NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/05/13/einstein-religion.html

Belief in God a 'product of human weaknesses': Einstein letter

Renowned scientist Albert Einstein dismissed the Bible as a collection of “pretty childish” legends and belief in God as a “product of human weaknesses,” according to a letter to be auctioned this week.
..
Born to a Jewish family in Germany in 1879, he also adds that "for me, the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions."



Well, that letter certainly puts oft quoted lines of Einstein regarding god into a new light...especially when they're put out in favour of divinity.

meh

i never saw the point of taking einsteins opinion about religion more seriously than anyone else's.

Well, that letter certainly puts oft quoted lines of Einstein regarding god into a new light...especially when they're put out in favour of divinity.

...well, assuming the letter is real.

/me curses edit not allowing addition of a poll :p

i never saw the point of taking einsteins opinion about religion more seriously than anyone else's.

True, regarding religion the only authority that matters is each individual thinking for him or herself.

Albert Einstein has just as much authority on religion as any of us. So I doubt the grand master science man will change anyones minds.

Now if Tesla told me on the other hand...

Click Stand;13692677']Albert Einstein has just as much authority on religion as any of us. So I doubt the grand master science man will change anyones minds.

Now if Tesla told me on the other hand...

granted.

Err, yep. Why did you bold the part about Judaism?

Lots of people saw very Orthodox Judaism as pretty stupid at the time, especially reformed Jews and their children.

Yeah...Once anyone actually studies science, its a general rule that they begin to dismiss most religious thought...

Einstein followed the same path many of us followed...he was just far better at navigating it, lol...

This from the man who claimed "God does not play dice with the universe"?

Yeah...Once anyone actually studies science, its a general rule that they begin to dismiss most religious thought...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_al-Haytham
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton

Rightio...

Yeah...Once anyone actually studies science, its a general rule that they begin to dismiss most religious thought...


Just wanted to point that out...

There are always exceptions....

Im just saying that roughly 8/10 times if you study science you begin to question or denounce religion...

Err, yep. Why did you bold the part about Judaism?
I bolded the part about what he thought about religion - the topic of this thread - and how he grouped the religion he was brought up in to the same group.

I couldn't very well have bolded it: ...all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions.". ;)

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/05/13/einstein-religion.html

Belief in God a 'product of human weaknesses': Einstein letter

Renowned scientist Albert Einstein dismissed the Bible as a collection of “pretty childish” legends and belief in God as a “product of human weaknesses,” according to a letter to be auctioned this week.
..
Born to a Jewish family in Germany in 1879, he also adds that "for me, the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions."



Well, that letter certainly puts oft quoted lines of Einstein regarding god into a new light...especially when they're put out in favour of divinity.

Einstein was a deist, not an atheist. This does not support him being inconsistent on the matter.

Just wanted to point that out...

There are always exceptions....

Im just saying that roughly 8/10 times if you study science you begin to question or denounce religion...

I'd say it's the other way around: people who question or denounce religion are more likely to study the sciences.

As for Einstein, I don't think this discovery casts doubt on previous ideas about what he believed. I always understood that Einstein was an unconventional theist, something close to Deism, and rejection of mainstream religion doesn't clash with that.

I'd say it's the other way around: people who question or denounce religion are more likely to study the sciences.


Possibly...It was a little of both for me...I began to severely dislike my Church, but i hadnt given up on Christianity quite yet...it wasnt until i started seriously studying Physics and Astronomy that i began to distance myself from religion...

I always understood that Einstein was an unconventional theist, something close to Deism, and rejection of mainstream religion doesn't clash with that.

According to the article, at least John Brooke agrees with you:
"John Brooke, professor emeritus of science and religion at Oxford University, told the Associated Press that the letter lends weight to the notion that "Einstein was not a conventional theist" — although he was not an atheist, either.

Like many great scientists of the past, he is rather quirky about religion, and not always consistent from one period to another," Brooke said

Brooke said Einstein believed "there is some kind of intelligence working its way through nature. But it is certainly not a conventional Christian or Judaic religious view."

Though, in the end Einstein's actual viewpoint is rather inconsequential - It's rather who uses Einstein's words and how that matters more today.

Possibly...It was a little of both for me...I began to severely dislike my Church, but i hadnt given up on Christianity quite yet...it wasnt until i started seriously studying Physics and Astronomy that i began to distance myself from religion...

