Einstein was an atheist.

Time for religionists to get used to the embarrassing fact: the guy whose name has become synonymous with "genius" thinks religionists aren't. LOL.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/04/albert-einstein-god-letter-ebay-auction...

This is news to you?

> 3

Actually, no. I've had more than my share of on-line arguments with nincompoops who refuse to accept that Albert was not a superstitious freak like them.

I've also spent time arguing with fools who insist that T. Jefferson was a christian. Or that the Constitution is a christian document based on the bible. And so forth.

Many of your co-religionists are fools and liars and would argue with a goddamn sign post. Complete dumbasses.

Can't you do something to help the situation, AS? I think that would be nice.

Sigh. I will work on it, but they just refuse to listen.

http://www.adherents.com/people/pe/Albert_Einstein.html

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/albert-einstein-god-religion-theology.htm

Einstein's God

I know that it is quite important to those of the Atheist Church that every Great Man be of their belief, but the evidence is far from clear in this case. What we have is a single letter written at the end of a person's life, that is being touted by those anxious to sell it at a profit or a commission, that contradicts in some ways the previous public statements of that person. Which is the "authentic," "true," and "only possible view." Well, like most mixed historical questions, it is a matter of faith. LIve with it or deny the full spectrum of evidence.

>5 lawecon:: One of the links contains the reference to Einstein's belief "in Spinoza's 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". That nature of God is evidenced in Spinoza's view, "that in reality God acts and directs all things simply by the necessity of His nature and perfection, and that His decrees and volitions are eternal truths, and always involve necessity".
Usually referred to as pantheism, but arguably panentheism, Spinoza's, and Einstein's, beliefs are accompanied by the rejection of religion and of a personal god (particularly the Abramic God). Hence Spinoza, and by implication Einstein, are described by some as being atheists, or at least heathens.

~6

You know, JB, you and I and others have had this discussion for sometime. As you know, I tried at great length to get both the believers and the atheists in these forums to define what they meant by G-d. None of them would do so, beyond certain self-defeating definitions like "G_d can't be defined because he is beyond human imagination" or certain silly self-justifying definitions like "G_d is whatever is irrational and whatever I reject."

Now there is nothing at all in the history of religion that requires G_d to be personal. The G_d of the ancient Israelis was explicitly NOT personal. He cared about the Jewish People and their enemies. He didn't give a damn about most individuals, and when he did it was simply as instrumentalities. So please don't impose your Christian preconceptions on all religion.

Further, while it is somewhat more difficult to say that The Universe is G_d, the conception is not entirely incoherent, it just doesn't result in a G_d who spells out rules of behavior more restrictive than "those who use the best tactics will survive."

>6 jbbarret:: So please don't impose your Christian preconceptions on all religion.

I made no attempt to do so, but merely offered that there are those who would classify Einstein's beliefs as at least heathenry, and some fewer who would class it as atheism. This was based on widely accepted views, which may well differ from yours and from those of the ancient Israelis, as suggested by the following two examples.

A definition of heathen from the OED: "Of an individual or people: holding religious beliefs of a sort that are considered unenlightened, now esp. ones of a primitive or polytheistic nature; spec. not of the Christian, Jewish, or Muslim faiths".

From wikipedia, pagan or heathen may be used to specify, among others, "non-Abrahamic folk religion in general".

So there is a little more to justify those who put Einstein in the pigeon-hole of heathenry, rather than just "a single letter written at the end of {his} life".

As for your final sentence in #6: agreed. But I see no reason to reject a god that fits that or any other description. Nor to accept one.

There's more on Einstein's thoughts on God here.

After reading (as lawecon suggests) more than just that one letter referred to in #1, does anyone posting on these threads see any reason to put a label on Einstein's belief which is similar to their own? Most atheists here appear to have a strong belief that there is no god, so claiming Einstein as their own won't stack up, any more than do the claims of most theists here, who in general adhere to one of the major religions.

>9 jbbarret: any reason to put a label

There often seems to be a great desire to label people, even though labelling rarely covers the complexity and diversity within each individual.

>5 lawecon: Quoting from that first incoherent article (which is trying hard to make Einstein's Jewishness more than Einstein would have liked):

"In a letter to V. T. Aaltonen (7 May 1952), Einstein explained his opinion that belief in a personal God is better than atheism. Einstein said, "Mere unbelief in a personal God is no philosophy at all." Einstein Archive 59-059"

Of course disbelieving the existence of something isn't a philosophy. How does the idiot who wrote that article get from such a claim to: "belief in a personal God is better than atheism"???
_____________________

"In a letter to Hans Muehsam (30 March 1954), Einstein said: "I am a deeply religious nonbeliever... This is a somewhat new kind of religion." Einstein Archive 38-434"

In other words Einstein asserts himself to be a deeply feeling atheist.
_____________________

"In a letter to an Iowa student who asked, What is God? (July 1953), Einstein said, "To assume the existence of an unperceivable being... does not facilitate understanding the orderliness we find in the perceivable world." Einstein Archive 59-085"

In other words: We have no need for a "god" to explain the world. Apply Occam's razor.
_____________________

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_Einstein:

On the question of an afterlife Einstein stated to a Baptist pastor, "I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it."

And yes, there are also quotes in there (which you can read for yourself) (I invite you to quote here any that you would like to discuss) where he distances himself from atheism. I'd like to emphasise this quote though:
"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 and beautiful harmony of the structure of this world—as far as we can grasp it. And that is all."
____________________

The word "god" is put into service by so many disparate people and viewpoints that it winds up "meaning" anything and just about everything (excluding Lucifer, of course). But calling everything we encounter by exactly the same label, does not in any way aid in communication or in understanding.

It looks to me like Einstein used the word to signify the laws Newton subjected nature to, and used the word "religion" to signify feelings of awe and wonder.

For someone else to turn his words around and expect, or even demand, that I call their feelings "god" is absurd.

> Does labelling someone an "individual" fall in under your statement, John? Or for that matter labelling them "someone"... Or "them"... Or "people"...

>12 DiogenesOfSinope: No.

#9: Agnostics, atheists and deists all have their disagreements, and where the lines would be drawn depend on the day and person, but it's not unreasonable for atheists to claim Einstein as one of their own in a broader sense, so long as they admit it's in a broader sense. I certainly find the flat statement that Einstein was atheist suspect.

Just like it wouldn't be so annoying for theists to claim Thomas Jefferson as one of their own, if they would admit that orthodox Islam and Bahai, and probably many Jews, are as least as "Christian" as he was. He respected Jesus (even if he didn't believe in the Christ) and believed in God, Heaven and Hell.

#8: I don't know how you take the beliefs held by Spinoza or Einstein and call it "holding religious beliefs of a sort that are considered unenlightened, now esp. ones of a primitive or polytheistic nature" or "folk religion". Both of them held deeply abstract philosophical beliefs grown out of Judaism, not beliefs of a primitive nature or based on folk religion.

>14 prosfilaes: re. #8: It was the final part of the OED definition, "not of the Christian, Jewish, or Muslim faiths", similar to the wiki definition, which is frequently used to define heathenry. As you point out, the first part of the OED definition clearly does not apply in this case.

#15: You also cited Wikipedia, "non-Abrahamic folk religion in general". In any case, using heathen in the sense "not of the Christian, Jewish, or Muslim faiths" is basically bigoted and not very helpful. It's like using the word "colored" for someone's race; I'm normal, some of my friends are normal, but the rest of you aren't and all your distinctions just don't matter. It doesn't matter if you're Chinese, Zulu or Navajo or in the case of heathen, "atheist", Buddhist or a believer in the traditional Hopi religion, your differences are unimportant.

I'm pretty darn familiar with the vast majority of public statements that have come down to us by Einstein regarding religion, concepts of god, the meaning of morality and related subjects. I don't claim to be familiar with ALL of them, as I am not an Einstein scholar.

