion. To that extent, I am in point of fact, religious.” (See "Einstein and Religion" by Max Jammer, p. 40. All references below are to this book).

For Einstein, religion involved far more than subscribing to some particular creed or denominational label. At its root, religion was a consuming reverence for the transcendent, original force behind nature's laws, the existence of which he intuited and inferred, and which (along with other things) helped imbue his life with meaning. His "religion" even required an initial mental leap, which he describes in terms familiar to anyone who's ever listened to a Christian apologist: “Ultimately the belief in the existence of fundamental all-embracing laws rests on a sort of faith” (p. 93).

As unlikely as it sounds, in describing his faith, Einstein often sounds a bit like an Intelligent Design theorist. For example, in a passage reminiscent of the Reverend Paley, he writes that "(we) see our God in the wonderful order and lawfulness of all that exists" (p. 51); this rational order leads Einstein to the "firm belief" in a "superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience" (p. 132). That "superior mind", he says, "created laws...His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking, but by immutable laws" (p. 123). Intrigued by this "superior mind", Einstein admits "I want to know His thoughts" (p. 123).

This is not to say that Einstein believed in a personal god who intervenes in the affairs of humanity - he didn't. As he explains, what he *does* believe in is an original creative source for the rational order of the universe - a "something behind the energy" (p. 96) - to which, at various times, he imputes intention and intelligence, consistently using the word "god" to refer to it. In this respect, he often sounds like a deist - someone who believes that God was like an original watchmaker: he made the whole thing, wound it up, and then sat back to watch it run all on its own.

As one would expect from his comments above, Einstein did not consider himself an atheist. He made this clear many times throughout his life, in public and in private, using the plainest language imaginable - for example, the words, "I am not an atheist" [p. 48]). The mistaken belief that Einstein saw himself as an atheist seems to arise from an assumption that because Einstein did not believe in a personal god, he did not believe in the possibility of any other kind of god, either. But as we have seen, that is not so.

His friend and biographer Max Jammer explains:

"Einstein was neither an atheist nor an agnostic...Einstein renounced atheism because he never considered his denial of a personal God as a denial of God. This subtle but decisive distinction has long been ignored.”

As Einstein put it, he believed in a god "who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings." (Jammer, p. 49). Simple enough.

For those accustomed to the current craze of crude demonological characterizations of religion as "the implacable foe" of science, it might be surprising to learn that in Einstein's view, “a legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot exist" (p. 31). After all, in his view, God - whatever it actually was - created every physical law, so that every attempt to understand physical laws was actually a religious endeavour - an attempt to better understand, and come closer to, God. Interestingly, this was the precise view held by the devout Christian and scientist Isaac Newton, and of course, virtually all devoutly religious scientists for the past two millenia. In words that easily could have come from any devout believer scientist, Einstein writes that "all the finer speculations in the realm of science spring from a deep religious feeling, and that without such feeling they would not be fruitful" (p. 32).

Given that he believed science and religion emerged from the same human propensity for awe, wonder and humility, and given the similarities he noticed between his own "religious faith" and more conventional types of (theist) religious faith, it is no wonder that Einstein concluded that religious belief was not a sign of stupidity, nor unbelief a sign of intelligence (p. 96). The notion that the religious believer was by definition a sort of nincompoop or weakling is entirely absent in his writings. He did not denigrate theism, not least because he saw it as not all that different in its origins and contours from his own "religious faith" (his words).

Lastly, there was another reason Einstein never denigrated theism or tried to preach his own disbelief in a personal god: he believed that for most people, belief in a personal god met important and enduring metaphysical needs better than other beliefs. Responding to "whether belief in a personal god should be contested", he wrote:

"I myself would never engage in such a task. For such a belief seems to me preferable to the lack of any transcendental outlook of life, and I wonder whether one can ever successfully render to the majority of mankind a more sublime means in order to satisfy its metaphysical needs".

***************

In Einstein's writings on religion, I see a sensitivity, intelligence, curiosity, honesty, and respect for both humanity and science that is almost entirely absent in most modern anti-religious polemics.

Just my two cents.

Good luck in your journey.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 03/02/2015 07:42PM by Tal Bachman.

AMEN!

The one aspect of reality that science knows absolutely nothing about is our own conscious awareness. Science cannot prove consciousness. Indeed, science has absolutely no idea where to find consciousness.

And yet, we intuitively know our consciousness exists more than we know anything else about existence and the physical world.