It could also be the community you're a part of if you study physics or astronomy. A disproportionate amount of scientists, for whatever reason, are areligous, and so the people who hang out around them are more likely to pick up their sinful, sinful beliefs. :)

Einstein’s refusal to believe in a personal God had nothing to do with a belief and everything to do with his unwillingness to accept that a God would allow the holocaust. He admits as much in his writings, stating that he acknowledges that a God must have created the universe as it is too exact for randomness; however that he refuses to accept it. It was not for lack of belief; it was out of rebelliousness.

Also I think you will find that the vast majority of those who do not believe in a God do so, as has been said already, with a dislike of a particular parish and has very little to do with evidence for or agents any doctrine. It would be incorrect to say that rational scientists don’t believe in God. Physics and Astronomy were brought up as examples; however in both instances there is absolutely no explanation for how things like gravity nor the order of the universe work without a creator figure. Studies are ongoing, though the most likely situation at this time seems to be that science confirms a God, not disproves it.

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/05/13/einstein-religion.html

Belief in God a 'product of human weaknesses': Einstein letter

Renowned scientist Albert Einstein dismissed the Bible as a collection of “pretty childish” legends and belief in God as a “product of human weaknesses,” according to a letter to be auctioned this week.
..
Born to a Jewish family in Germany in 1879, he also adds that "for me, the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions."



Well, that letter certainly puts oft quoted lines of Einstein regarding god into a new light...especially when they're put out in favour of divinity.

and yet the only way for someone to understand his meaning is for that someone to have believed that already. Devote followers will laugh him off, ooooh non-believer his opinion doesn't matter...others, myself, look at that as just another guy who figured out that religion is, well, lame.

It could also be the community you're a part of

More than that, I live in South Mississippi friend, the Heart of the Bible Belt...

Any attempts at Progress are hindered by the people i like to call, the Bible Nuts...People who take Scripture Literally...

Theyll fight anything that attempts to lift this area out of the 50's....Anyone would eventually grow to hate them...

Einstein’s refusal to believe in a personal God had nothing to do with a belief and everything to do with his unwillingness to accept that a God would allow the holocaust. He admits as much in his writings, stating that he acknowledges that a God must have created the universe as it is too exact for randomness; however that he refuses to accept it. It was not for lack of belief; it was out of rebelliousness.

Also I think you will find that the vast majority of those who do not believe in a God do so, as has been said already, with a dislike of a particular parish and has very little to do with evidence for or agents any doctrine. It would be incorrect to say that rational scientists don’t believe in God. Physics and Astronomy were brought up as examples; however in both instances there is absolutely no explanation for how things like gravity nor the order of the universe work without a creator figure. Studies are ongoing, though the most likely situation at this time seems to be that science confirms a God, not disproves it.

From what I read here it sounds to me like your basically saying, if we can't give a good reason for it then it's obvious that God in some form of devine intervention had created this abnormal occurance. It's like we blaim everything on god that we can't rightfully explain ourselves, just cause we can't explain it doesn't mean we can credit a god for it. There is no proof either way that God exsist, and there will never be...only more explanations for why he must exsist or couldn't possibly exsist. I believe in somethin', not gunna call it god, but it's always good to believe somethin' is watchin' over you. I refuse to let a group of people restrict my 'god'-given rights, if their god-given why do I have to work for them, why should I have to please this almighty being and why should I hand over my life to some force that neither has acknowledged my exsistance in any way shape or form.

I don't question faith, I question the religion that takes control of that faith.

More than that, I live in South Mississippi friend, the Heart of the Bible Belt...

Any attempts at Progress are hindered by the people i like to call, the Bible Nuts...People who take Scripture Literally...

Theyll fight anything that attempts to lift this area out of the 50's....Anyone would eventually grow to hate them...

Mmmm....Bible Nuts...*mouth waters*

In that case, I can definitely see how your opinions would change.

From what I read here it sounds to me like your basically saying, if we can't give a good reason for it then it's obvious that God in some form of devine intervention had created this abnormal occurance. It's like we blaim everything on god that we can't rightfully explain ourselves, just cause we can't explain it doesn't mean we can credit a god for it. There is no proof either way that God exsist, and there will never be...only more explanations for why he must exsist or couldn't possibly exsist. I believe in somethin', not gunna call it god, but it's always good to believe somethin' is watchin' over you. I refuse to let a group of people restrict my 'god'-given rights, if their god-given why do I have to work for them, why should I have to please this almighty being and why should I hand over my life to some force that neither has acknowledged my exsistance in any way shape or form.

I don't question faith, I question the religion that takes control of that faith.