That being said, unless and until someone discovers something written by him that can be reasonably interpreted to be compatible with western monotheistic belief, then all I can say and will say is that I see no real disagreement between myself and the late Albert Einstein regarding religion, god, etc. And I am an atheist and have been one since 1977.

Now if someone who is conventionally religious wishes to think Einstein was on the same page as he is, then knock yourself out. Many people these days create their own reality and their own facts when the regular (actually real) facts fly in the face of their hopes and dreams. Fine.

But if you want to argue for your goofball ideas then that is where millions of rational and educated people are going to step up and say "Whoa hoss, you're getting things bassackwards." If that hurts someone's feelings, too effing bad.

The only way crap wins is if no one steps forward and calls out crap for the crap that it is.

If someone alleges Einstein "believed in god", I call crap. Prove it or STFU.

>16 prosfilaes:: Or if you prefer Merriam-Webster to OED and Wikipedia, there's:
"Definition of HEATHEN 1 : an unconverted member of a people or nation that does not acknowledge the God of the Bible."

You seem to be suggesting that these are my views. I'm suggesting that these are generally held views, as reflected by OED, Wikipedia, & Merriam-Webster, regarding a definition.

If someone wishes to call me a heathen based on these definitions then I see no reason per se to call them a bigot merely because a large part of our society uses the word in a perjorative sense.

What else does heathen mean?

I have no problem with being called a heathen. But then I am pretty thick-skinned regarding possible insults.

If heathen merely means someone who is not a christian, then certainly I am a heathen. Why wouldn't I be?

I will simply say that whether Einstein was a believer or not should not be the basis on other people becoming believers or choosing not to do so.

Einstein was an atheist

"Your question is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist." — Einstein

If someone alleges Einstein "believed in god", I call crap. Prove it or STFU.

"I believe in Spinoza's God" doesn't qualify as believing in God, right?

Look, there's a lot of material here (see, for example, the many passages collected at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_Einstein), but the simple fact is that Einstein was neither a doctrinaire atheist, a label he refused and whom he denigrated, nor a conventional believer of any sort, whose belief he also and repeatedly denigrated. Such a position is indeed puzzling if your world is too small to contain only the opinions you love to hate and those yourself possess. Einstein apparently saw other options, but then he was a genius.

The letter adds nothing whatsoever to the many previously-available statements.

#18: Neither Wikipedia nor Merriam-Webster support your use; Einstein was not a member of a "folk religion", and he was a Jew, a member of a people or nation that does acknowledge the God of the Bible.

If someone wishes to call me a heathen based on these definitions then I see no reason per se to call them a bigot merely because a large part of our society uses the word in a perjorative sense.

It's not about using the word in a pejorative sense; it's the simple concept that the world is meaningfully dividable into Abrahamic religions and other. It's not coincidental that it's pejorative; if you describe someone as a heathen, you're saying that they could worship the Goddess, or be a follower of Norse religion, or be an atheist or a Hindu or Tibetan Buddhist or follower of the native religion of the Hopi, but it's all the same to you.

It's like saying that that you are βάρβαρος; that is, that you speak a language that sounds like βαρ-βαρ-βαρ, a language that isn't Ancient Greek. Do you imagine for a second that someone who considers βάρβαρος an interesting category to put you in has anything but contempt for your language and by extension culture? (Hint: the word became the English "barbarian" and the apple didn't fall far from the tree.)

>21 timspalding: Spinoza was a very brave young man:
"Questioned by two members of the synagogue, Spinoza at this time apparently responded that God has a body and nothing in scripture says otherwise. He was later attacked on the steps of the synagogue by a knife-wielding assailant shouting "Heretic!" He was apparently quite shaken by this attack and for years kept (and wore) his torn cloak, unmended, as a souvenir."
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Spinoza

Spinoza's God was Nature: "Deus sive Natura" ("God or Nature"). "For Spinoza the whole of the natural universe is made of one substance, God, or, what's the same, Nature, and its modifications (modes)."
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinozism

Thus again I conclude that Einstein's God was Nature. Nothing more.

Guess what. I too accept that nature exists. (Surprised?) And that I am a part of nature. But as the word "God" has other meanings and implications, and as the word "nature" says as much as needs be said, I dismiss the redundant synonymity of "God" and "Nature". For the sake of clarity of communication. (Not "because I hate nature, or God", or child rape.)

BTW, if God is Nature, then that word-play also explains why "God can't be ruled out by science", because nature is exactly what science studies. But then I prefer clarity of communication, don't I.

"I am not an Atheist" vs "I am a deeply religious nonbeliever":
Do you feel, Tim, that my synonymity of "atheist" and "nonbeliever" is redundant? If so, please explain why, so I can try to understand. Are you willing, and able, to call Einstein a nonbeliever? I'd be happy to call him that. (If I remember to.)

I think Einstein was a better physicist than he was a philosopher. I also get the feeling that he rejected the term "atheist" for the associations he made with the word at the time.

But his somewhat convoluted idea of "not athiest, but nonbeliever" might well fall under the umbrella of how we understand the term "athiest" today--the rejection of a "higher intelligence" as a working force in the universe.

~24

First paragraph is fine and probably correct.

Second paragraph seems to neglect his stated reason for rejecting quantum mechanics.

>25 lawecon: is that a reference to the whole "God does not play dice" thing? Because honestly, I've always seen that as a rejection of the idea that there is something in the universe that is "unknowable" rather than a specific statement of belief in God.

~26

I didn't realize that quantum mechanics believed that "there is something in the universe that is 'unknowable'". Care to rephrase?

>27 lawecon: well I'm not a physicist so I admit my understanding is limited. But I thought Einstein was rejecting the notion that you can't know where something is and how fast it is moving at the same time, and that thus scientific determinism--the notion that if you know all the variables you can predict the outcome--is not possible.

>28 southernbooklady: Stephen Hawking commented, "Thus it seems that even God is bound by the Uncertainty Principle, and can not know both the position, and the speed, of a particle. So God does play dice with the universe. All the evidence points to him being an inveterate gambler, who throws the dice on every possible occasion". No doubt someone can deduce from this that Hawking is a theist, and from his, "This reality might be known to God, but the quantum nature of light would prevent us seeing it, except through a glass darkly" that he is a Christian with a preference for the King James Version of the Bible.

>29 jbbarret: Right. It seems more like a cultural reference than a statement of religious belief. The language of Christianity is pervasive in the Western world.

> 30 Sorry, was editing #29 while you were posting #30. But the gist of my message remains the same.

Physicists are notorious for taking His name in vain.

> 24 ".....I also get the feeling that he rejected the term "atheist" for the associations he made with the word at the time. But his somewhat convoluted idea of "not atheist, but nonbeliever" might well fall under the umbrella of how we understand the term "atheist" today--the rejection of a "higher intelligence" as a working force in the universe."

All correct. And thank you for verifying the truth of the matter in the face of all the bullshit.

I myself can reject the label "atheist" just like Einstein did, and for the same reasons. The fact remains that we are both atheists. Certainly he was not an anti-theist, or at least not to the degree that I am, but Einstein meets all the criteria needed to be accurately identified as an atheist - just like I do.

If someone prefers some other term besides atheist to self-label, then that is fine. But one is what one is, and one is not what one is not. Labels don't mean shit regarding what a person plainly and simply is, as based on a complete analysis of what they said, over and over again, in essence or flat out.

Saying Einstein was a theist because he used the words god or religion a lot , or rejected the label atheist for various reasons is total bullshit. And I think the bullshiters know this.

If anyone here has been bullshiting us about all this, please stop. Bullshit is not nice. Plus you are not fooling anyone.

Thank you.

The fact that there is a Religious views of Einstein page on wikipedia shows just what a partisan sprawl of nonsense it has become. Einstein's religion or lack of it is not why he is significant. Making him a totem for your beliefs cheapens his scientific legacy.

> 34

I agree. Religionists should stop lying about him for partisan political purposes.

#27: I didn't realize that quantum mechanics believed that "there is something in the universe that is 'unknowable'".

