Einstein on God and the Bible

Unfortunately the above post gives the misleading impression that Einstein was firmly in the atheist camp. He was not. Instead, from what I can gather his thinking was more along the lines of deism or something like that.

http://www.einsteinandreligion.com/atheism.html

"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human understanding, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.

— Prince Hubertus zu Löwenstein, Towards the Further Shore (Victor Gollancz, London, 1968), p. 156; quoted in Jammer, p. 97"

"I was barked at by numerous dogs who are earning their food guarding ignorance and superstition for the benefit of those who profit from it. Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics and comes from the same source. They are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against the traditional "opium of the people"—cannot bear the music of the spheres. The Wonder of nature does not become smaller because one cannot measure it by the standards of human moral and human aims.

— Einstein to an unidentified adressee, Aug.7, 1941. Einstein Archive, reel 54-927, quoted in Jammer, p. 97"

Mr.Marking, please read again the quote from Einstein's own words about God and the Bible - they are quite straightforward and have a clear meaning, so no "interpretation" of those quoted Einstein's words is called for. Moreover, look up, for example, another letter by Einstein (Einstein, letter to Guy H. Raner Jr of July 2, 1945. Reproduced in Skeptic, vol. 5, No 2, 1997, p. 62) where he directly and unequivocally calls himself an atheist. If he thought of himself as a deist (as you suggest) why would he use the therm "atheist"? Or you doubt that he understood the difference between deists and atheists? Various atheists may adhere to different philosophies, so their versions of atheism may differ in some respects. Einstein's atheism may have been very different from, say, Dawkins's or Stenger's atheism, and included subtle nuances which gave rise to multiple interpretations of his actual beliefs, but if we want to give his beliefs a short definition, his own words should be the best source for such.

Einstein, letter to Guy H. Raner Jr of July 2, 1945

damnit! that was the one I was trying to remember all during the discussion on the exact same topic on Pharyngula earlier this week.

thanks, mark!

btw, just to play devil's advocate, in that letter he specifically uses the term atheist in comparison to what a Jesuit Priest would call him.

Frankly, I've never met a scientist who really care WHAT Einstein called himself. It was then, as now, entirely irrelevant to his mathematics and science.

I have always assumed that the interest in any response at all was simply to retort to the ridiculous notion that the theists put forward that he was some sort of religious authority figure.

completely insane, but then we ARE dealing with people who are entirely desperate for the intelligent to tell them that their faith in nonsense is "OK". So much so, that they will attempt to resurrect the dead and stick words in their mouths.

There is still room for a Lady Hope type story here, regarding how he ACTUALLY recanted on his deathbed......

This sounded more like a Pharyngula posting than a Panda's Thumb posting. And the implication of this for evolution is ... what?

(Anyway, he may have been using "atheist" in the sense of not being a theist, not
believing in a god who you can pray to and get a response, or who intervenes in the world. That would tie together the two sets of quotes more.)

Here is some information that is precisely just as relevant to this blog:

An old relative of mine, long deceased, knew Albert personally (she worked at the
Institute for Advanced Study in the 1940s). She *adored* him, said that
"of all the men there he was one of the kindest. He loved everybody. He was the nicest, most outgoing man. There was nothing petty about him."

A link to the whole letter would be nice.

Einstein, the mention of whose name almost gives me goose-bumps - absolute genius. Classed as everything from a bolshevik to a tool of Wall Street. He once said, by way of relieving the tension of a social encounter, "You know, I never wear socks". I can empathize with that. Not the socks; the social strain.

Claiming/disclaiming the divine inspiration can cut both ways. Hitler is reported as saying something to the effect that God was looking after him. On the strength of history, something was looking after him, for quite some time.

I almost wish I wasn't pointing this out, but Einstein, perhaps more than anyone else in history, mathematically proved the Bible to be cosmologically correct. Mind you, every person involved in any genuine technology, constantly does the same. Technology is mighty cold comfort to the inner man.

Mark P said: “Unfortunately for creationists, using the authority of Einstein as a supposed argument in favor of their beliefs is based on a distortion of the views of the great scientist. Of course, argument from authority is anyway of little value.”

.

Creos are an easy target. However, many in he ID crowd would probably more or less agree that the Bible is a collection of honorable but still primitive legends, and I suppose also with Einstein’s comment regarding “nothing ‘chosen’ about the Jews.” Anyway, as someone has already pointed out, Einstein used the term atheist in comparison to what a Jesuit Priest would call him, so he’s not really even close to being an honest-to-god atheist like most Dawkins-like neo-Darwinians.

And since you claim to believe that that argument from authority is of little value anyway, why bring any of this up? Perhaps b/c when an Einstein perceives a “spirit manifest in the laws of the Universe—a spirit vastly superior to that of man,” or that “science without religion is lame,” it causes confusion and doubt regarding the hardcore atheism typically engendered by neo-Darwinism?