That’s not what Im saying at all. What I am saying is that it’s mathematically impossible for the universe to have formed in the state that it currently is by a random occurrence, right around 1 chance out of 10 to the 92nd power to be exact, which is more than the number of particles in the entire universe, multiplied by 100,000. As for gravity, we know generally how it works in most situations, but we don’t know why. There is absolutely no reason why it should work. It’s much the same as saying you know how to drive a car, but not how to build one, nor would you even have a concept of how one is built exactly. However current studies put it at an almost supernatural force, with gravitons jetting into and out of our dimension etc.

Im not saying at all that it must be God because there is no other answer, what I am saying is that it must be God because no other answer makes sense. This was my point from earlier; the more in depth people get in a field, the more inclined they are to consider a creator. That has been my experience in the field of genetics and I know it is the view of many of my friends in related scientific fields.

The only issue I have with people claiming to not believe in God is when they claim it is the more rational belief, when in reality it takes a great deal of faith to disbelieve something that is constantly and repeatedly shown.

I make no claim to a personal God, however to not believe in a creator of any sort takes more faith than I can muster.

Einstein’s refusal to believe in a personal God had nothing to do with a belief and everything to do with his unwillingness to accept that a God would allow the holocaust. He admits as much in his writings, stating that he acknowledges that a God must have created the universe as it is too exact for randomness; however that he refuses to accept it. It was not for lack of belief; it was out of rebelliousness.

Also I think you will find that the vast majority of those who do not believe in a God do so, as has been said already, with a dislike of a particular parish and has very little to do with evidence for or agents any doctrine. It would be incorrect to say that rational scientists don’t believe in God. Physics and Astronomy were brought up as examples; however in both instances there is absolutely no explanation for how things like gravity nor the order of the universe work without a creator figure. Studies are ongoing, though the most likely situation at this time seems to be that science confirms a God, not disproves it.

There is so much poppycock in that post, that I can't even begin to disassemble it because it reeks so much of bullshit.

That’s not what Im saying at all. What I am saying is that it’s mathematically impossible for the universe to have formed in the state that it currently is by a random occurrence, right around 1 chance out of 10 to the 92nd power to be exact, which is more than the number of particles in the entire universe, multiplied by 100,000. As for gravity, we know generally how it works in most situations, but we don’t know why. There is absolutely no reason why it should work. It’s much the same as saying you know how to drive a car, but not how to build one, nor would you even have a concept of how one is built exactly. However current studies put it at an almost supernatural force, with gravitons jetting into and out of our dimension etc.

Im not saying at all that it must be God because there is no other answer, what I am saying is that it must be God because no other answer makes sense. This was my point from earlier; the more in depth people get in a field, the more inclined they are to consider a creator. That has been my experience in the field of genetics and I know it is the view of many of my friends in related scientific fields.

The only issue I have with people claiming to not believe in God is when they claim it is the more rational belief, when in reality it takes a great deal of faith to disbelieve something that is constantly and repeatedly shown.

I make no claim to a personal God, however to not believe in a creator of any sort takes more faith than I can muster.

Ugh, almost so one needs a gas mask.

That’s not what Im saying at all. What I am saying is that it’s mathematically impossible for the universe to have formed in the state that it currently is by a random occurrence, right around 1 chance out of 10 to the 92nd power to be exact, which is more than the number of particles in the entire universe, multiplied by 100,000.

Probability is not a valid argument for actualities darling.

As for gravity, we know generally how it works in most situations, but we don’t know why. There is absolutely no reason why it should work. It’s much the same as saying you know how to drive a car, but not how to build one, nor would you even have a concept of how one is built exactly. However current studies put it at an almost supernatural force, with gravitons jetting into and out of our dimension etc.

No, just because something cannot be explained, the supernatural need not be invoked. That's just intellectual laziness.

I'm not saying God doesn't exist, I'm simply saying that he is not a necessary cause, just because we can't find a cause. Appearance of a design, does not imply a design, nor a designer.

Im not saying at all that it must be God because there is no other answer, what I am saying is that it must be God because no other answer makes sense. This was my point from earlier; the more in depth people get in a field, the more inclined they are to consider a creator. That has been my experience in the field of genetics and I know it is the view of many of my friends in related scientific fields.

God IS a convenient explanation, but again the appearance of a design is not evidence of design/purpose.

The only issue I have with people claiming to not believe in God is when they claim it is the more rational belief, when in reality it takes a great deal of faith to disbelieve something that is constantly and repeatedly shown.

I agree that atheism requires the same leap of faith religion does only in the opposite direction. But God is not shown, as above. You simply assume it because it is convenient for you.