That's at the very core of quantum theory: the uncertainty principle actually states a fundamental property of quantum systems, and thus the universe - - that much is formally 'unknowable' , and that there are hard limits to what can be known.

#33: Saying Einstein was a theist because he used the words god or religion a lot , or rejected the label atheist for various reasons is total bullshit.

He didn't seem to let go of the concept of God. There's agnostics who might be better labeled atheists, as they accept the existence of God as theory only, but Einstein doesn't seem to be one of them. Einstein's statement that "God does not play dice" seems perfectly in line with a deist who wanted a universe God set up and let run.

Put another way: it's not bullshit to call someone who says they believe in God a theist. There may be complex reasons to call them an atheist, but ultimately you're cutting fine lines, and cutting them in a different direction from the way the person in question did.

> 37

You're not that familiar with the many well-known quotes of Einstein regarding religion and god, are you? Perhaps you should familiarize yourself before continuing input on this subject.

As for the "god does not play dice with the universe" quote - Einstein liked to use the word god as a metaphor for the universe, as he liked to used the words religion/religious in speaking of morals/ethics. You do understand that does not mean he was a theist, right?

Einstein rejected quantum mechanics because he was a determinist. He held out for hidden variables to the end. Determinists do not believe in god in any sense that would ever impress a theist.

The quote god does not play dice with the universe = the universe operates the way it does because that is just the way it is - is could not be another way. IOW, determinism.

The quote god does not play dice with the universe does not equal there is a mind or person named god who controls the universe and does not just randomly or mindlessly do things but makes choices for a purpose and the universe is the way it is because of his will.

If you think all of that is wrong then give us the Einstein quotes that indicate otherwise. Give us a quote from him something like the following and you win:

“When I say god I mean a mind or person in charge of the universe. When I say religion I mean belief in the supernatural.”
- Albert Einstein

Go ahead, prosf9lies, find us a quote from Einstein that is even remotely similar to the above or quit wasting our time with what you conjecture may or may not be - or how something can be interpreted or not - or whatever your problem is.

I can only refer you to post #1. Einstein believed religion is myth. That includes god. Why isn't that clear enough for you? It obviously isn't clear enough for some rather dense people but you don't appear dense. So what is your problem? Specifically?

Thus again I conclude that Einstein's God was Nature. Nothing more.

Einstein's views are not entirely clear insofar as he didn't wholeheartedly and consistently embrace Spinoza or pantheism. (He was at least very sympathetic to both.) However, believing that "everything is God" is not the same as believing "there is no God." In philosophical terms, there is a difference between pantheistic and atheistic monism.

While you think that, if everything is nature, and God is everything, one should "dismiss the redundant synonymity," that is not what pantheists believe. In using the term "pantheism," and deprecating "atheism," Einstein seems to have disagreed with you here too.

If the distinction between monisms is unclear to you, I suggest you "Look It Up" rather than berating us again and again to "Shut the Fuck Up."

But his somewhat convoluted idea of "not atheist, but nonbeliever" might well fall under the umbrella of how we understand the term "atheist" today--the rejection of a "higher intelligence" as a working force in the universe."

To be clear however a "doctrinaire" pantheist also rejects this "higher intelligence" as a working force in the universe. They would see the higher intelligence AS the universe. In one sense, a pantheist seems to undermine theism. In another their theism is more total than others--they think EVERYTHING is God. (I, by contrast, am a theist about only some things. I think buttered toast is not God; I am a toast atheist.)

Clearly pantheism doesn't fall into the neat binaries of modern theist/atheist argument. If your mental universe can brook none other than Dawkins or the Pope, it's going to frustrate you. This is no excuse to force pantheism into being something it isn't.

god does not play dice with the universe

FWIW, I think this is a canard—very likely devoid of useful "religious" information about him. What's not a canard are Einstein's repeated and explicit identifications with Spinoza and pantheism.

A distinction without a difference.

Or as Alan Watts used to put it (paraphasing) "When I tell my western friends 'I am god.' they are horrified and accuse me of blasphemy. When I tell my eastern friends 'I am god.' they congratulate me on figuring it out."

LOL.

#40: I see the argument that it's a distinction without a difference, but there's a huge step between that and believing the opposing argument is bullshit. When a man is emphatic that he believes in God, both in public and private, then there is a strong prima facie argument that he was a theist. You can mess with the lines between atheism and theism all you want, but ultimately you're playing a definitional game and you're not going to convince anyone who isn't predisposed to accept your argument.

Does anyone know anything about Spinoza's opinions about aesthetics? Unlike eastern pantheism, Spinoza expressly denied any sort of teleology to the universe. I would assume that this also precluded any essential, non-subjective principle of beauty.

Einstein, however, seems to marry his pantheism with persistent aesthetic concerns--that the universe is intrinsically beautiful, even to the point of demanding our "humility"—a very non-Spinozan notion. His famous statement about "God not playing dice" similarly, if it has any religious content, to be an argument from aesthetics.

I gather from this article (first page only) that Spinoza almost never mentioned the concept of beauty, but put it alongside other "notions" like good, evil and order. ( http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/431135?uid=3739832&uid=2129&uid=2&... ) I presume from the inclusion of "order" that Spinoza was no fan of the notion of harmony. Googling "spinoza harmony" I get over and over Einstein's quote:

"I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."

It seems to me that Einstein's concept of God was NOT that of Spinoza, and that in identifying God and order, he was making a move Spinoza himself disclaimed. I'm happy to be schooled here, if someone can tell me why I'm wrong.

For your delectation, Einstein's poem about Spinoza: http://www.autodidactproject.org/other/einstein9-spinoza8.html

I'm dropping a note with jbd1 . Spinoza's library is partially known. We should add it to Legacy Libraries (see http://www.spinozaetnous.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=24 )

> 41

I know the difference between pantheism and theism. There is no confusion here. Pantheists in general use the word god to mean something I don't find either meaningful, useful or explanatory. As an atheist I have absolutely no serious argument with pantheism.

In fact I have no argument at all with pantheism. If a pantheist wishes to use the word god, I say so what? If doing so causes confusion to someone such can be readily cleared up.

Sure - there are atheists who have sticks up their asses regarding certain words. I am not one of those. Perhaps I was decades ago but I am nearly 64 years old now. I don't have time to argue goddamn semantics.

(E.g., I've read Elements of Pantheism by Paul Harrison and books on Advaita Vedanta, etc. and I have no argument against any of that.)

-------------

Now, as for Spinoza, I think he was admired by Einstein because he seems a determinist too. Spinoza's fellow Jews denounced him as an atheist and threw him of the club.

As far as I can tell they were right.

Pantheists in general use the word god to mean something I don't find either meaningful, useful or explanatory. As an atheist I have absolutely no serious argument with pantheism.

You are welcome to it. But who ever said the question of whether "Einstein was an atheist" was really who you "have an argument with"?

Einstein was an atheist. That is a settled fact among knowledgeable, rational, and disinterested parties.

Rather than an actual argument for me there is only the necessary dealing with recalcitrants who pop up - sort of like warts.

If you have any more softballs to toss my way I will gladly smack them into the next county.

I am here for you.

Have a nice night.

Einstein was an atheist. That is a settled fact among knowledgeable, rational, and disinterested parties.

I get that you don't think pantheism cuts water—it's just atheism with a funny hat, or perhaps "sexed-up atheism" as Dawkins put it. I find it a flawed conception myself. But that's not what Einstein believed. If he had he would have (a) not said he was a pantheist (b) said he was an atheist (c) not said, repeatedly, that he wasn't an atheist.

I really wonder about you. A man says explicitly, directly and in exactly these words "I am not an atheist," and you think you can call him an atheist? Do you think "rational" and "disinterested" people are in the habit taking repeated statements by people about their own belief and REVERSING THEM?! Worse, do you think "disinterested" parties intentionally reverse things and then call all who disagree ignorant, irrational and partisan? Honestly, what a pile—what a mountain—of nonsense!

>47 JGL53: Einstein was an atheist. That is a settled fact among knowledgeable, rational, and disinterested parties.