Great example of quote-mining.

Why would not Einstein's opinion about God have changed between 1941 and 1954 = 13 years? Mine changed 180° in only one year between 1942 and 1943...

"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." "My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment." "I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, 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." [in a letter aimed at those who claimed he worshipped the Judeo-Christian God] "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."

— Einstein, in various places

"a person who is religiously enlightened appears to me to be one who has, to the best of his ability, liberated himself from the fetters of his selfish desires and is preoccupied with thoughts, feelings and aspirations to which he clings because of their super-personal value … regardless of whether any attempt is made to unite this content with a Divine Being, for otherwise it would not be possible to count Buddha and Spinoza as religious personalities. Accordingly a religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance of those super-personal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation … In this sense religion is the age-old endeavour of mankind to become clearly and completely conscious of these values and goals, and constantly to strengthen their effects."

— Albert

"[E]ven though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other" there are "strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies … science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind … a legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot exist." In Einstein's view, "neither the rule of human nor Divine Will exists as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted … by science, for [it] can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot."

Would modern evolutionary theory be affected if Einstein believed in God or not?

Is the theory so dependent atheism? What is the point here?

Like I said in my first entry; I'd go softly softly down this road. It could lead to something like the old Inquisition. Christianity as a religion cannot benefit from the notion that it can be practiced or understood, through technology. The technical content of the Bible is there for technical purposes, not personal purposes.

Einstein's personal opinions regarding religion, by definition, have no bearing on anything thechnologic. He did, however, amongst other things, prove, mathematically, that The Light of the World is the universal Constant, and that the (last) day shall come, when time shall be no more. I have been quoting the Bible, and I could go on quoting it at some length, to describe Einstein's findings.

In the creationist literature of various kinds an assertion is often made that Einstein was a believer in God, and this assertion is often suggested as allegedly an argument favoring religious faith. However such statements are contrary to what can be found in various documents, for example in Einstein’s letters to various people. ... Unfortunately for creationists, using the authority of Einstein as a supposed argument in favor of their beliefs is based on a distortion of the views of the great scientist. Of course, argument from authority is anyway of little value.

"" that Einstein was a believer in God, and this assertion is often suggested as allegedly an argument favoring religious faith. ""

Again if Einstein was a devout Catholic or a complete 100% atheist how does that affect modern evolutionary theory??

Philip Bruce Heywood said: Like I said in my first entry; I'd go softly softly down this road. It could lead to something like the old Inquisition. Christianity as a religion cannot benefit from the notion that it can be practiced or understood, through technology. The technical content of the Bible is there for technical purposes, not personal purposes. Einstein's personal opinions regarding religion, by definition, have no bearing on anything thechnologic. He did, however, amongst other things, prove, mathematically, that The Light of the World is the universal Constant, and that the (last) day shall come, when time shall be no more. I have been quoting the Bible, and I could go on quoting it at some length, to describe Einstein's findings.

Would modern evolutionary theory be affected if Einstein believed in God or not?

Is the theory so dependent atheism? What is the point here?

Wheels: The post doesn't mention that Richard Dawkins was outbid for it, though.

This topic presumably stems from the I.D. debate. I still haven't understood how that particular bun-fight exists. The straightforward and verifiable account of history is that the overwhelming majority of respected scientists openly allowed or avowed something along the lines of design, in Nature. Einstein cannot be harnessed to an anti-design wagon, either from his own words or the written accounts of those who knew him. But I am not thereby passing an opinion on the modern I.D. Movement. Theoretically, an I.D. movement by definition need not exist amongst people who take the fundamental laws of science seriously. Matter cannot be created or destroyed. Wonder what that implies? Science by definition implies design. Einstein's verbalizings re. "God" - whatever he meant by the term - show he understood this.

bobby said: "" that Einstein was a believer in God, and this assertion is often suggested as allegedly an argument favoring religious faith. "" Again if Einstein was a devout Catholic or a complete 100% atheist how does that affect modern evolutionary theory??

Would modern evolutionary theory be affected if Einstein believed in God or not?

Did Einstein solve the conundrum of why the speed of light measures the same (in the same medium) no matter how fast the measurer is moving? So what varies, if the speed of light doesn't? Time. Brilliant, counterintuitive thinking, and a brave man to publish such a seeming impossibility.

Time began, and it will end. I think I'm wasting my time.

bigbang said: Creos are an easy target. However, many in he ID crowd would probably more or less agree that the Bible is a collection of honorable but still primitive legends...

And since you claim to believe that that argument from authority is of little value anyway, why bring any of this up?

Philip Bruce Heywood said: Did Einstein solve the conundrum of why the speed of light measures the same (in the same medium) no matter how fast the measurer is moving? So what varies, if the speed of light doesn't? Time. Brilliant, counterintuitive thinking, and a brave man to publish such a seeming impossibility. Time began, and it will end. I think I'm wasting my time.