Likewise, we can intuitively believe in the existence of "God" in the sense described by Einstein. As one of the most brilliant scientists in history, Einstein recognized the limitations of science as well as the fundamental value of our intuition.

I would be fascinated to know whether science will ever explain consciousness. I suspect it will as we come to greater understanding of how the brain works.

I've followed Einstein's work because it's fascinating to me. Never really cared about his religious beliefs; his work stands quite nicely without them.

"..whether science will ever explain consciousness"

Oh, I think it will, when the technology is invented to explore it. And then the world will go bonkers.

Einstein had some great quotes, but even greater hair. Totally rockin' hair.

In so many ways, Einstein remains a great model for a scientific approach.

So much of science today operates on the unproven foundation of materialist philosophy. As you note, it tends to foster conflict between religion and science where there really need be none. Once you understand that materialism has no inherent place in science, it creates a sense of wonder that fearlessly examines areas where there are no current answers. It would be nice to see more like him who refuse to bow to a PC ideology that demands obedience.

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So much of science today operates on the unproven
> foundation of materialist philosophy. As you
> note, it tends to foster conflict between religion
> and science where there really need be none. Once
> you understand that materialism has no inherent
> place in science, it creates a sense of wonder
> that fearlessly examines areas where there are no
> current answers. It would be nice to see more
> like him who refuse to bow to a PC ideology that
> demands obedience.

Sorry, TMSH, but that's a straw-man.
Again.

Science does not operate on a "materialist philosophy." It doesn't operate on *any* philosophy, but only on the scientific method (which isn't a philosophy).
The claim that science fosters "conflict between religion and science" is equally false -- science simply provides a method for finding out facts. It's religion that fosters the conflict with science, when facts it finds contradict dogma and belief.

I don't read Einstein like Tal does. I see most of his "god" comments as smart public relations -- the few times he said in public what he felt in private (and wrote in private), he was publicly criticized, and he worried about losing the support of the American public. He admitted "mystery," but didn't think it was a "god" of any kind.

But whatever, you can read his any way you want to. I just hope you notice that his "beliefs" on the subject, pro or con, in no way were involved in his scientific work. For good reasons.

"...smart public relations." Haha. Considering all of Einstein's statements about God and religion in context, you have absolutely no basis for such an arrogant assumption.

I doubt someone like Einstein who has such a bold history of revolutionary scientific predictions and findings would be so insecure about his lack of spiritual belief that he'd feel the need to lie to the public. Einstein's own statements as well as those from people who knew him closely soundly refute your wishful notion that he was pretending for the public.

Also, for those of us who love and respect science the same way Einstein did, while also intuitively recognizing the wisdom of Einstein's statements about religion, the evidence cited by Tal above rings especially true.

Papa Bear Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "...smart public relations." Haha. Considering
> all of Einstein's statements about God and
> religion in context, you have absolutely no basis
> for such an arrogant assumption.

Why label it "arrogant?" That's ridiculous.
And there is context. If you read all or most of his statements, with one exception the ONLY time he ever said anything at all about religion or "god" was in response to people asking him questions, and most often those questions were from those seeking to publish the answers they got.

> I doubt someone like Einstein who has such a bold
> history of revolutionary scientific predictions
> and findings would be so insecure about his lack
> of spiritual belief that he'd feel the need to lie
> to the public. Einstein's own statements as well
> as those from people who knew him closely soundly
> refute your wishful notion that he was pretending
> for the public.

I don't really care about what you doubt. However, you seem to have forgotten that he escaped from a Germany where millions of people lost their jobs, property and lives for being the "wrong" ethnicity/religion. Only to come to an America where Christianity was a major rallying point for the war effort and against its enemies. Only to find himself smack in the middle of a post-WWII witchhunt for "godless commies," which resulted in anyone even slightly suspected of leaning "left" or being "godless" losing jobs, being blackballed, etc. But of course none of that would make him want to put forth a PR image that "fit in," would it?

> Also, for those of us who love and respect science
> the same way Einstein did, while also intuitively
> recognizing the wisdom of Einstein's statements
> about religion, the evidence cited by Tal above
> rings especially true.

The "evidence" cited above cherry picks supporting statements, and completely ignores all statements to the contrary. Perhaps some actual research would serve you better than your intuition or "ringing true...?"



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/03/2015 11:33AM by ificouldhietokolob.