I make no claim to a personal God, however to not believe in a creator of any sort takes more faith than I can muster.

Whatever floats your boat really. At least you won't spout any dogma. I can respect that, and your views. I simply said why I believe differently.

That’s not what Im saying at all. What I am saying is that it’s mathematically impossible for the universe to have formed in the state that it currently is by a random occurrence, right around 1 chance out of 10 to the 92nd power to be exact, which is more than the number of particles in the entire universe, multiplied by 100,000. As for gravity, we know generally how it works in most situations, but we don’t know why. There is absolutely no reason why it should work. It’s much the same as saying you know how to drive a car, but not how to build one, nor would you even have a concept of how one is built exactly. However current studies put it at an almost supernatural force, with gravitons jetting into and out of our dimension etc.

Im not saying at all that it must be God because there is no other answer, what I am saying is that it must be God because no other answer makes sense. This was my point from earlier; the more in depth people get in a field, the more inclined they are to consider a creator. That has been my experience in the field of genetics and I know it is the view of many of my friends in related scientific fields.

The only issue I have with people claiming to not believe in God is when they claim it is the more rational belief, when in reality it takes a great deal of faith to disbelieve something that is constantly and repeatedly shown.

I make no claim to a personal God, however to not believe in a creator of any sort takes more faith than I can muster.

as I said, faith is not something I question...too often that is. I have faith in a creator of sorts, I refuse to call it god, I feel referring to a god figure is truely like referring to an imaginary being. Maybe we can't explain alot of things and maybe those we can explain point toward a creator but to me it seems a simple answer for questions that wern't truely studied. I'm no scientist, i've never really enjoyed that area of study but I hope my opinion won't be just tossed away. I understand that the universe is ultimatly unexplainable, especially by a random occurance, but if time exsisted before the universe was created how long before the random occurance could take place. And could you prove that time would have no exsistance before the universal creation? Maybe in the end the universe has always been, and in itself is unexplainable. This godlike figure we speak of may be just a primitive explanation for the expansive, never ending and unexplainable universe that we were created from. (Meaning, maybe god himself is the universe in which we and other civilizations live)

snip

Was this post necessary?

There is so much poppycock in that post, that I can't even begin to disassemble it because it reeks so much of bullshit.



Ugh, almost so one needs a gas mask.

... And thus ends the rational discussion. Unfortunately this is an issue that has so many personal facets that peoples entire world view is built upon it. So when people challenge it, they are not only challenging an idea, but the entire basis for ones though. Sadly this means it is nearly impossible to actually talk about it as very few are open and not predefined enough to have this conversation. I'll leave you to your denials.

... And thus ends the rational discussion. Unfortunately this is an issue that has so many personal facets that peoples entire world view is built upon it. So when people challenge it, they are not only challenging an idea, but the entire basis for ones though. Sadly this means it is nearly impossible to actually talk about it as very few are open and not predefined enough to have this conversation. I'll leave you to your denials.

Ignore the resident troll.

Ignore the resident troll.
But trolls are cute. :D

But trolls are cute. :D

Don't encourage it...

__________________________________________(The line to mark the end of the stupidity and the continuation of a good conversation)

But trolls are cute. :D

Only when they are babies ;)

That’s not what Im saying at all. What I am saying is that it’s mathematically impossible for the universe to have formed in the state that it currently is by a random occurrence, right around 1 chance out of 10 to the 92nd power to be exact, which is more than the number of particles in the entire universe, multiplied by 100,000.
Vastly unlikely is not the same as impossible. Not at all.
As for gravity, we know generally how it works in most situations, but we don’t know why. There is absolutely no reason why it should work. It’s much the same as saying you know how to drive a car, but not how to build one, nor would you even have a concept of how one is built exactly.
God of the Gaps.
However current studies put it at an almost supernatural force, with gravitons jetting into and out of our dimension etc.
Which, of course, doesn't imply that goddidit.

Im not saying at all that it must be God because there is no other answer,
Good, cos that'd be silly.
what I am saying is that it must be God because no other answer makes sense.
Oh dear. And you were doing so well. If we don't know how gravity works then how can God make more sense than any other explanation? We don't have any explanations for it to make more sense than.
This was my point from earlier; the more in depth people get in a field, the more inclined they are to consider a creator. That has been my experience in the field of genetics and I know it is the view of many of my friends in related scientific fields.
Opinions, even very educated ones, aren't really substitutes for evidence.