While it is true that Einstein rejected the OT and NT personal God, it is undeniable that he accepted and believed in a God responsible for the creation and DESIGN of the universe and its operative laws.

For him that was sufficient to drive him to seek understanding of the created universe, to seek tolerance and peace among all men, and to live a rich and full life.

The point is that the most superior minds of science such as Newton and Einstein were "creationist" in the sense of rejecting materialism as the ultimate source of the universe and instead accepting a source they referred to as God.

Joe Felsenstein: The difference between my entry and the discussion on Pharyngula is in that Pharyngula's concern is the theism vs.atheism contradiction, while my concern here is the mendacity of creationists's frequent references to Einstein whose religious beliefs allegedly supported their faith. I think I have clearly pointed out that "argument from authority" is of little value. Whether or not Einstein was a believer, agnostic, atheist, or anything else, had no consequences for the evolution theory, but creationists' repeated assertions about all those great scientists being believers are annoying. (One of the recent references to Einstein's alleged faith is found in the much acclaimed book by Rabbi Slifkin; Slifkin's piffle has been skewered here.

The comment by "Keith" is just another example of utter futility of arguing with creos. Einstein himself unequivocally called himself 'atheist," but the likes of Keith stubbornly harp about his being a believer in divine "design." It does not matter whether Keith indeed believes in his nonsense, or is lying.

bigbang

Even Dembski said his designer is the GOD of the Bible, all his theories make sense only with JC, perhaps that's why he keep plugging in miracle numbers to come to his preconceived conclusion.

Behe is like Romney, he doesn't believe half the stuffs his colleague say yet his ego keeps him digging, he wouldn't reject their fallacies because then he would be completely alone. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't

To understand the truth, man must first let go of all notions. Otherwise you would see mechanical parts in the Flagella only because the mind wants to see. Real science requires none of these notions nor need none.

I think this is part of the problem, the moment I.D. gain any ground ,YEC,OEC and creationist of all stripes would show up and peddle their beliefs, how would I.D. respond to that then? Some of their own are YECs, will there be a teach the controversy campaign for geology as well? What if I want to teach Islamic creation myth to fill "gaps" in evolution?

You said earlier that the universe is full of wonder and being an atheist is not enough anymore, there are many kinds of atheist (I don't think Einstein is an atheist in a strictest sense), none of their writings or theories has shown a lack in wonders of the universe.

I think for these scientists, the Christian faith or the God of the Bible do not suffice as the source of all the wonders in the universe, YHWH really seems like a product of ancient minds and childish imagination, not so different than Thor and Zeus.

God, should it exist, transcend any preconceived notion, it would be more akin to an ultimate truth that can only be found by an inquiring mind with an appetite for hypothesis and experiment. In this case Dawkins, Miller and others are closer to "God" than any folks at DI can hope to be.

It doesn't matter what try believe or not believe, as long as they seek the facts behind the wonder, the truth simply, is.

It is only the preconceived notion of our mind that something look "designed". When we really look into it, the answer almost always is "appearance of design". This is why science transcend the limitation of mortal mind and can be spiritual even when not appearing spiritual at all.

What if Einstein believe in Azathoth or Cthulhu? Would the DI includes them as candidates for da designers?

"Moreover, look up, for example, another letter by Einstein (Einstein, letter to Guy H. Raner Jr of July 2, 1945. Reproduced in Skeptic, vol. 5, No 2, 1997, p. 62) where he directly and unequivocally calls himself an atheist. If he thought of himself as a deist (as you suggest) why would he use the therm “atheist”?"

What is the exact quotation and reference? There is enough confusion and contradictory quotes that he may have been using different terms at different times to mean different things.

Here's a passage where Einstein explicitly denies being an atheist:

http://www.einsteinandreligion.com/spinoza.html#spinozasgod

When asked whether he believes in the God of Spinoza, Einstein is supposed to have replied as follows:

"I can't answer with a simple yes or no. I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's pantheism, but admire even more his contributions to modern thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and the body as one, not two separate"

Phillip Bruce Heywood ( May 17, 2008 6:52 AM): "Einstein, perhaps more than anyone else in history, mathematically proved the Bible to be cosmologically correct."

Several succeeding reply comments missed the boat in arguing against this statement, I think. We have to remember where it was that ID/creationists learned their craft of quote-mining: from quote-mining THE BIBLE. Both Christians and non-Christians do this---partly to vindicate their own views, partly from ignorance of changing word meanings [1] and different social contexts.[2] Unfortunately, most Christians know as little about the Bible as they do about science. "Bible study" classes almost always end at reading passages and making up something about what they mean. College courses, books, and lectures on Biblical history and theology have been quite an eye-opener for me. [3] Quoting the Bible without understanding these "outside" factors is doomed to produce mined quotes and twisted meanings.