I have no idea whether Einstein was an atheist or whether it really makes any difference whether he was or not, but this statement seems to me to be typical of JGL and one or two other posters. It's a dogmatic statement of opinion which brooks no disagreement. The fact that many people on LT and in the world might disagree, seeing the situation as more nuanced, suggests that it is not a "settled fact", but that is covered by dismissing them as ignorant, irrational and partisan. The possibility that JGL himself is not a "disinterested" party (see the tone of >1 JGL53:, for example) is of course not part of JGL's worldview. Neither, apparently, is "nuance". Everything is black or white.

>48 timspalding: A man says explicitly, directly and in exactly these words "I am not an atheist," and you think you can call him an atheist?

Well I think in this case you can argue his statement lacks context--a context we can only guess at since he is not around to elaborate any further.

I could say, for example, "I am not gay." Is that a true or false statement? I might mean that my sexual identity is heterosexual. I might also mean that I am a lesbian, and thus not "gay" if gay means homosexual men. I might mean that I don't identify with gay culture. It all very much depends on my personal definition of the word. I suspect that is the case with Einstein and the word "atheism" -- a term he seems to find distasteful.

"Pantheism," I have to say, befuddles me. I find the notion that "the universe is God" a somewhat pointless, useless statement.

~49

"I have no idea whether Einstein was an atheist or whether it really makes any difference whether he was or not, but this statement seems to me to be typical of JGL and one or two other posters. It's a dogmatic statement of opinion which brooks no disagreement."

Oh, careful, careful, speaking this sort of truth, even if it is vague whether you are speaking of posters or their posts (which this time it isn't) can net you all sorts of red flags. You see, atheists are allowed to mouth every ignorant liable they can think of about believers, but the other way around is a violation of TOS. And given the uniformity with which Librarything policies these matters....... well........ ah.........

>51 lawecon:: I assume you meant libel rather than liable
(if not, can I get one of those nice little red flag things for this)

Yes, thanks for the correction. Haven't had my coffee yet this morning. I see I also mangled "polices".

But the point is now clearer and the same. It is truly amazing how "sensitive" some militant atheists are on these boards, a trait that they share with the extreme fundamentalists. But, hey, that all at once makes sense......

Well I think in this case you can argue his statement lacks context--a context we can only guess at since he is not around to elaborate any further.

The statement has context. It is this:

"Your question (about God) is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's Pantheism. I admire even more his contributions to modern thought. Spinoza is the greatest of modern philosophers, because he is the first philosopher who deals with the soul and the body as one, not as two separate things."

On many similar occasions Einstein refused the label atheist and expressed either agnosticism or Spinoza-ish pantheism.

I regret nobody has the knowledge to help me on the aesthetic question. Spinoza seems to have no aesthetics, or concept of divine order or beauty. Einstein certain did. So, for example, he criticizes atheists as "creatures who—in their grudge against the traditional 'opium of the people'—cannot bear the music of the spheres." If one wants to find differences between pantheism and naturalism it is surely in things like that—whether there is any transcendent purpose or beauty in the universe. Einstein himself speaks repeatedly of the transcendence of pantheism, as opposed to atheism.

>54 timspalding: Einstein refused the label atheist and expressed either agnosticism or Spinoza-ish pantheism.

I get agnostic. The pantheism still confuses me. Perhaps that's because I don't understand Spinoza.

But the agnosticism, at least as expressed in the quoted paragraph, sounds like a kind of fallback position. And his statement that our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious forces of the cosmos seems at odds with his adherence to scientific determinism.

he criticizes atheists as "creatures who—in their grudge against the traditional 'opium of the people'—cannot bear the music of the spheres."

And it is this that makes me ask questions about context, since I don't find an appreciation for "the music of the spheres" foreign to atheism at all.

>55 southernbooklady: his statement that our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious forces of the cosmos seems at odds with his adherence to scientific determinism

There can be nuances, complexity, paradoxes and contradictions (apparent or otherwise) within a single human being's thought - even a genius. Especially a genius?

Perhaps Einstein was being deliberately ambiguous. Openly admitting his atheism during his early years as a celebrity scientist would have caused him to be questioned about it on every occasion. Better to leave your audience confused.

I suspect that Hawking also used the same strategy.

I think that this discussion is getting rather silly. It is clear at this point that everyone is going to believe what they want to believe and claim Einstein for their camp, although most of us would be willing to admit that he was neither a philosopher or a theologian.

But as someone once observed: "Its a chat(ter) room."

Einstein's conversations with William Hermanns were recorded over a 34-year correspondence. In the conversations Einstein makes various statements about the Christian Churches in general and the Catholic Church in particular: "When you learn the history of the Catholic Church, you wouldn't trust the Center Party. Hasn't Hitler promised to smash the Bolsheviks in Russia? The Church will bless its Catholic soldiers to march alongside the Nazis" (March 1930). "I predict that the Vatican will support Hitler if he comes to power. The Church since Constantine has always favoured the authoritarian State, as long as the State allows the Church to baptize and instruct the masses" (March 1930). "So often in history the Jews have been the instigators of justice and reform whether in Spain, Germany or Russia. But no sooner have they done their job than their 'friends', often blessed by the Church, spit in their faces" (August 1943).

"But what makes me shudder is that the Catholic Church is silent. One doesn't need to be a prophet to say, 'The Catholic Church will pay for this silence...I do not say that the unspeakable crimes of the Church for 2,000 years had always the blessing of the Vatican, but it vaccinated its believers with the idea: We have the true God, and the Jews have crucified Him.' The Church sowed hate instead of love, though the ten commandments state: Thou shalt not kill" (August 1943). "With a few exceptions, the Roman Catholic Church has stressed the value of dogma and ritual, conveying the idea theirs is the only way to reach heaven. I don't need to go to Church to hear if I'm good or bad; my heart tells me this" (August 1943). "I don't like to implant in youth the Church's doctrine of a personal God, because that Church has behaved so inhumanly in the past 2,000 years... Consider the hate the Church manifested against the Jews and then against the Muslims, the Crusades with their crimes, the burning stakes of the inquisition, the tacit consent of Hitler's actions while the Jews and the Poles dug their own graves and were slaughtered. And Hitler is said to have been an altar boy!" (August 1943).

"Yes" Einstein replied vehemently, "It is indeed human, as proved by Cardinal Pacelli (the future Pope Pius XII), who was behind the Concordat with Hitler. Since when can one make a pact with Christ and Satan at the same time?" (August 1943). "The Church has always sold itself to those in power, and agreed to any bargain in return for immunity." (August 1943) "If I were allowed to give advice to the Churches," Einstein continued, "I would tell them to begin with a conversion among themselves, and to stop playing power politics. Consider what mass misery they have produced in Spain, South America and Russia." (September 1948).

In response to a Catholic convert who asked "Didn't you state that the Church was the only opponent of Communism?" Einstein replied, "I don't have to emphasise that the Church at last became a strong opponent of National Socialism, as well." Einstein's secretary Helen Dukas added, "Dr. Einstein didn't mean only the Catholic church, but all churches." When the convert mentioned that family members had been gassed by the Nazis, Einstein replied that "he also felt guilty—adding that the whole Church, beginning with the Vatican, should feel guilt." (September 1948)

"About God, I cannot accept any concept based on the authority of the Church... As long as I can remember. I have resented mass indoctrination. I cannot prove to you there is no personal God, but if I were to speak of him, I would be a liar. I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil. His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking, but by immutable laws" (1954). William Miller of Life Magazine who was present at this meeting described Einstein as looking like a "living saint" and speaking with "angelic indifference."

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_Einstein#William_Hermanns...

Nobody is arguing Einstein was a Catholic. I can imagine no other motive for quoting four paragraphs on the topic other than the confusion I spoke of earlier--a refusal to understand anything other than simple binaries, like whether Einstein was Dawkins or the Pope. Well, he wasn't the Pope. So I guess you win.