The only issue I have with people claiming to not believe in God is when they claim it is the more rational belief, when in reality it takes a great deal of faith to disbelieve something that is constantly and repeatedly shown.
I have never been shown God. Nor do I know anyone who has. Nor am I aware of any credible evidence to suggest that God exists, let alone has shown him/her/itself to anyone.

I make no claim to a personal God, however to not believe in a creator of any sort takes more faith than I can muster.
Why is this?

That’s not what Im saying at all. What I am saying is that it’s mathematically impossible for the universe to have formed in the state that it currently is by a random occurrence, right around 1 chance out of 10 to the 92nd power to be exact, which is more than the number of particles in the entire universe, multiplied by 100,000.

What's the chance I chose to reply to this right this moment? 1 to <a large number> yet this reply still exists.

Throw a dice 100 times, write down the sequence of rolls - 1st roll: 5, 2nd roll: 3, 3rd roll: 6....100th roll: 1

What was the probability of that sequence of rolls? 1/(6^100) or 1 to ~7 * 10^77 - yes that's a number with 77 zeros - for that specific sequence to have happened....

Think about it, you rolled only 100 dice...roll 10,000 and you reach a probability that has almost 8000 zeroes - 1 to 10^7781...yet for some inexplicable reason that probability realized: You ended up with a sequence that is unbelievably, nay, incomprehensibly improbable.

If you roll a million dice you STILL get a result while the probability of ANY given sequence is next to NIL; yet if you bother to continue rolling one of those sequences has to happen. In other words: Even though it's next to impossible to guess the sequence of rolls BEFORE the dice has been rolled, AFTER rolling the specific sequence happened with certainty.

You cannot refute or doubt reality, what has happened, by saying it's improbable: The probability before an event - for example a coin toss, car crash, cancer, winning in a lottery, human evolution - doesn't mean much after the event has occurred - Saying "Gee, heads would've been as likely", "My friend winning the jackpot was bloody unlikely" or "Why don't we have tails?" has no bearing to the result.

That’s not what Im saying at all. What I am saying is that it’s mathematically impossible for the universe to have formed in the state that it currently is by a random occurrence, right around 1 chance out of 10 to the 92nd power to be exact, which is more than the number of particles in the entire universe, multiplied by 100,000.

What's that Sherlock Holmes quote? "Once you rule out the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be true?" Something like that. The point is, just because it is very very very very very very very very very very very very very very, etc. unlikely that the universe formed randomly, the fact that the universe exists means it is possible that it did.

Psh....

It doesnt matter, cause when our Alien Overlords from Xenthu come to impose their glorious rule over us pitiful Humans all will be well...

What's the chance I chose to reply to this right this moment? 1 to <a large number> yet this reply still exists.

Throw a dice 100 times, write down the sequence of rolls - 1st roll: 5, 2nd roll: 3, 3rd roll: 6....100th roll: 1

What was the probability of that sequence of rolls? 1/(6^100) or 1 to ~7 * 10^77 - yes that's a number with 77 zeros - for that specific sequence to have happened....

Think about it, you rolled only 100 dice...roll 10,000 and you reach a probability that has almost 8000 zeroes - 1 to 10^7781...yet for some inexplicable reason that probability realized: You ended up with a sequence that is unbelievably, nay, incomprehensibly improbable.

If you roll a million dice you STILL get a result while the probability of ANY given sequence is next to NIL; yet if you bother to continue rolling one of those sequences has to happen. In other words: Even though it's next to impossible to guess the sequence of rolls BEFORE the dice has been rolled, AFTER rolling the specific sequence happened with certainty.

You cannot refute or doubt reality, what has happened, by saying it's improbable: The probability before an event - for example a coin toss, car crash, cancer, winning in a lottery, human evolution - doesn't mean much after the event has occurred - Saying "Gee, heads would've been as likely", "My friend winning the jackpot was bloody unlikely" or "Why don't we have tails?" has no bearing to the result.

nicely explained.

Im not saying at all that it must be God because there is no other answer, what I am saying is that it must be God because no other answer makes sense. This was my point from earlier; the more in depth people get in a field, the more inclined they are to consider a creator. That has been my experience in the field of genetics and I know it is the view of many of my friends in related scientific fields.

Really? I mean, no. I don't believe you!

The only issue I have with people claiming to not believe in God is when they claim it is the more rational belief, when in reality it takes a great deal of faith to disbelieve something that is constantly and repeatedly shown.

Please tell me you are referring to evolution.

The existence of God is not constantly and repeatedly shown. Not unless you are seeing the hand of God in every event you cannot explain.