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Sorry, TMSH, but that's a straw-man.
> Again.
>
> Science does not operate on a "materialist
> philosophy." It doesn't operate on *any*
> philosophy, but only on the scientific method
> (which isn't a philosophy).
> The claim that science fosters "conflict between
> religion and science" is equally false -- science
> simply provides a method for finding out facts.
> It's religion that fosters the conflict with
> science, when facts it finds contradict dogma and
> belief.
>

The expected response of someone so so steeped in materialist ideology he's incapable of even engaging in a meaningful dialogue about it. For you it's not an ideology, it's the only reality you recognize. This is why you're incapable of engaging competing ideas.

Thankfully, there are those who recognize the influence of materialism in science. It's a bias that occasionally shouts down any suggestions that may run contrary.

Care to take a moment to see how blind you are in your inability to even recognize the debate over materialism in science? Try out this reading list:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jan/28/science-move-away-materialism-sheldrake

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-pruett/toward-a-postmaterialistic-science_b_5842730.html

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2013/01/30/is-scientific-materialism-almost-certainly-false/

> I don't read Einstein like Tal does. I see most of
> his "god" comments as smart public relations --
> the few times he said in public what he felt in
> private (and wrote in private), he was publicly
> criticized, and he worried about losing the
> support of the American public. He admitted
> "mystery," but didn't think it was a "god" of any
> kind.

Clearly you "don't read Einstein like Tal does." Tal actually takes him at his word. You prefer to suggest he was a liar. Bold move. But important to support your ideology. Do you have any specific quotes where he walks back his statements as public relations?

>
> But whatever, you can read his any way you want
> to. I just hope you notice that his "beliefs" on
> the subject, pro or con, in no way were involved
> in his scientific work. For good reasons.

But as with all of us, his statements were informed by his understanding of the world. Given the choice, I'll accept his understanding over yours.

It's interesting that you claim religion "fosters the conflict with science, when facts it finds contradict dogma and belief." That's exactly what you're doing.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/03/2015 12:57AM by Tall Man, Short Hair.

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
> The expected response of someone so so steeped in
> materialist ideology he's incapable of even
> engaging in a meaningful dialogue about it. For
> you it's not an ideology, it's the only reality
> you recognize. This is why you're incapable of
> engaging competing ideas.

And yet you dismiss "competing ideas" with no rational argument or evidence, simply because you mistakenly consider them an "ideology." Where's your "meaningful dialogue," when all you did above was insult and make bare assertions?


> Thankfully, there are those who recognize the
> influence of materialism in science. It's a bias
> that occasionally shouts down any suggestions that
> may run contrary.

And there are those who point out how fallacious that is. Why ignore THOSE people completely? Oh, right -- because they don't fit with your "beliefs."

> Care to take a moment to see how blind you are in
> your inability to even recognize the debate over
> materialism in science? Try out this reading
> list:
>
> http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jan/
> 28/science-move-away-materialism-sheldrake
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-pruett/toward-a
> -postmaterialistic-science_b_5842730.html
>
> http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/20
> 13/01/30/is-scientific-materialism-almost-certainl
> y-false/

I've already read all those and more. You do realize those are opinions, not facts, and not shared by everyone, don't you? I guess not.

> Clearly you "don't read Einstein like Tal does."
> Tal actually takes him at his word. You prefer to
> suggest he was a liar. Bold move. But important
> to support your ideology. Do you have any
> specific quotes where he walks back his statements
> as public relations?

Tal quote-mined him. And ignored the context, and statements that completely contradict his interpretation. That's not "taking him at his word." It's picking quotes to support your own ideas. Steve Benson, last time this came up, provided dozens of quotes to specifically refute those above. And of course, since Einstein isn't around to comment on any of this, it's open to "interpretation" -- yours or Tals is no more "right" or "wrong" than mine or anyone else's.
Here are a few:

"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment."

"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. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."

"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere."

In 1945 Guy Raner, Jr. wrote a letter to Einstein, asking him if it was true that a Jesuit priest had caused Einstein to convert from atheism. Einstein replied, "I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist. ... It is always misleading to use anthropomorphical concepts in dealing with things outside the human sphere—childish analogies. We have to admire in humility the beautiful harmony of the structure of this world—as far as we can grasp it, and that is all."


> But as with all of us, his statements were
> informed by his understanding of the world. Given
> the choice, I'll accept his understanding over
> yours.