=======================

[1] For example, we are supposed to "fear God." But "fear," at the time of the early English Bible translations did not mean "be afraid of." "Fear" at that time had almost the same meaning that "awe" has today.

[2] It is this ignorance that probably led Einstein and Mark P to dismiss Biblical stories as "childish." Most are not "true" in a scientific sense, but they have value in other senses, and they are actually quite sophisticated. The original hearers of these stories neither thought they were true in a historical sense, nor needed them to be. Consider another mythical story: Homer's Iliad. Based upon a historical event, but obviously not historically accurate in many ways. What was the purpose of the Iliad? Mere entertainment? Patriotism? No. The Iliad was an encyclopedia of acceptable social behavior in its milieu, and people consulted it for that purpose. Its format as poetry made it easier to learn and to remember over long periods in a pre-literate society.

[3] For example, the dialog where Jesus said that we must be born again and Peter asks how we can enter a second time into the womb, never actually occurred. How do we know this? Because the same word in Greek can mean "again" and "from above." Were Jesus and Peter speaking Greek? No, they would have been speaking Aramaic. In Aramaic, this ambiguity does not exist.

keith said: The point is that the most superior minds of science such as Newton and Einstein were "creationist" in the sense of rejecting materialism as the ultimate source of the universe and instead accepting a source they referred to as God.

Mr.Marking, can't you read? The reference to Einstein's letter to Raner is right there, in the entry starting this thread. The Skeptic journal is available in any decent library. Also, the issue in question certainly can be ordered from the Skeptic's publisher. As to the letter sold two days ago at an auction in London, it's been quoted in a number of media (AP, Reuters, AOL, and others).

One must also keep in mind when interpreting the words of people like Newton that lived 300 years ago that they lived in a different time, and did not have the benefit of all the accumulated knowledge since then. The implication by creationists that the opinions of these men would be no different were they to live today is absurd in the extreme. One might with equal justification argue that Jefferson and Washington would have supported slavery today, or that Aristotle would still think heavier objects fall faster.

Mr. Keith Eaton, this is a warning. If you will post again comments containing insults to other commenters (like referring to them as mentally deranged and the like) your comments will be deleted.

keith said: Let's not let facts impede your march into the realm of the mentally deranged.

bobby said: Would modern evolutionary theory be affected if Einstein believed in God or not?

bobby said: "" that Einstein was a believer in God, and this assertion is often suggested as allegedly an argument favoring religious faith. "" Again if Einstein was a devout Catholic or a complete 100% atheist how does that affect modern evolutionary theory??

CDV said: There is still room for a Lady Hope type story here, regarding how he ACTUALLY recanted on his deathbed......

"" What if Einstein believe in Azathoth or Cthulhu? Would the DI includes them as candidates for da designers? ""

Who are what are A & C??

Philip Bruce Heywood said: [Einstein] did, however, amongst other things, prove, mathematically, that The Light of the World is the universal Constant, and that the (last) day shall come, when time shall be no more. I have been quoting the Bible...

Albert Einstein said (1905, "Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies"): [I] introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.

"" Unfortunately, the delusions of creationists are the foundation of the entire anti-evolution movement. ""

What are these 'delusions' and who are these 'creationists'?

Is the Pope a 'creationist'??

Mr. Marking, having provided a reference to Einstein's supposed utterance about not being an atheist, you failed to point out that in fact the quoted passage is not found anywhere in Einstein's own writing; it is rather a quotation from somebody named Viereck who surmised how, in his opinion, Einstein should have answered a question about his being an atheist. You have though presented it as an actual quotation from Einstein. I think you owe an apology to PT audience.

keith said: While it is true that Einstein rejected the OT and NT personal God, it is undeniable that he accepted and believed in a God responsible for the creation and DESIGN of the universe and its operative laws.

keith continued: The point is that the most superior minds of science such as Newton and Einstein were "creationist" in the sense of rejecting materialism as the ultimate source of the universe.

bobby said: "" Unfortunately, the delusions of creationists are the foundation of the entire anti-evolution movement. "" What are these 'delusions' and who are these 'creationists'?

bobby said: "" Unfortunately, the delusions of creationists are the foundation of the entire anti-evolution movement. "" What are these 'delusions' and who are these 'creationists'? Is the Pope a 'creationist'??

bobby said: "" What if Einstein believe in Azathoth or Cthulhu? Would the DI includes them as candidates for da designers? "" Who are what are A & C??

Way to go Mark P., you chastise me while ignoring the constant cacophony of personal attacks on me and anyone who disagrees with with any aspect of the presumed topic.

bobby said: "" What if Einstein believe in Azathoth or Cthulhu? Would the DI includes them as candidates for da designers? "" Who are what are A & C??

Um, that's "encyclopedia".

GvlGeologist, FCD said:

bobby said: "" What if Einstein believe in Azathoth or Cthulhu? Would the DI includes them as candidates for da designers? "" Who are what are A & C??