Really? I mean, no. I don't believe you!



Please tell me you are referring to evolution.

The existence of God is not constantly and repeatedly shown. Not unless you are seeing the hand of God in every event you cannot explain.

I see the Hand of God in My Basement....It scares me sometimes....

really long fingernails, lol...

I'd say it's the other way around: people who question or denounce religion are more likely to study the sciences.

As for Einstein, I don't think this discovery casts doubt on previous ideas about what he believed. I always understood that Einstein was an unconventional theist, something close to Deism, and rejection of mainstream religion doesn't clash with that.

Einstein was a deist, not an atheist. This does not support him being inconsistent on the matter.

As a (temporary! you can get back to discussing the validity of an argument from ignorance if you wish) return to this subject... I was under the impression that Einstein was closer to being a Pantheist, that "God" is nature/the Universe, but is not an actual intelligent being. Am I actually misinformed on this?

... I was under the impression that Einstein was closer to being a Pantheist, that "God" is nature/the Universe, but is not an actual intelligent being.

"I cannot bring myself to believe that God plays dice" is certainly consistent with that.

Really, I don't know.

What I am saying is that it’s mathematically impossible for the universe to have formed in the state that it currently is by a random occurrence, right around 1 chance out of 10 to the 92nd power to be exact, which is more than the number of particles in the entire universe, multiplied by 100,000.
How did you go about calculating this particular instantiation of the probability argument? I've seen people use anything from 10^several dozen to several hundred (and the probability of life 'randomly coming to be' is, seemingly, an even more random integer between 100,000 and 250,000... or more, some argue). 10^92 is even more improbable than what Dembski posits.

This is a misinterpretation. Take this quote for example.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

-Albert Einstein

How could he have said this without giving credit to religion?

That’s not what Im saying at all. What I am saying is that it’s mathematically impossible for the universe to have formed in the state that it currently is by a random occurrence, right around 1 chance out of 10 to the 92nd power to be exact,

The odds are meaningless unless we consider the current state to be special. The classic example is that of seeing a unique car licence plate.

"I cannot bring myself to believe that God plays dice" is certainly consistent with that.

Really, I don't know.

do you know the context of the dice comment?

This is a misinterpretation. Take this quote for example.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

-Albert Einstein

How could he have said this without giving credit to religion?

what? you have never held different opinions at different times of your life?

This is a misinterpretation. Take this quote for example.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

-Albert Einstein

How could he have said this without giving credit to religion?

Try this:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

What he means by religion is different from what you mean by religion.

to the many goddidit arguments there are:

-Just because something's improbable, doesn't mean it can't happen. If there are 10^92 possibilities, than although each is individually unlikely, we know that one of the possibilities has to happen.

-How can you tell something is designed? If you live in a specific universe, you assume that that universe is the normal way, and that must be the normal design. If we lived in a universe where there were five dimension instead of 3, and we were all made of cheese, what would make us assume that that was not "the design"?

-Just because you can't explain something now doesn't mean "goddidit". We used to think everything was made on the same day, "by god", and that the star were painted onto a bowl around the earth, "by god". As science advances, the goddidit theory all of a sudden is no longer credible.

According to the article, at least John Brooke agrees with you:
"John Brooke, professor emeritus of science and religion at Oxford University, told the Associated Press that the letter lends weight to the notion that "Einstein was not a conventional theist" — although he was not an atheist, either.

Like many great scientists of the past, he is rather quirky about religion, and not always consistent from one period to another," Brooke said

Brooke said Einstein believed "there is some kind of intelligence working its way through nature. But it is certainly not a conventional Christian or Judaic religious view."
Indeed:

I believe in Spinoza's God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Spinoza) who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.

Upon being asked if he believed in God by Rabbi Herbert Goldstein of the Institutional Synagogue, New York, April 24, 1921, Einstein: The Life and Times, Ronald W. Clark, Page 502.
Anyone familiar with "Spinoza's God" can testify to the stark difference with that of the Abrahamic religions.

do you know the context of the dice comment?

Well, I think he said similar things several times, and it was his objection to Quantum Mechanics, which at that early stage appeared to be "randomness" at very small scales.

Well, I think he said similar things several times, and it was his objection to Quantum Mechanics, which at that early stage appeared to be "randomness" at very small scales.

which, while wrong, isnt inconsistent with this letter.

is it?

This is a misinterpretation. Take this quote for example.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

-Albert Einstein

How could he have said this without giving credit to religion?