You're free to do so. What's not reasonable, or even honest, is to claim you know what he "believed" -- you don't.
>
> It's interesting that you claim religion "fosters
> the conflict with science, when facts it finds
> contradict dogma and belief." That's exactly what
> you're doing.

By pointing out fallacies? Only in your mind, my friend.

Thank you for sharing that, Tal. My own views on God are similar.

Nicely done!

It's another case of expecting an expert in one field to be an expert in all of them.

Kinda reminds me of the Mormon GA worship, accepting them as experts in all fields, even ones they know nothing about.

Then I assume you are consistent and discredit all scientists equally when they speak about religion and God. In other words, when Dawkins or Hawking or any other scientist expresses their opinion about the existence (or lack there of) of a "god," you recognize that they are no more of an authority to speak about such matters than a non-scientist, right?

The significance of Einstein's views of God and religion is not so much that his views are correct. Rather, it is significant that such a brilliant scientist can hold such views because it demonstrates that incredibly intelligent, rational people can genuinely and reasonably believe in a god. Scientific thought does not lead to atheism.

Einstein may have been like many people that do not tell the full truth about things that can ruin a reputation.

As many gays hide they are gay because society has not accepted gays and it could cost their job or reputation, Einstein could be hiding his true beliefs about God because he lived in a time where being an atheist could ruin a reputation.

Imagine that, a prominent person hiding a secret to protect their reputation, like that never happens.

BTW, I have read much of what Einstein said about god, in context, which is the reason I hold such a belief.

Ah, but Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist. When he says evolution doesn't require a God, and has seen no evidence of one, he IS speaking in his area of expertise.

The point of the OP was that we should care about what Einstein said about God because he's a scientist, even though Einstein really didn't say much.

I care about what Dawkins says because he makes good points. Einstein seemed to be trying to not offend anyone.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/02/2015 08:21PM by Xyandro.

Then you are being inconsistent. Evolutionary biology is no closer to finding or disproving a "god" than is physics.

With all scientific disciplines, the fundamental questions still remain regarding the ultimate source for existence and our conscious awareness. Biology has no idea where to locate consciousness. Nor does biology know what sparked the Big Bang.

Truths about our conscious awareness and meaningful living require discovery through intuition rather than a sterile examination of the external material world. Someone with virtually no formal education has the same access to such truths as the world's top scientists.

No, his is not being inconsistent, you misrepresent what he wrote.

He did not say that evolutionary biology was close to proving or disproving the existence of god, what he actually said was "When he says evolution doesn't require a God, and has seen no evidence of one" it is not the same as saying there is proof for or against God.

I am an atheist not because I feel God has been proved NOT to exist, but because he's not been proved TO exist. It's a subtle distinction, but very important.

As a rational person, I have to admit that there COULD be a God, somewhere. He could have started everything in motion by causing the Big Bang. He could have caused consciousness.

But it might have been Santa Claus. The evidence for both is about the same.

The statement "evolution doesn't require a god" is not a scientific statement. There is nothing about evolutionary biology that results in that conclusion because such science (nor any science) has no method or instrument to determine whether a source that transcends this physical universe is a prerequisite to activity (such as evolution) occurring within this physical universe.

A more accurate statement would be, "understanding evolution does not require knowledge of whether a 'god' exists or even belief in a god." That is obviously true. We can comprehensively understand evolution without knowing whether some ultimate source of everything transcends the universe. However to say that evolution itself doesn't require a god necessarily implies knowledge of whether an ultimate "god" source is responsible for the physical universe.

Dawkins can only speak scientifically about evolution as it is contained within the time/space/matter boundaries of our physical universe. All science is limited by those same constraints. Once Dawkins begins musing about how certain aspects of our physical universe could occur regardless of the existence of a transcendent creator, he is now expressing his mere opinions, which are no more scientific than Einstein's musings about his own belief in a god.

But then again, truth about god, meaning, and our own conscious awareness doesn't come from science. It is intuitive.

You claimed "Then you are being inconsistent. Evolutionary biology is no closer to finding or disproving a "god" than is physics."

So, going forward, will you explicitly state that you misrepresented what Xyandro said?

The best you are now doing is whining about poor phraseology. A pathetic objection, really.

An even better statement is "There is absolutely no evidence that evolution requires a god, so there is no reason to believe it does require a god". That is a scientific statement.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/02/2015 11:05PM by MJ.