This in a nutshell is an example of the difference between the behaviors of creationists and scientists. Bobby asks for someone to tell him what Azathoth and Cthulhu are. A scientist (or really, anyone with a computer and half a brain) would try to find out themselves. They would simply look up those names in Google, Wikipedia, or, horrors, in a library or encyclopdia. But the thought of doing independent research is utterly foreign to people like bobby.

Dear Mark,

I greatly appreciate your ongoing efforts in exposing Bill Dembski as a hypocrite and a liar. Indeed, I have made note of them elsewhere, especially at Amazon.com. However, while I am sympathetic to your position, I am inclined to agree with a few others, who have noted here that Einstein was probably a fellow Deist (Not simply because of his legendary quotation, "God does not play dice with the universe".). But I will concur with your observation that creationists are quite wrong in asserting that Einstein believed in their version of GOD; one that is in tune with their Young Earth Creationist, Old Earth Creationist, Intelligent Design creationist, or some other bizarre flavor of creationism.

Appreciatively yours,

John

keith said: Way to go Mark P., you chastise me while ignoring the constant cacophony of personal attacks on me and anyone who disagrees with with any aspect of the presumed topic.

We should not have treated him that way still, Keith may not understand something but he seems reasonable enough. The troll treatment should be reserved for bobby

While I understand the frustration we all get from answering the same nonsense over and over and over and over, acting like them would not tilt more people to our camp

http://atheism.about.com/od/einsteingodreligion/tp/Was-Einstein-an-Atheist-.htm

What are these ‘delusions’ and who are these ‘creationists’?

Is the Pope a ‘creationist’??

Mr.Marking, can’t you read? The reference to Einstein’s letter to Raner is right there, in the entry starting this thread. The Skeptic journal is available in any decent library. Also, the issue in question certainly can be ordered from the Skeptic’s publisher.

At least you're not splitting hairs, like Mark. You're pulling them out by the roots. 10% for research, 100% for rhetoric. I congratulate you on not actually denying Relativity, and now I see you aren't so sure whether or not the Bible is (technically) a Relativity book. It is. Nothing has real, mathematical meaning unless measured relative to a something else. Therefore, nothing we see or feel has real meaning, or substance, unless there is an immovable, fixed point against which to measure it.
Einstein technically put God in the centre of everything.

Which, as you correctly point out, is done by other religions as well, which proves my point - Christianity doesn't depend one wit on technology.

However, it certainly doesn't overlook technology, and any time someone wishes to become a public curiosity, simply get on a stump and start saying things 'scientific' that obviously contradict the Bible. Such as, "Great, great, ....... grandfather was a different species to me: he was an ape-like creature. His species changed into mine, by having babies. Mind you, all men are equal and no one is less human than anyone else." That ain't counterintuitive, it's countersunk, gone, buried, dead, with a headstone attached. The counterintuitive, but technically possible mechanisms of speciation are now hoving into view, which, if you wish to discover, can be found at my site, or simply by asking.

PBH is just about the crankiest person now allowed to post here. I mean, wow! He's hinting at .4 Time Cube just in praising Einstein.

WHY do people actually bother to engage him? No mind of any value could be more than momentarily confused by such obvious and useless bullsh-t.

bigbang said:

"Creos are an easy target. However, many in he ID crowd would probably more or less agree that the Bible is a collection of honorable but still primitive legends… "

The trouble here is that they appear to have hornswoggled you, bigbang, into thinking that there is a difference between Creos and the IDiot crowd.

As has been shown repeatedly, there is no substantial difference, other than pretty packaging.

You lost me. Like the surfie said to the journalist when she asked him something about the "philosophy" of the surfing experience: "Eh, I don't do head trips".

The way to understand the Bible is to get it via the Author. For two people to say things to each other, a certain level of commonality in their outlook and mode of speech is necessary. Otherwise, it's like the journalist attempting to communicate with the surfie.

Strangely enough, there is something in your (very decent) discourse, that touches on speciation. Species transformation is a type of the new birth. "If any man be in Christ, he is a new creation [footnote: in the Greek, the word creation could be replaced by the word, species, without doing despite to the text]: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new." So much for speciation being gradual, over time, without a complete and definable break between the old and the new.

So much for speciation being gradual, over time, without a complete and definable break between the old and the new.

A Hindu,a Taoist (or God forbid, a Muslim!) could quote any part of their holy texts to make the same claim as you do Philip, the mind see what it wants to see.

Now if you would look at the fossil DNA record concerning the history of man or other animals...Hmmm

Fossil,DNA sorry :p

I think you are quite older than me Philip, act like it for once and stop trolling please.

bobby said: Who are what are A & C??

If you are going to make the claim that Einstein called himself an atheist (which is a much stronger claim than the "childish legends" quote you led with), the least you could do is provide us with the actual quote in context.

ya know, I provided that link for a purpose...