Or perhaps your quote is a misinterpretation. Or maybe, and now this is really unlikely, but MAYBE Einstein's opinions about god and religion and what not changed over time.


Nah, that's ridiculous. Clearly, as as scientist, he'd pick one idea and then stick to it, no matter what.

Well, I think he said similar things several times, and it was his objection to Quantum Mechanics, which at that early stage appeared to be "randomness" at very small scales.

which, while wrong, isnt inconsistent with this letter.

is it?

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Arguably, Einstein was right to be dissatisfied with Quantum Mechanics, and while it might seem "unscientific" there's an admirable frankness in saying "I can't fault your reasoning but it just seems wrong to me."

There really is no element of theology in Einstein's actual work. If his curiosity was led by some sense of "knowing the mind of God" ... then good.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Arguably, Einstein was right to be dissatisfied with Quantum Mechanics, and while it might seem "unscientific" there's an admirable frankness in saying "I can't fault your reasoning but it just seems wrong to me."

There really is no element of theology in Einstein's actual work. If his curiosity was led by some sense of "knowing the mind of God" ... then good.

what im saying is that if he felt that quantum mechanics was suggesting that god plays dice with the universe, he was wrong about quantum mechanics.

or maybe that he was wrong about "god's" willingness to deal out a bit of random.

but that it doesnt conflict with his rejection of traditional religion in the letter that is being auctioned off. im pretty sure that its allegory not literalism. there is no suggestion that he thinks that an athropomorphic god is playing with a set of dice made from burnt out stars or whatever.

So, this forces all those theists who use the appeal to authority as their arguement for gawd to find people other then Einstien.

Which is excellent.

what im saying is that if he felt that quantum mechanics was suggesting that god plays dice with the universe, he was wrong about quantum mechanics.

Well, that's why I referred to "that early stage" of the theory. Complimentarity (closely related to Uncertainty) was certainly suggesting that at small scales, the outcome of particle interactions is unknowable. That's "rolling dice."

or maybe that he was wrong about "god's" willingness to deal out a bit of random.

I agree with him actually. While I fully accept limitations on individual human knowledge, the idea of true randomness offends me. It seems almost futile to seek explanations at higher levels of complexity, if at some level there is no causality (and we are forced to accept "it is that way because it is that way.")

If Einstein really was resorting to God to refute "unknowable causes" then he was using the concept of God in the most positive sense. Not as a mask for human ignorance, but as a goad for human curiosity. Most of the quotes I'm seeing from Einstein are in that spirit: God is the laws of the universe, and no part of that is hidden from us.

but that it doesnt conflict with his rejection of traditional religion in the letter that is being auctioned off. im pretty sure that its allegory not literalism. there is no suggestion that he thinks that an athropomorphic god is playing with a set of dice made from burnt out stars or whatever.

Oh no no. I'll look at the letter I guess.

This from the man who claimed "God does not play dice with the universe"?

I thought that was a remark about chaos theory. Anyway, I'm pretty sure he was disproved.

Einstein was a deist, not an atheist. This does not support him being inconsistent on the matter.

Everything I've read about him points to this ^ (and we have, like, 10 books about him in my house).

That’s not what Im saying at all. What I am saying is that it’s mathematically impossible for the universe to have formed in the state that it currently is by a random occurrence, right around 1 chance out of 10 to the 92nd power to be exact, which is more than the number of particles in the entire universe, multiplied by 100,000.

It would be almost impossible for the universe to have formed randomly if this was the only state in which the universe could exist. People like to assign meaning to randomness for no other reason than that the particular randomness effects them. If you were walking along the beach and noticed a fraction of shell lying on a particular 20 grains of sand, would you assume that a supernatural being had placed it there just because the likelihood of that very shell laying in that very spot is nearly nil?

However current studies put it at an almost supernatural force, with gravitons jetting into and out of our dimension etc.

Just because it's not yet entirely understood, it doesn't make it supernatural. They used to think the sun's orbit was supernatural, too.

The only issue I have with people claiming to not believe in God is when they claim it is the more rational belief, when in reality it takes a great deal of faith to disbelieve something that is constantly and repeatedly shown.


Where exactly has God been repeatedly shown? Is there a double feature at the Cinedome no one told me about?

I see the Hand of God in My Basement....It scares me sometimes....

really long fingernails, lol...

That's not god, that's Howard Hughes. Just run the vacuum at him, it should scare him off.

is evolution's foundation basically on adaptation?

This is the most complete version of the letter I can find, from the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/13/peopleinscience.religion).

