A letter being auctioned in London this week is sure to add fuel to the long-simmering debate about the religious views of Albert Einstein.
In the note, written a year before his death, the Nobel prize-winning physicist dismisses the idea of God as the product of human weakness and the Bible as “pretty childish.”
In it, Einstein said that “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.”
Illustrating a sharp difference between his public and more politic statements – and what he clearly addressed to his peers.
I would seem to be fairly obvious that “God” in Einstein’s eyes is nothing more than a personification of all nature, not an actual being.
Hey, the man was a genius. Where would we be today without Einsteins brain? I agree with him.
I think his only real regret in life was the creation of the atomic bomb and the course of events that happened later:
The military industrial complex – not attributed to Einstein specifically, but his theories led to the creation of the atomic bomb which created the arms race. We know know just how prophetic Eisenhower was during his signing-off speech at the end of his presidency.
I have more respect for Einstein now that I hear his opinions on religion and human psychology.
~The truth will set you free
#28, Scottie, great link BTW.
Hey, the man was a genius. Where would we be today without Einsteins brain? I agree with him.
I think his only real regret in life was the creation of the atomic bomb and the course of events that happened later:
The military industrial complex – not attributed to Einstein specifically, but his theories led to the creation of the atomic bomb which created the major arms race of the 20th century. We know know just how prophetic Eisenhower was during his signing-off speech at the end of his presidency.
I have more respect for Einstein now that I hear his opinions on religion and human psychology.
~The truth will set you free
#27 MS
You make a false assumption in saying there is no proof of an afterlife. God Himself promises that there is. But I see we have a problem because you don’t believe in God. Unfortunate…
#33, hearsay is usually not considered to be proof
Max, go to the link in post 28, read the facts there and then get back to us.
#28–Scott==terrific link. Will take me a few more days to read the whole thing and associated links. Thanks.
Everybody uses the G word, believe or not you almost surely have some concept of what it means to you. Tiny humman mind, quite capable of proving or disproving anything, imperfect beings in a perfect universe. Don’t get me wrong I like it like this, ignorance is freedom. But just because you can’t make use of the god symbol doesn’t mean it’s useless. According to my experience absolute symbols are extremely useful, let see numbers, some, any, all, no, eternity, infinity, etc, etc. On the other hand if I’d’ve escaped the Nazi’s only to learn about the systematic murder of millions of my race, I might doubt that god exsists too.
#33 – Max,
You make a false assumption in saying there is no proof of an afterlife. God Himself promises that there is. But I see we have a problem because you don’t believe in God. Unfortunate…
God said this to you personally? To whom did s/he make such a promise? When did you check between his/her legs to find that he was male? Sorry, the last may be a sidetrack.
Seriously though. A is true because B said so. But, there’s no proof of B. If you replace A and B with anything else, for example fire breathing dragons and The Great Gnome, respectively, you will see that this is not a proof.
You think it is merely because you substituted god for B.
If you examine your god more closely, you will find that he is created in our image, not the other way around. How else could one explain the existence of a god that is so ungodlike?
The gods of both the OT and the NT have the manners and morals of spoiled children. Only a human could dream up such a god.
#37, amodedoma, “But just because you can’t make use of the god symbol doesn’t mean it’s useless.”
Who says it’s useless? The Pope uses it quite effectively to promote overpopulating Earth while spreading aids and other venereal diseases.
#37 – amodedoma,
Like many religious people, you miss a major point. There is no evidence that fire-breathing dragons do not exist. There is also no evidence that fire-breathing dragons do exist.
Are you dragnostic?
If you disbelieve the existence of dragons, why believe the existence of god? They both have the same evidence, numerous stories involving them. Why believe in one but not the other?
#39 – JimR,
Too true to be good!
In order for humans to communicate, they must agree upon the meaning of the terms they use. In order for us to converse, what I call a flower must the same thing you call a flower. The problem with the term “god” is that it has numerous meanings of which none are narrowly defined. Thus, that it might mean something to you is not sufficient to use it effectively in communication.