I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.

-Albert Einstein, letter to Guy H. Raner Jr, July 2, 1945, responding to a rumor that a Jesuit priest had caused Einstein to convert from atheism; quoted by Michael R. Gilmore in Skeptic, Vol. 5, No. 2

it's not like anyone here HAS to have access to an entire library to find this stuff.

Mike M said: To state the bleeding obvious: It makes me suspect that bobby is simply trying to irritate people on these forums rather than engage in discussion.

The creationists often quote Einstein's saying about God not playing dice, and the creos use it to mean that random evolution wouldn't happen.
Einstein actually said the Old One -"Der Alte" doesn't play dice, arguing vigorously against quantum mechanics, specifically the insistence on probability. Example, there is nothing to say that any one atom in a bunch of radioactive atoms will decay, just that after a while you can predict how many will (approximately) decay. Einstein insisted on "hidden variables" -- invisible tags we can't see that determine the fate of an individual atom.
Einstein was wrong, although final experimental proof did not come until the 1980's. Thus when creationists invoke Einstein, they are invoking his momumental error.!

As to "the God" of the old testament, it appears to be a compendium of stories floating around the ancient world. Where the pagan stories were of the disagreements of a 'bad god' and a 'good god', the hebrews folded the two into one. At least this explains to me why God is so erratic in many OT stories.

Draconiz said: What if I want to teach Islamic creation myth to fill "gaps" in evolution?

Do you really think they will be happy? Because if the reichwing's wet dream comes true (Teach the controversy, Teachers can lead prayers in school) I will have students pray 4 times a day facing Mecca!

"I am inclined to agree with a few others, who have noted here that Einstein was probably a fellow Deist"

John, I think you owe Mark P. and the rest of the group an apology for misleading us into thinking that Einstein was anything but an atheist. After all, it is well known that atheists use the term God quite frequently in their writings when what they actually meant to say is "no such thing as a God". Don't Dawkins and P.Z. Myers do this routinely?

Clue for Mark, et al: "From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest ..." is a qualification.

John, I think you owe Mark P. and the rest of the group an apology for misleading us into thinking that Einstein was anything but an atheist.

Clue for Mark, et al: "From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest …" is a qualification.

what is it a clue to?

In fact, I rather had hoped you would bite on that, and say exactly what you did.

On a tangent, I am rather sorry you were so lazy as to first claim "special privilege" when the information was so easily obtained, and a bit annoyed to having to actually type it out for you, considering you seem to think the issue of some importance.

so, please do rationalize how you see it as a qualification that is meaningful.

this should be amusing.

ya know, I provided that link for a purpose…

what is it a clue to?

I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, 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.

I was out of town on Saturday so I had a chance to read the multiple comments (which have accumulated here) only now. My apology for not reponding sooner.

My thanks to "ichtyic" for posting a link to a quote from Einstein's letter to Raner - it released me from a boring task of typing by hand the text of that letter here, as some commenters requested me to do.

My tnanks to Kwok for the kind words about my modest effort of debunking Dembski and Co.
As to Einstein's beliefs, I have provided here some quotations from Einstein and everybody is free to interpret them in whichever way.

To my mind no deist would have said about God what Einstein wrote in the letter to Gutkind. Deists, while differing from theists on the role played by God, like theists believe in the reality of God. Einstein, though, wrote that in his view God is just "a product of human weaknesses," which, to my mind, is tanatamount to denying God's real existence. How such a statement can be construed as that of a deist, is beyond me. However, if Mr. Kwok and others can somehow reconcile the quoted assertion with the position of a deist, this is up to them, and I'll not try argue against such an interpretation despite my own opinion to the contrary.

An aside: while looking for Mr. Kwok's reference to my work on Amazon (which ref. I failed to locate) I came across a review of my book whose author, while providing an overall positive evaluation of the book, pointed out that, in his opinion, I was outside of my expertise when critisizing the misuse of certain Hebrew expressions in some publications by creos. Here is a factual clarification: I used to be for 5 years a full Professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem where I taught at the Graduate School of Applied Science various parts of theoretical physics and some other subjects. Hebrew (like English) is not my mother tongue, but I have had no problem lecturing in both languages, so hopefully I may say my command of both is adequate.

Larry Boy said:

Draconiz said: What if I want to teach Islamic creation myth to fill "gaps" in evolution?

Unless I have totally lost my mind, creationist would love that because the because the Islamic creation myth goes a little like this: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Then some other stuff, sculpted man out o' clay, a snake is involved somewhere, etc. etc.

Who are these 'CREATIONISTS' that are constantly referred to in these posts?? Is anyone who believes that 'God' created the universe a 'CREATIONIST'?? Please be scientific and present an operational definition.