The Albert Einstein Archives (http://www.alberteinstein.info/) looks like it should have it, but I don't think their site is working for me. They reference about six exchanges of correspondence between Gutkind and Einstein, including this one.

is evolution's foundation basically on adaptation?

No. Lollipops are for after lunch.

This from the man who claimed "God does not play dice with the universe"?

Einstein was refering to 'God' in a pantheistic sense, not a theistic one.

That’s not what Im saying at all. What I am saying is that it’s mathematically impossible for the universe to have formed in the state that it currently is by a random occurrence, right around 1 chance out of 10 to the 92nd power to be exact, which is more than the number of particles in the entire universe, multiplied by 100,000.


Source? I'm particularly intrigued to learn how you calculated this probability from a sample size of one with unknown parameters...

This is a misinterpretation. Take this quote for example.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

-Albert Einstein

How could he have said this without giving credit to religion?

If you read it in context (http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm) you'll see that he's using 'religion' in a very vague sense to mean a certain awe and reverence for the Universe:

Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

In this instance 'religion' is not incompatible with Atheism. Einstein actually goes on to say that there does exist a conflict between science and the Abrahamic religions:

Though I have asserted above that in truth a legitimate conflict between religion and science cannot exist, I must nevertheless qualify this assertion once again on an essential point, with reference to the actual content of historical religions. This qualification has to do with the concept of God. 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 to influence, the phenomenal world. Man sought to alter the disposition of these gods in his own favor by means of magic and prayer. The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old concept of the gods. Its anthropomorphic character is shown, for instance, by the fact that men appeal to the Divine Being in prayers and plead for the fulfillment of their wishes.

Nobody, certainly, will deny that the idea of the existence of an omnipotent, just, and omnibeneficent personal God is able to accord man solace, help, and guidance; also, by virtue of its simplicity it is accessible to the most undeveloped mind. But, on the other hand, there are decisive weaknesses attached to this idea in itself, which have been painfully felt since the beginning of history. That is, if this being is omnipotent, then every occurrence, including every human action, every human thought, and every human feeling and aspiration is also His work; how is it possible to think of holding men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an almighty Being? In giving out punishment and rewards He would to a certain extent be passing judgment on Himself. How can this be combined with the goodness and righteousness ascribed to Him?

The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and of science lies in this concept of a personal God. It is the aim of science to establish general rules which determine the reciprocal connection of objects and events in time and space. For these rules, or laws of nature, absolutely general validity is required--not proven. It is mainly a program, and faith in the possibility of its accomplishment in principle is only founded on partial successes. But hardly anyone could be found who would deny these partial successes and ascribe them to human self-deception. The fact that on the basis of such laws we are able to predict the temporal behavior of phenomena in certain domains with great precision and certainty is deeply embedded in the consciousness of the modern man, even though he may have grasped very little of the contents of those laws. He need only consider that planetary courses within the solar system may be calculated in advance with great exactitude on the basis of a limited number of simple laws. In a similar way, though not with the same precision, it is possible to calculate in advance the mode of operation of an electric motor, a transmission system, or of a wireless apparatus, even when dealing with a novel development.

is evolution's foundation basically on adaptation?

I'm afraid you'll need to be more precise about what you mean by 'foundation' before anyone can answer that.

So, this forces all those theists who use the appeal to authority as their arguement for gawd to find people other then Einstien.

Which is excellent.

Not really. People will just keep making up bullshit like they always have, because for some reason the thought of a cold and uncaring universe in which they are not at the center of is very unappealing and uncomfortable. So, they try to preserve their delusions at all costs. Sad, isn't it?

The God doesn't play dice was about his discomfort with Quantum theory.
The part that in very layman's terms, and my explanation would probably make a Quantum Physicist hurl, if you measure something's location, you can not know it's direction or speed, only a probability map. If you knew something trajectory, you could only have a probability map of it's position.
The use of God, is more for his audience, and to give it the capacity of a nice quote. Saying the forces that control the universe that I think shares some traits with an Abrahamic god, but is completely different, does not play dice with the universe, doesn't quite work, does it.

If you have some kind of religious faith, and it is shaken by this, it probably wasn't that strong a faith to begin with.

As far God playing dice goes, this..."God moves in extremely mysterious, not to say, circuitous ways. God does not play dice with the universe; He plays an ineffable game of His own devising, which might be compared, from the perspective of any of the other players, [ie., everybody.] to being involved in an obscure and complex version of poker in a pitch-dark room, with blank cards, for infinite stakes, with a Dealer who won't tell you the rules, and who smiles all the time."