>57 darrow: I remember something or other that I can't find. On learning Einstein's views on God, some religious leader in the US wrote to him stating that Einstein was unwanted in America. He could return to Germany. This was in the late '30s or during the war so the man had a pretty good idea what Einstein would face.

Maybe Einstein was not only wary of distractions from his true interest, but was also directly afraid of the consequences of speaking his true mind. Unfortunately we can never know with 100% certainty, but fortunately for us, there is less and less reason for us to hide our thoughts.

> 50, 55, 57, 59, 61

Yes, correct.

The rest of the posts here were the usual crap we get from disingenuous parties.

So what is theism? It - at minimum - is belief in the reality of a personal god, a belief in that's god's judgment regarding human doings, his interaction with humans, and includes some sort of continuation of human life as a spirit or soul after the end of our material life.

Atheism literally means "not a theist". Another way of expressing this is "non-theist". For the purpose of the discussion that is how I am defining atheism, and it is how I apply the term to myself - and to Einstein, not to mention tens of millions of others. (As opposed to anti-theism, which additionally applies to some but not all.)

When Einstein spoke about the idea of a personal god, one who is concerned with human doings, or the idea of mind/body or spirit/matter dualism (I.e., the idea of life after death) - he ruled these concepts out as obviously childish imaginations. He gave no credence to the ideas at all.

Einstein identified himself - on more than one occasion - in books and letters to friends or acquaintances - in so many words as a non-theist - to anyone who can read and understand plain English.

So what is the argument? Can everyone accept that Einstein was a non-theist, albeit not an "atheist" - as defined in some emotional way?

OK. We can then not only agree to disagree, we can actually agree.

Unless someone wishes to maintain Einstein wasn't a non-theist. And your evidence for that would be........?

>60 timspalding: Nope, that wasn't it. I liked the fact that he had a good, clear understanding of the Catholic church. Admittedly as it was at that time, but I don't take too seriously any claims that it has learnt to behave itself out of the goodness of it's dogma.

So what is theism? It - at minimum - is belief in the reality of a personal god, a belief in that's god's judgment regarding human doings, his interaction with humans, and includes some sort of continuation of human life as a spirit or soul after the end of our material life.

No, it's the belief in a God. Look it up. It has no necessary connection with a "personal God," a God involved with human beings or life after death. Pantheists don't believe in a personal God, deists don't believe in a God involved with humans and not only does theism have NOTHING to say about life after death, but any number of ancient and modern theistic religions have no concept of life after death. You're just wrong. Get a dictionary. (Yes, in certain specific context theism is used as a contrast-word to other concepts of the divine. But theism was first used as a simple opposite of atheism, and is most commonly used in that sense.)

There's no question but that Einstein did not believe in a personal God. If that's how you define theism, then, well, you have an defective understanding of language, but you got his opinion right.

From dictionary.com

the·ism (thee-iz-uhm)
noun
1.
the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation ( distinguished from deism).

2.
belief in the existence of a god or gods ( opposed to atheism).

Apparently the person/persons who came up with these definitions were giving the THEISTIC definition of god - ONLY - as they should have.

A personal god. A god who is a person. Or personal gods. One who interacts with humans. I.e., reveals himself. Or themselves.

So thanks for making my point for me. Thanks for agreeing, finally, with the obvious truth of the matter.

But most of all, thanks for being you.

I find it amazing who you can offer evidence that actually undermines your claim, and then crow over your victory. I am sure the atheists are glad to have you on their side.

> 66

Would you like to explain that? It makes no sense. Thanks.

>62 JGL53: "Can everyone accept that Einstein was a non-theist"

What? And give away their opportunities for catching the unwary? Those who do not yet know of the distinctions between "theist" and "deist", between truth and "truth", and between god, God, God, God, (insert as many different things labelled God as you think you can get away with) and Wotan?

Come on JGL, don't ask them to give up that easily for us.

Merriam Webster: "1. belief in the existence of a god or gods"

Wikipedia: "Theism, in the broadest sense, is the belief that at least one deity exists."

American Heritage: "Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world."

As stated, there is a term-of-art usage of it as a contrast to deism. In this context Thomas Jefferson was a deist not a theist. This is not the most common usage. (Similarly, there is a use of "theism" by Christian theologians to characterize theologies which make God excessively separate from creation.)

>68 DiogenesOfSinope:

You use Wotan a lot. Be careful, he may get angry.

>70 timspalding: Ooooooooo, now I'm really scared.

1) You say theism is the belief in a personal god, and that Einstein was not a theist. (62)

2) Tim says that theism does NOT entail belief in a personal god. (64)

3) You give two definitions of theists; A) the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation ( distinguished from deism) and B) belief in the existence of a god or gods ( opposed to atheism).

Neither of these use the term personal, but you go on to say, and here is where you confuse me, that the definitions were written by persons, thus entail belief in a personal god? Or some such twaddle.

And Voila, you have bested Tim.

You are better at this than Romney!

> 69

Not going to stop with the disingenuousness, are you?

OK.

1. Einstein did not believe in a god in any way separate from the universe. That seem clear. He rejected philosophical dualism many, many times. (Do we really need to give the quotes one more time?)

2. One really MUST believe in (at least one) god that is in some real and meaningful way separate and distinct from his, her or their creation, i.e., the universe.

3. Ergo, Einstein did not believe in a person god (or gods), he was not a theist or deist.

Got it NOW, ts? Because if you don't I give up. I cannot put this in simpler terms. You either have what it takes to understand this - or you don't.

And for the record, I don't think Einstein was a theist, I think he merely used theist language, but I would appreciate it if you did not support me that.

> 72

And Christ on a Crutch, you are the best at word salad.

Does that pay a lot or is it just a hobby?

> 74

I'm with you on the first three phrases, but the last one doesn't make sense. Did you leave out a preposition or something?

See above, message 39. Einstein's views seem to have wavered somewhat, but he identified his views with those of pantheism. It's clear you believe pantheism is identical with atheism. Insofar as he himself refused the label of "atheism," it's clear he didn't agree with you on that.

It pays well when you are good at it. Writing legislation for instance. Paying attention to what the words say.

Aside. When I started, I wrote a bill that got wildly misinterpreted by Leg Finance. They wrote a fiscal note for it that ranged between $5 and $146 million. An older timer took me aside, told me I had to use language very carefully in this job. He said:

I told my wife I was going to the store to buy a carton of milk. She said, "If they have eggs get a dozen." They had eggs, so I brought home a dozen cartons of milk.

Yes, I left an "on" out. What was the third phrase?

Let's restate the issue:

1. Einstein was not a traditional believer in any religion.
2. Einstein did not believe in a personal God, a God who punishes or in life after death.
3. Einstein did not believe in a God who was "separate" from nature or the universe.
4. Einstein identified most closely with pantheism, which holds that everything is God.
5. Einstein identified with the pantheism of the great Jewish philosopher Spinoza, although, as I have noted, it's not entirely clear if he agreed with Spinoza on everything, insofar as his pantheism had an aesthetic and transcendent quality to it.
6. Pantheism may or may not be illogical, but Spinoza and Einstein did not believe it to be.

>73 JGL53: One really MUST believe in (at least one) god that is in some real and meaningful way separate and distinct from his, her or their creation, i.e., the universe.

And this is where I get tripped up on the concept of pantheism and "the universe is God." Does not "God" --or a higher intelligence--imply a separateness from his/its supposed creation. Doesn't it imply a kind of intention--a decision to make this kind of universe, not that kind?

Is Einstein arguing for a higher intelligence at work in the universe? If so, then I don't understand what this higher intelligence means to him.

If it means some greater entity that can act upon the universe in supernatural ways, or an entity/force/whatever that exhibits "abstract thought, understanding, self-awareness, communication, reasoning, learning, having emotional knowledge, retaining, planning, and problem solving" (Wiki's list of some of the attributes of "intelligence") then I would have to say my concept of atheism--what I mean when I say I am an atheist--does not include the possibility of such an entity. I think it is clear though, that Einstein does not being in such a being.