Hi all,

My Amazon.com discussion forum on Mark Perakh's TalkReason article exposing Dembski's fraudulent activity at Amazon.com can be found here:

http://www.amazon.com/Dembski-and-Wells-intellectual-dishonesty/forum/Fx2QMNLWR0COM08/Tx4XRKXCIKH4CQ/1/ref=cm_cd_ef_tft_tp?%5Fencoding=UTF8&asin=0980021308

Regards,

John

To my mind no deist would have said about God what Einstein wrote in the letter to Gutkind. Deists, while differing from theists on the role played by God, like theists believe in the reality of God. Einstein, though, wrote that in his view God is just "a product of human weaknesses," which, to my mind, is tanatamount to denying God's real existence.

I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, 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. ⁴ I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.

Unfortunately for creationists, using the authority of Einstein as a supposed argument in favor of their beliefs is based on a distortion of the views of the great scientist.

Bayesian Bouffant, FCD said:

Unfortunately for creationists, using the authority of Einstein as a supposed argument in favor of their beliefs is based on a distortion of the views of the great scientist.

Open memo to any other great scientists who do not wish to have their views distorted: Don't use the word "God" when you don't mean God. Don't use the word "religion" when you don't mean religion. don't use the word "faith" when you don't mean faith.

"Open memo to any other great scientists who do not wish to have their views distorted: Don’t use the word “God” when you don’t mean God. Don’t use the word “religion” when you don’t mean religion. don’t use the word “faith” when you don’t mean faith."

And worst of all, please don't use the word 'design' when you don't mean design.

f you look further down on the link you provided, there is a quote from the same letter:

no, that has nothing to do with what Marking's "clue".

try again.

do note that Einstein called himself an atheist. the question is how "from the viewpoint of a jesuit" one can qualify it, as Marking seems to think.

Speaking of tautologies, something just occurred to me - to claim that "the most fit produce the most offspring" is a tautology presupposes the absence of a "designer", since anything able to directly manufacture species would also be able to add less genetically fit species to an ecosystem, or remove a more genetically fit one (where "genetically fit" refers to what effect the genes would have on reproductive success if the "designer" refrained from intervening).

Henry

Philip Bruce Heywood said: At least you're not splitting hairs, like Mark. You're pulling them out by the roots. 10% for research, 100% for rhetoric. I congratulate you on not actually denying Relativity, and now I see you aren't so sure whether or not the Bible is (technically) a Relativity book. It is. Nothing has real, mathematical meaning unless measured relative to a something else. Therefore, nothing we see or feel has real meaning, or substance, unless there is an immovable, fixed point against which to measure it. Einstein technically put God in the centre of everything. Which, as you correctly point out, is done by other religions as well, which proves my point - Christianity doesn't depend one wit on technology. However, it certainly doesn't overlook technology, and any time someone wishes to become a public curiosity, simply get on a stump and start saying things 'scientific' that obviously contradict the Bible. Such as, "Great, great, ....... grandfather was a different species to me: he was an ape-like creature. His species changed into mine, by having babies. Mind you, all men are equal and no one is less human than anyone else." That ain't counterintuitive, it's countersunk, gone, buried, dead, with a headstone attached. The counterintuitive, but technically possible mechanisms of speciation are now hoving into view, which, if you wish to discover, can be found at my site, or simply by asking.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Einstein's greatest folly is his earlier belief in God made him add a universal constant to his calculation when in fact there was none?

It seems to me Einstein covered his bases to some extent - you can find some quotations of his saying that he agnostic, others (apparently) that he as an atheist.

I think the bottom line is that in the end, Einstein was not firmly in the theistic "camp" and would repudiate modern creationist tactics and claims on just about every topic.

This new letter makes that bottom line even brighter. It could not make it more clear that Einstein rejected literalism and even not-so-literalism. I think his point was not so much that everyone should embrace atheism, and (someone can correct me if needed) he strikes me as having been the kind of person who could appreciate the poetic and narrative power of parts of the Bible.

But I think Einstein is saying in this letter that the wonders available through observing the world scientifically were more than enough spiritual food for the soul. And, as a result, the supernatural tenets of the Bible and the insistence on literalism look quite primitive by comparison.

(Prior typos corrected. Sorry about that.)

It seems to me Einstein covered his bases to some extent - you can find some quotations of his saying that he's agnostic, others (apparently) that he is an atheist.

I think the bottom line is that in the end, Einstein was not firmly in the theistic "camp" and would repudiate modern creationist tactics and claims on just about every topic.

This new letter makes that bottom line even brighter. It could not make it more clear that Einstein rejected literalism and even not-so-literalism. I think his point was not so much that everyone should embrace atheism, and (someone can correct me if needed) he strikes me as having been the kind of person who could appreciate the poetic and narrative power of parts of the Bible.

But I think Einstein is saying in this letter that the wonders available through observing the world scientifically were more than enough spiritual food for the soul. And, as a result, the supernatural tenets of the Bible and the insistence on literalism look quite primitive by comparison.