What are you talking about, MJ? You clearly don't comprehend what I just wrote.

An even better statement is "There is absolutely no known evidence that evolution requires a god, so there is no reason to believe it does require a god". That is a scientific statement.

Again, are you going to man up and admit that you misrepresented what Xyandro said? Re-read the thread with the idea of understanding rather than trying to find fault/.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/02/2015 11:15PM by MJ.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/02/2015 11:09PM by MJ.

"Man up." Haha. You still don't comprehend what I wrote.

It is entirely inconsistent to say, on the one hand:

(1) Einstein's musings about whether god exists are simply his own opinions. "It's another case of expecting an expert in one field to be an expert in all of them."

and then on the other hand

(2) But I trust Dawkins' statement that "evolution doesn't require a god."

NEITHER statement is scientific. If you, or Xyandro, or anyone chooses to trust such a statement from Dawkins, that's fine. But you are not doing so based on science.

Your new statement is equally unscientific: "There is absolutely no evidence that evolution requires a god, so there is no reason to believe it does require a god". Your conclusion isn't warranted by the premise because it assumes that the only reason for believing things is scientific proof.

Again, the issue always returns to the reality that science is constrained by the time/space/matter boundaries of physical reality. Beliefs about what may or may non transcend such reality are not based on physical science. They are intuitive.

So I will "man up" and confidently stand by my earlier statement that (1) criticizing reliance on a scientist's unscientific believe in god based on a claimed lack of expertise while also (2) trusting another scientist's unscientific lack of belief in god under the misconception that the lack of belief is "scientific" is inconsistent.

Modern science is incapable of even reaching the transcendent realm in which God would exist.

If Dawkins was talking in regards to his field of expertise and he is stating there is no evidence to show that God is required for evolution, and Einstein was not talking in his field of expertise when he said his OPINION regarding God, then it is NOT inconsistent to look at their statements differently.

You are quoting what Xyandro claimed Dawkins said, not what Dawkins actually said. If you want to make a federal case out of Xandro's poor phrasing, it is your reputation to damage.

Now if you would like to show where Dawkins actually said that "evolution does not require God".... All I have ever seen is is the expression of the idea that god is not required.

Now if you want to discuss this in terms of what Dawkins actually said and not beet up on someone for poor phraseology that the later clarified, then Let's discuss that.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/03/2015 12:08AM by MJ.

Papa Bear Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The statement "evolution doesn't require a god" is
> not a scientific statement. There is nothing
> about evolutionary biology that results in that
> conclusion because such science (nor any science)
> has no method or instrument to determine whether a
> source that transcends this physical universe is a
> prerequisite to activity (such as evolution)
> occurring within this physical universe.

There is more than enough known, observed, and demonstrated in biology to demonstrate that evolution operates by *natural* selection -- it doesn't need anything "supernatural" of any kind to work. And there is no evidence of any "god" or anything supernatural operating. The statement was factually correct -- evolution does not need a "god" or anything supernatural, and there is no evidence of any such thing. Your speculation, without evidence, that there could be such things is nothing but baseless speculation. If and when you have evidence for them, then they'll be worth consideration. Right now, they're not.

Funny, after you threw Dawkins, Darwin, Sam Harris under the bus...

Quinlansolo:

I've never criticized Charles Darwin on religion on here. In fact, Darwin had sensible ideas about where religion could have come from.

Tellingly, these nuanced ideas are not seriously contemplated by Sam Harris (Harris, after all, is much too busy stumping for the paranormal thrills of reincarnation, telekinesis, and clairvoyance, and endorsing drugs like Ecstasy and LSD); and Dawkins, for his part, simply rejects Darwin's ideas for no reason he can adequately defend.

The real reason for Dawkins's rejection of Darwinian explanations of religion is, to my mind, very different goals between the two men. Darwin wanted to understand how empirically dubious ideas survive over time, whereas Dawkins has no interest in understanding religion at all. That's why (as has been pointed out by most of his academic reviewers) he makes very little reference to research on religion - he couldn't care less about it. Scientific findings on the topic are completely beside the point for him.

No - what Dawkins wants with religious beliefs is not to understand them, but to *use* them: he needs them for theatrical purposes. He needs them to serve as grotesque, demonic "enemies" for him to "vanquish" in the comic book mental world he inhabits as a superhero, and which his pseudo-intellectual fans enjoy believing in as though it were real, despite all evidence to the contrary.