But if "a higher intelligence" is a phrase meant to suggest that the universe and everything in it can be regarded as a kind of "super organism" in the sense that any closed system can be described that way, then I would say the jury is still out, mostly because I don't know if the universe is a closed system.

But even so, I would not regard this second definition as a thinly veiled religious concept, or a convoluted way to talk about God, and it seems to me that you CAN be an atheist and still regard the inter-connectedness of all the stuff in the universe without being considered agnostic. And thus it seems like Einstein could well be considered an atheist by other athiests even though he says he is not one. Just as I could well be considered gay by other gay people, even if I insist I am not gay, I am a lesbian.

> 76

The disingenuousness never stops with you, does it?

I patiently explain the different between non-theist and atheist (defined with all the historical baggage) and you just whistle a tune and stare at the ceiling.

I see no real difference between pantheists and atheists regarding the fact that neither are theists.

Einstein was not a theist, by any stretch of the imagination. Thus, to put it another way using different words that mean the same thing, Einstein was a non-theist.

I can leave it lie there. If you can't then lay some more word salad on us.

> 79

All correct.

Thank you.

As this does not contradict my point in post #1, then we are in agreement.

Why did it take 82 posts?

> 80

All correct.

If one uses the word "god" as a synonym for "all that is", i.e., the universe, then I believe in god. Yeah for me - I'ze a Believer!

A distinction without a difference, as I stated before.

E.g., the book "Elements of Pantheism" by Paul Harrison, in which he gives an eloquent explanation of what pantheism is - I can sum the book up in five words: Paul Harrison is an atheist.

There are websites devoted to pantheism. Check them out. Guess what - It's all atheists who do not call themselves atheists simply because they don't like the way "atheist" is defined by people who are not atheists and never will be (but of course always think they know what atheism is, even if actual atheists don't).

What a world.

> 77

I just got into a debate on another forum in which my opponent immediately assumed I was a christian.

Beat that.

>83 JGL53: A distinction without a difference, as I stated before.

But apparently a distinction with a difference as far as Einstein was concerned. But nothing in what's been quoted explains that difference to me.

So perhaps he really was, as Tim suggests (albeit tongue in cheek) an "atheist in a funny hat."

> 85

Not a distinction between atheism/pantheism as opposed to theism. That was my point.

The word atheist is problematic for many people - because of the historical associations which the majority of people (who are not atheists) necessarily associate with it. That is what this whole stupid back and forth between myself and others on this thread is really all about.

The way I have seen the word "pantheism" defined - about 99.44 per cent of the time, is the same as the way I define atheism. Let's say one is a positive definition (pantheism) and one is the negative (atheism) but at the end of the day we arrive at the same place.

Many people seem utterly confused sometimes over mere words. Maybe it would have been best if we humans had never invented them.

LOL.

I see this has already been covered in #83, but here be my thoughts anyveighz:

Just throwing something in "randomly", by which I mean, not directing it at anything specific in the thread. Maybe I mean generally, rather than randomly.

One problem with the word "god" is that it is easy for the unwary to think that those of a theistic type of persuasion (general enough?), mean by it an Apollo-like being. One flitting about here and there, with a more or less corporeal existence, with more or less identifiable, errr, specifiable, qualities or something... But unfortunately, they have had plenty of time and practice at saying things that mean less and less, or cover more and more (more in a quantity meaning, not in a meaningful meaning). So "god" could refer to everything that there is any/every/other/no-where. Not very kind of them, I think, but they seem to find ... "meaning" in life that way.

What may or may not be agreed to by them, is that Apollo would be a personal god, whereas "the ground of all being" would be a non-personal god.

Was that oddness helpful to anyone?

(Thought I'd ease up on the other guy, Tim, just in case...)

Now that we've all agreed that atheism is pantheism, and there is no disagreement between you guys and Einstein. I would like your personal assent to following formulations:

1. The harmony of natural law reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.
2. Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

All agreed?

>86 JGL53: "Maybe it would have been best if we humans had never invented them." (certain words)

Back in the day someone invented Zeus et al. At some point their non-existence became embarrassingly obvious, but darn it all, the nights could get so boring, and Sundays (or whatever day the Greeks rested). So they reinvented him, and after all the 'D' and the 'Z' are apparently pretty much interchangeable in Greek, so they changed his name to Deus, and I'm boring myself a bit, but Deus became Deos, lost his Olympian biography in "favour" of that Hebrew vileness, and hey presto! Constantine had a neat means of controlling the masses, or plebs as I think he'd call them.

Other words invented are words like "omnipotence", I mean take "all" and "pimple" and you get a being that is "allpimpled", or omnipapula, right? No? After all philosophers have discussed a God with pimples covering every atom of his surface, or non-surface?, for 25 centuries so He must exist, right? Heretic!

>88 timspalding: No, Tim.

As much as I like, and won't pick a quarrel with, JGL, I don't see myself ever calling myself a pantheist. (Though I have read something pantheistic from 100 years ago that I rather appreciated at the time, but it didn't go far enough for my liking.) Simply for the sake of the unwary, whom I do not trust Pat Robertson (to display equal opportunity anti-clericalism) not to lure into error. Well, and due to the fact that I think there exist perfectly good words for "everything", namely "everything", "nature", and "the universe", though admittedly, that last one gets a bit ...something or other what with these multiverses popping in and out of my attention.

1. Nope. Nothing intelligent about blowing up billions of stars and galaxies for the simple sake of creating me. Chris Rea, mayb... uh, no.

2. Science without feelings is science. Feelings without science, well, one day maybe science will be able to get at what feelings are at some (sub-)atomic level, and that will be very helpful, but maybe we need to supplement the science with, oh I dunno, philosophy maybe? We'll figure something out.

And on that note of figuring something out: We are mammals. We are overgrown apes. Such creatures do dumb things. They, that is we, make mistakes. But we're not actually that bad at learning from our mistakes. And we're pretty tough. Evolution has been a hard, but resilience-crafting master. And we've come up with science to enhance our toughness: medicines to cure us, clothes and houses to protect us, machinery to do our work for us, robots to walk for us, and even robots that "read" our minds and can perform simple tasks for stroke victims (cough, lab-stage still). But that's not what you want, eh? You want beauty and stuff? I've said it before, and I'll say it again: that story about that wooden monstrosity that would never float in the real world (it wouldn't handle the water-pressure) horrorised rainbows for me. I much prefer them without that vileness.

But that's still not getting at the heart of the issue, is it?

I see "religion" (whatever is meant by the word) as saying: "you are more than an ape", "you can aspire to feeling feelings of sublimity, feelings of refinement and...". Ummm, I think of gorillas sitting quietly munching whatever they munch, and I think: dignity. When we aspire to be more than what we are, apes (admittedly with some "intelligence"), we ... Well, I think we lose something, we lose that dignity. I'm expressing myself somewhat inadequately I fear,

I hear talk of how "it's not religion's fault that human's are imperfect, that they don't measure up". Oh boy. (Warning: This is generalising for the sake of making an analogy, it may not be accurate or true:) The Greeks set standards of ideal beauty. If you didn't measure up eg you were a dwarf, or your nose was crooked, well, something wrong with you. Or maybe there was something wrong with the standard? There certainly is something wrong with religion. More than there is wrong with us apes.

> 88

Albert Einstein: "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can (for me) change this.
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. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them."

Agreed, ts?

"they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power"

LOL

>91 JGL53:

It is agreed, he was not a believer in monotheism or in Judaism in particular.

>90 DiogenesOfSinope:

I understand and appreciate that, but it creates a certain distance between what you believe and what Einstein did. I left off the quotes, but they are both direct quotes from Einstein, as you probably guessed.

> 88, > 93

Einstein many times, when he was obviously not trying to be literal in any way, spoke in flowery metaphorical expressive terms.

So those two quotes are what you have for a counterargument - Now, after all this back-and-forth of wasted time and energy, mainly due to your puny efforts at smoke and mirrors?