Symbols are indeed a powerful tool of communication as long as everyone has the same understanding of their meaning. Infinity is a good example. It has a very specific mathematical meaning. However, if to you, infinity includes nonsense such as astrology and energy channeling, then we will be unable to have intelligent discourse.
#42 was in response to #37
#33
I suspect that every skeptic would immediately change their opinion and believe in your “god” if you can:
A. Define what exactly you mean by “god”
B. Provide valid evidence that said being exists.
The equivalent of your statement “God himself promises that there is” is for me to say “Foo promises that there is.” Define for me what “Foo” is and provide evidence that “Foo” exists and I’ll believe.
Intelligence meets the Religious Right.
This can’t be pretty.
🙂
#41, There’s a bookie in the Vatican taking bets on the race between the increase in unwanted births and dying in agony from VD.
If poor Albert knew of that he would have used stronger words than “primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.”
Humanity created religion after its own image. Religion is a condensation of social and moral codes in the time the particular religion was created. Just a part of an evolving society. If it was a good thing, we have yet to see.
#46 – JimR,
Which way is the Dope betting?
Seriously though, births quite literally CAN’T out pace deaths forever. Note, I didn’t say shouldn’t. I said can’t and meant can’t. Simple calculations show that at any rate of increase in population, there comes a time at which the mass of humans exceeds the mass of the planet. This is what I mean by CAN’T happen. I believe the time is about 5,000 years to humans out massing the planet at present rate of population increase.
So, if I were planning to live long enough to see the outcome, I’d bet good money on deaths out pacing births, and very very soon by geological standards. I’d probably say it will happen in less than 50 years, possibly much sooner. If much sooner, my plan is for suicide. I don’t want to witness or live through the great human die off where our population takes a major downturn and civilization likely collapses.
#33
Isn’t that circular reasoning? Yes it is!
#49
How do you figure that is circular reasoning?
#50 – Thomas,
Well, if you treat both god and an afterlife as two facets of the same thing, which they really are, you prove the existence of one by postulating the existence of the other. It’s not exactly circular, but sure does come close.
I do not agree that even theists treat the terms “afterlife” and “god” as synomous or even different facets of the same concept. I think it is clear that they see them as two distinct, but related concepts. For example, hell is an example of a mythical afterlife that is absent their “god” thing.
Regardless, we cannot even begin to discuss the validity of the claim that a “god” exists without first defining what exactly we mean by the very term “god”. Thus, there is no circular logic other than in the claims of the theists. You want me to believe in this “god” thing. Ok. What exactly is it?
As I have said, it is like me asking you to believe in “Foo”. I have as much ability to define what I mean by “Foo” as theists have in defining what they mean by “god”.
Read “The God Delusion” from Richard Dawkings, the 1st chapter he explains all Einstein’s known statements about god and religion. Nice book to the one who wants to know all the reasons why there is no god.
#52 – Thomas,
Yes, god and afterlife are different. However, they are interdependent. Certainly, afterlife as it was used in post #33 requires god per the Bible, rather than an “is, was, and ever shall be” Stranger In A Strange Land sort of concept.
So, not circular in the most technical way, but elves exist because hobbits told Tom Bombadil about them a couple of thousand years ago is still a pretty silly argument at best.
There is no debate about Albert Einstein’s religion. Einstein was a pantheist, i.e., Einstein worshiped the universe. To Einstein, the universe was God.
Actually, a good question would be why we care so much about Einstein’s beliefs on the subject. Are we deifying him just a bit? The guy was brilliant but not divine or infallible.
>>To Einstein, the universe was God.
So God created God? Or is there a SuperGod who created God/ Universe?
#57 – Mister Mustard,
I’m sorry, did the universe need creating? Quantum mechanics denies cause and effect. The universe bootstrapped itself. Quantum mechanics allows for stuff to be created out of the quantum soup. In fact, it requires it. Without virtual particles coming in and out of existence all the time, the equations fail.
Your own question back at you: Who created God?
God said, “Let there be God??!!?” I don’t think so. Careful, as you know from prior arguments of mine, it’s turtles all the way down.