I don't see any sensitivity, intelligence, curiosity, honesty, and respect for both humanity and science in most modern religious polemics either.

Just how sensitive should we be while exposing a fraud ?

What's your point ?

I've read some of Einsteins writings on religion...like a child looking through his fathers letters seeking to make sense of something.

I am becoming more confused by the day...I find no certainty on either argument of God's existence.

This frustrates me as I have had a desire to learn the truth for myself deeply, as many of you have I am sure.

Perhaps I am just overwhelmed with my faith crisis...but if belief in God helps me live a better life then perhaps that is an OK position as long as I follow one of George Carlin's ten commandments.

Thou Shalt Keep Thy Religion To Thyself...

I like this quote from Al. Shows how utterly full of himself he really was because ya see most atheists lack humility and awe when it comes to the cosmos. *eye roll*


"What separates me from most so-called atheists is a feeling of utter humility toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos."

Um. You hear Albert Einstein implying that he was different from most people, and to you that means he was full of himself. Dude, he discovered general relativity. Have you heard of it?

But in fact Einstein really wasn't full of himself. He just lived an unusual life. He overthrew science when he was 25, then did it again ten years later. He spent the whole rest of his life, for forty years, trying without success to go yet deeper. When he talked about humility toward unattainable secrets, he wasn't talking about looking up at the night sky and feeling wonder. He was talking about being on the very short list for greatest human mind of all time, and yet pouring out his life in failure.

As an old man he could walk into any lecture hall and the room would go still; even his brashest young peers would stop talking just because Einstein had showed up to listen to a seminar. Yet no-one else was following Einstein's work at that point. They were rushing ahead with quantum theory, which he had helped launch. He was laboring on alone, searching for a unified field theory.

I think the OP gives an accurate picture of Einstein's theology, such as it was. He was shrewd enough that he might well have avoided sounding atheistical just to avoid creating a fuss, but he would not have gone out of his way to say what he did if he didn't believe it.

Moreover throughout his life he continually referred to God in talking about the one thing he really cared about, physics. "God does not play dice with the universe"; "the Lord is subtle but he is not malicious"; "Quantum mechanics ... yields a lot, but it hardly brings us any closer to the secret of the Old One."

For Einstein these were certainly statements about physics, not about God. But that's just the point. When he thought about physics, he really did think in terms of a transcendent creator, whose secrets he was trying — and for most of his life, failing — to guess.

Einstein himself would probably roll his eyes hard at the idea of citing him as a religious authority. His opinion about God is just another opinion. He remains a solid data point confirming that belief in some kind of God is compatible not just with science and intelligence, but with scientific genius.

Albert Einstein's Historic 1954 “I don’t believe in God Letter"
This is a genuine handwritten letter by Albert Einstein, that sold for $3 million in 2012. Clear scans of the letter, written in German, can be viewed online.

Some key excerpts:

*“The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of … primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can change this.”*

*“For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people.”*

So there you have it. Einstein did NOT believe in God and was proud to be a non-practicing ethnic Jew.

Einstein is also on record with the following:

"I am, of course, and have always been an atheist. "

Albert Einstein, to Guy H. Raner Jr., July 2, 1945, responding to a rumor that a Jesuit priest had caused Einstein to convert from atheism.

AND THIS:

"During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution, human fantasy created gods in man's own image who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate influence, the phenomenal world.

- Albert Einstein, quoted in: 2000 Years of Disbelief, James Haught


"A man's ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."

-- Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science", New York Times Magazine, 9 November 1930

Einstein was not an authority on god, nor is it possible for such claims about anyone to be valid. Quaint as his musings on the subject may be, he also assumed that since black holes would never be found, it was irrelevant that his theory of relativity, which predicted them, could not be reconciled to the laws of quantum mechanics to which black holes must be subject.

Scientists are still working on it.

Politics, religion and science have been battling since, probably before recorded history. Of the three, only one seeks dissemination of knowledge, by the repeated testing of the claims it makes.

The other two abhor challenge ofany sort.

Einstein went to temple every Sabbath if he could make it, extensively studied the Thora and read many other religious books, observed Jewish holidays, wore that weird thingy on his head, ate kosher, etc.

Or did he...?

"You hear Albert Einstein implying that he was different from most people"

No,the quote SAYS that most atheists lack humility concerning the mystery of the cosmos but Al doesn't which is arrogant and incorrect.

Great scientist but a horrible philosopher.