THIS is the best you can come up with at the last trump?

Are you trying to make me die laughing? Is that your evil plan? It must be.

Well, if so then I've laughed at you mighty hardily for a good bit now, and I am still alive.

So you lose. Ha.

- Einstein was not a superstitious ass, no matter how you twist the facts.

Get over it.

We're cataloging Spinoza's library over here: http://www.librarything.com/topic/143273

Baruch Spinoza was a bad, bad man. Just like me. But he was one of history's greatest wordsmiths. Unlike me. LOL.

E.g., from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinoza

"Spinoza contended that "Deus sive Natura" ("God or Nature") is a being of infinitely many attributes, of which thought and extension are two. His account of the nature of reality, then, seems to treat the physical and mental worlds as one and the same. The universal substance consists of both body and mind, there being no difference between these aspects. This formulation is a historically significant solution to the mind-body problem known as neutral monism. Spinoza's system also envisages a God that does not rule over the universe by providence, but a God which itself is the deterministic system of which everything in nature is a part. Thus, according to this understanding of Spinoza's system, God would be the natural world and have no personality.

Spinoza believed in a deterministic universe in which "All things in nature proceed from certain (definite) necessity and with the utmost perfection." Nothing happens by chance in Spinoza's world, and nothing is contingent.

Given Spinoza's insistence on a completely ordered world where "necessity" reigns, Good and Evil have no absolute meaning. The world as it exists looks imperfect only because of our limited perception.

The attraction of Spinoza's philosophy to late 18th-century Europeans was that it provided an alternative to materialism, atheism, and deism. Three of Spinoza's ideas strongly appealed to them:

- the unity of all that exists;
- the regularity of all that happens; and
- the identity of spirit and nature.

Coleridge and Shelley saw in Spinoza's philosophy a religion of nature. Novalis called him the "God-intoxicated man". Spinoza inspired the poet Shelley to write his essay "The Necessity of Atheism".

Spinoza was considered to be an atheist because he used the word "God" (Deus) to signify a concept that was different from that of traditional Judeo–Christian monotheism. "Spinoza expressly denies personality and consciousness to God; he has neither intelligence, feeling, nor will; he does not act according to purpose, but everything follows necessarily from his nature, according to law.…”

----

Just a comment or two on the concept of "neutral monism":

- to the degree it expresses the idea that monotheism and all other dualisms are, have been, and always will be CRAP - I'm on board.

- to the degree that it's in some way posing a real and discernable opposition to regular old materialism, I'm having real difficulty in understanding how that could be.

Neutral monism is basically the idea that "stuff seems to happen", ultimately deterministically and that is pretty much that. Well I see no argument there, so three cheers for Spinoza.

Einstein may have been an atheist but talked a lot like a deist.

~96

"Baruch Spinoza was a bad, bad man. Just like me. But he was one of history's greatest wordsmiths. Unlike me."

Half right (or is it a third?).

> 97

No he didn't.

Mentioned god doing this and that an awful lot, which I know I've never done but I do hear it from deists.

> 100

- Yes, there are many Einstein quotes where he mentioned god and/or religion - or rather, used those words. He didn't mean anything but code for ultimate unknown reality and moral values.

As an immigrant Jew in the 1940s he could not be seen as an atheist or he would then be suspected of being a commie - which for obvious reasons he did not want.

In fact he had a skewed view of the word "atheist" until his death as far as we can tell. Which raises the question "So effing what?" - some majority of the world's atheists flee the word "atheist" like it was the bubonic plague. I wonder why? LOL.

On rarer occasions, especially when asked specifically about a literal god and religious supernaturalism, Einstein dumped on the ideas pretty hard core - actually less carefully than I generally do since he used flat out absolutist language. I try to avoid such as much as possible, e.g., by adding in qualifiers when appropriate.

I don't really get the ideological drive that makes him an atheist when he repeatedly says that he feels closest to pantheism, and rejects the label atheist. (And, please, let's not imagine that Einstein at the height of his fame was afraid of saying he was an atheist.) Bullheadedly ignoring evidence you don't like is not usually associated with atheism.

102

"... ignoring evidence you don't like is not usually associated with atheism."

Well, unfortunately, these days the two seem very closely connected (along with, in some cases, being a crude ass).

Maybe you are thinking of the classical freethinkers.

> 102

I myself, JGL53, also feel "close" to pantheism. Make something out of THAT, Cha Cha. But I feel closer to neutral monism. (Look it up.)

BTW, I've stated time and time again now on various threads in this forum that I have no personal problem with either pantheism OR deism. Did you miss that? Well, I'm saying it again. Read it. Cogitate on it. Accept it. And move on to something else. E.g., I think theism and animism are fuck-brained. We can debate all that if you wish.

Atheism can be defined as mere non-theism, or it can be defined as anti-theism or aggressive opposition to supernatural assertions. Einstein saw it as defined as the latter and rejected it because he wasn't aggressive or even highly assertive but rather mild-mannered and polite. Points for Einstein. Boo for Dawkins and me. OK then. Granted.

So - Einstein was a theist? No he was not. He was a non-theist? Well, duh. THAT'S MY POINT, Cha Cha.

I pointed out why Einstein had to avoid being associated with atheism for pragmatic reasons - Jewish, immigrant, 1940s, fear of being labeled a commie, subject to deportation as undesirable alien. Did you miss all that? You doubt that? And why? You know something the rest of us don't? You were personal friends with Einstein, or corresponded with him? LOL.

Yours is typical republican teabaggerism, even if you claim not to be one. I.e., you seem to believe that if you ignore, twist, and massage reality to conform to your preconceived notions that the rest of us will be fooled into going along. Ha - not gonna happen as long as I for one draw a breath, Cha Cha.

Bullheaded? Yes, of course, I know you are, but what am I?

BTW, P. B. Shelley wrote a short book entitled "The Necessity of Atheism."

Shelley was a pantheist. I assume so since he said so. Actually he said so in his book "The Necessity of Atheism." LOL.

Would you like to try to spin all that away, teabagger fashion, Cha Cha?

Tim, maybe I'm saying the same thing as lawecon in 103, but the loudest of the atheists nowadays don't have much of a concept of evidence, of implication, of inference, and they do seem to think that proof by assertion, so long as it is their assertion, is valid argument. We can, and next time it comes up I will, put truth tables in front of them and have them decide that propositional logic must be wrong; give them an alternative calculus and they'll deny that too with no expertise on which to base their denial.

On the other hand the people talked about in Doubt: a history did try to pay attention to evidence and disciplined thought. I wonder whether the Freethinkers in Susan Jacoby's book were responsible deliberators; I want to read that book some day.

Robert

PS It just occurred to me that perhaps you were trying to make the same point, but more subtly.

R

Whether or not pantheism reduces down to atheism is an interesting one. I would welcome such a discussion. I think a good case can be made that pantheists—at least pantheists of some sorts (ie., non-teleological ones, to start)—should consider themselves atheists. But the fact remains that Einstein expressly did not consider himself an atheist—repeatedly calling himself a pantheist and saying he was NOT an atheist. In doing this Einstein putting him squarely in the camp of those pantheists who do not think atheism and pantheism are the same thing. So, while you be right in your analysis of pantheism, you simply do not agree with Einstein on it.

Anyway, I startle at the idea that I'm "twisting words" when I say Einstein did not consider himself an atheist. This claim comes from his quote, "I am not an Atheist" (see above). It is a rather strange theory of language that calls direct quotation, changing only "I" to "he" to suit the grammatical context, "twisting words." And I can only laugh that my pernicious twisting (ie. quoting) of words makes me a "teabagger." That you should try to bring some modern Republican political movement into the discussion is grotesque, and testimony to nothing other than a sad breakdown in mental categories. If science is anything it is the belief that questions have answers independent of whom you hate.

If Einstein was an atheist, or if Einstein was a pantheist, or if Einstein were a Buddhist, or if Einstein were a Muslim, or if Einstein were a Christian...doesn't really matter. God is not going to judge me based on what other people belief, or do, so what difference does it make to anyone except Einstein?

Well Einstein was a man who could see deeply into the nature of the universe, so it seems natural to ask whether he could see God there. The answer might not be conclusive, but it would at least be interesting.

Robert

>105 Mr.Durick: the loudest of the atheists nowadays don't have much of a concept of evidence, of implication, of inference, and they do seem to think that proof by assertion, so long as it is their assertion, is valid argument.

Thanks, Robert. Well put.

~105

"Tim, maybe I'm saying the same thing as lawecon in 103, but the loudest of the atheists nowadays don't have much of a concept of evidence, of implication, of inference, and they do seem to think that proof by assertion, so long as it is their assertion, is valid argument."

At least partly the same thing. I find that "most atheist these days (at least most atheists on Librarything forums and the internet)" are just a version of hell and brimstone evangelicals. They have found Satan and want to cast him out of believers. What is particularly irritating about them is that they typically have only the most primitive notions of science and evidence, and thus make statements that are better suited to the way those studies were conceived in the 17th century in their critiques of religion. The few that do have any background in those areas tend to view science as alchemy, based on magic formulae, rather than methodology.

~107

I think that the point, ambrithill, is that Einstein is viewed as a premier intellectual, whose authority is properly evoked in favor of one's pet points of view. Given someone with your views, I am surprised that you would criticize an argument from authority.

"What separates me from most so-called atheists is a feeling of utter humility toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos." - (Albert Einstein to Joseph Lewis, Apr. 18, 1953)

Einstein was a humble person. I and millions of his fellow atheists are not.

OK. For the sake of argument let's not argue that.

So - where then is the ideological disagreement here between Einstein and less-than-humble me?

Well, in making the case that there is, one would have to spin away all of the 13 quotes listed. For the record I agree with ALL of Einstein's thoughts expressed below.

Do you, ts? Do you jtf? Any of the other theists on this thread?

E.g., I agree one hundred per cent with Einstein quote #2.
Do you, ts? Do you, jtf? Any of the other theists on this thread?

If you do not, then please STFU about how Einstein and JGL53 are at loggerheads about some important ideological or philosophical issue and that the two of you, ts and jtf, are his kindred spirits. I.e., if I agree 100 per cent with Einstein, and you two DO NOT, then who the fuck is Einstein's kindred spirit regarding understanding of ontology? Huh?

-
1) The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism. (Albert Einstein)

2.) 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. (Albert Einstein, 1954, The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press)

3.) It is very difficult to elucidate this cosmic religious feeling to anyone who is entirely without it. . . The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling, which knows no dogma and no God conceived in man's image; so that there can be no church whose central teachings are based on it ... In my view, it is the most important function of art and science to awaken this feeling and keep it alive in those who are receptive to it. (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, p. 207)

4.) The mystical trend of our time, which shows itself particularly in the rampant growth of the so-called Theosophy and Spiritualism, is for me no more than a symptom of weakness and confusion. Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions, and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seem to me to be empty and devoid of meaning. (Albert Einstein)

5.) What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of "humility." This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism. (Albert Einstein)

6.) Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the action of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a Supernatural Being. (Albert Einstein, 1936, The Human Side. Responding to a child who wrote and asked if scientists pray.)

7.) A man's ethical behavior 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)

8.) I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science. He was speaking of Quantum Mechanics and the breaking down of determinism. My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance -- but for us, not for God. (Albert Einstein, The Human Side, Princeton University Press)

9.) If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed. (Albert Einstein)

10.) The idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I am unable to take seriously. (Albert Einstein, Letter to Hoffman and Dukas, 1946)

11.) The foundation of morality should not be made dependent on myth nor tied to any authority lest doubt about the myth or about the legitimacy of the authority imperil the foundation of sound judgment and action. (Albert Einstein)

12.) I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it. (Albert Einstein, The Human Side)

13.) I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being. (Albert Einstein)

STFU about how Einstein and JGL53 are at loggerheads

I have no interest in debating whether JGL53 is an atheist or not. It's not the topic of the thread.

> 113

I, and the ghost of Albert Einstein, LOL, patiently await both your answer and jtf's answer to my questions posed in post #112.

And please read all of Einstein's quotes that I listed - read them carefully before you answer.

~112

"Einstein was a humble person. I and millions of his fellow atheists are not."

So, you do hear yourself. And here I thought you were deaf.

"

timspalding or johnthefireman

Please see my post #112.

Do either of you have answers to my questions?

A simple yes or no will do, or you may elaborate.

Your quotes amply demonstrate what wasn't up for debate in the first place. Einstein was not a monotheist. He did not believe in a personal deity or an afterlife. He didn't believe in objective morality, and a few other similar things.

I never in the LEAST claimed I was his "kindred spirit." The claim is so hopelessly, astoundingly silly that one can only imagine you posted shortly after being hit in the head, or some similar calamity of evidence and reason. No, obviously, I disagree with him about most of the possible "checklist" of religion.

It remains, however, that Einstein self-identified with pantheism and against atheism. Whether or not pantheism reduces to atheism is, as I've said, an interesting one. But Einstein did not say so. He claimed he was not an atheist, and gave reasons for saying so.

As to whether you are at "loggerheads" with the man I cannot say and do not care. I can only notice that Einstein never engaged in such backflips of evidence and reason. Nor, incidentally, did he wander into a serious discussion about suicide started by someone who quite possibly was asking for a reason, by shitting all over the place, as you did tonight. I can only say your posts of late exhibit extraordinary mental and moral depravity.

101 - "Yes, there are many Einstein quotes where he mentioned god and/or religion - or rather, used those words. He didn't mean anything but code for ultimate unknown reality and moral values."

But isn't that basically the deist concept of god? A Creator without anthropomophizing or supernaturalism or biblical revelation.

> 117

"...He did not believe in a personal deity or an afterlife....

Thank you for - FINALLY - admitting that I am right and you are wrong. IOW, I win and you lose. It was a long haul getting the truth from you - as difficult as squeezing juice from a rock - but all's well that end's well, that's what my old pappy used to say.

The rest of your post was disingenuous BS hand-waving and smoke-and-mirrors obfuscation - you always have to go there, don't you? Christ - it's like your religion or something. LOL.

JUST LIKE EINSTEIN - I myself do not believe in a personal deity. I do not believe in an afterlife, i.e., personal immortality of humans,i.e., humans as spirits merely having bodies (dualism). Well look it up. That's atheism.

Whatever else, in a monistic sense, is going on doesn't matter. It is apparently unknown and seemingly unknowable. If pantheistic idealism is true then guess what - I don't give a shit. You can effing write that down and quote me. What other self-identified atheists think of all this - again, I don't give a shit.

You seem bent on separating people and drawing lines and causing a lot of unnecessary confusion and misunderstanding and stretching the meanings of words to where there is no meaning left in anything. Unlike me. I am a uniter, not a divider, unlike you. That is what monism is all about. Dualists like you are, in the final analysis, just a bunch of troublemakers with poor attitudes. You should cut that out and try and fly straight. Even if you are gay. LOL.

> 118

The answer to your question is "no".

Einstein was a determinist and a monist.

That ain't deism.

Check a good dictionary of philosophical terms.

Thank you for - FINALLY - admitting that I am right and you are wrong

This is deranged. I never said such thing. See post 21 and 39—my first two posts—above. I say what he said—he was a pantheist. If you were under the impression that I thought he believed in ethical monotheism, or something, it can only be from being unaware what words mean. This is not my problem.

Well look it up. That's atheism.

No, actually, it's not. As I said in 39, there is a difference between pantheism and atheistic monism. As I've also said, there's a question whether the one sometimes reduces to the other. But Einstein himself denied that they do insofar as he refused the label "atheist" in favor of "pantheism."

Even if you are gay.

A winning line in Mississippi, I'm sure.

Body by Jake.

Mind by Timmy.

NEVER GIVE UP!

LOL.