Open memo to any other great scientists who do not wish to have their views distorted: Don't use the word "God" when you don't mean God. Don't use the word "religion" when you don't mean religion. don't use the word "faith" when you don't mean faith.

Mark Perakh said: An aside: while looking for Mr. Kwok's reference to my work on Amazon (which ref. I failed to locate) I came across a review of my book whose author, while providing an overall positive evaluation of the book, pointed out that, in his opinion, I was outside of my expertise when critisizing the misuse of certain Hebrew expressions in some publications by creos. Here is a factual clarification: I used to be for 5 years a full Professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem where I taught at the Graduate School of Applied Science various parts of theoretical physics and some other subjects. Hebrew (like English) is not my mother tongue, but I have had no problem lecturing in both languages, so hopefully I may say my command of both is adequate.

Dear David Fickett-Wilbar: Thanks for kind words about my writing about Dembski. Regarding the difference between the ancient and the modern Hebrew, they are substantial. To start with, the vocabulary of the Biblical Hebrew contained only 14,691 different words, while the modern Hebrew’s vocabulary is at least ten times more extensive. Parallel to the enrichment of the modern Hebrew compared with its ancient predecessor, certain words (many of them of Aramaic origin) have been discarded. However, with all these developments, it is still the same language, preserving the same structure and grammar. In fact, the differences between the Biblical and today’s Hebrew are much less significant than, for example, the difference between the language of Chaucer and the modern English, or between the language of the Lay of Igor’s Host and the modern Russian. Every Israeli school kid can read and understand the ancient Hebrew texts. The errors by, say, Hugh Ross, in his pseudo-interpretations of some Hebrew expressions are such that no linguistic proficience is necessary to reveal Ross’s ignorance of Hebrew.

Philip Bruce Heywood said: ... any time someone wishes to become a public curiosity, simply get on a stump and start saying things ... Such as, ... That ain't counterintuitive, it's countersunk, gone, buried, dead, with a headstone attached. The counterintuitive, but technically possible mechanisms of speciation are now hoving into view, ...

Ichthyic said: if you look further down on the link you provided, there is a quote from the same letter: no, that has nothing to do with what Marking's "clue". try again. do note that Einstein called himself an atheist. the question is how "from the viewpoint of a jesuit" one can qualify it, as Marking seems to think.

David Fickett-Wilbar said: First you'd have to give those words precise definitions, something which is quite hard to do. (My personal defintion of "religion" is "what you put down when the hospital asks what religion you are.") I think people are asking too much of Einstein here. He was a physicist, not a theologian; when he was talking about theology he was talking outside his field. We can't expect that he would be using terms consistently either with the definitions of others, or even in his own sense over time. Further, we can't expect that he had well-thought out theological views to begin with -- the guy had other things on his mind. So if sometimes he seemed deist, sometimes agnostic, sometimes atheist, we shouldn't be too surprised. A lot of people are like that.

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.

Who are these ‘CREATIONISTS’ that are constantly referred to in these posts??

Is anyone who believes that ‘God’ created the universe a ‘CREATIONIST’??

Please be scientific and present an operational definition.

Guys and gals, here is a question to those of you who resort to calling names and other similar devices when arguing against somebody's having a different opinion:
Say, you want to repudiate a thesis promoted by John Smith. Which of the following three statements is the most effective:
(1) Imho John Smith's argument is unsubstantiated. 2) John Smith is ridiculously in error. (3) John Smith is fu...ing wrong.
I submit that the strongest repudiation of John Smith is the first one, and the weakest the third one. Depending on the situation, the second version may have its place, albeit it always would be less convincing than the first one. The third version, while massaging its author's ego, has almost no power of persuasion. Understatement is usually a stronger way to win the debate than an overstatment. Hence, please try to avoid expressing contempt of your opponent, or to refer to him in a disdainful or obnoxious manner, or to use expletives, not because it would make the readers' cheeks red (in my almost 84 years I have probably heard all of such words in at least five languages) but just because understatement is always stronger than calling the opponent "idiot" or "fu...ng cretin" and the like. Yes, I know I myself am not always innocent of using not very polite words, but unfortunately the debate is so heated and our opponents are sometimes so intemperate and rude, so emotions take over, and often I regret it afterwards. Cheers!

Dale Husband said:

Philip Bruce Heywood said: He did, however, amongst other things, prove, mathematically, that The Light of the World is the universal Constant, a

What a shameless liar you are! Relativity had nothing to do with the teachings of the Bible. And your spin doctoring won't change the fact that Einstein believed none of the Biblical teachings.

The definition of "creationist" is in dispute. Despite its use by many people to be equivilent to "creation scientist" (someone intent on discrediting the science of evolution), there are still many who use the word to mean someone who believes in a god (or gods) that created the universe, but who might still accept biological evolution.

Nothing has real, mathematical meaning unless measured relative to a something else. Therefore, nothing we see or feel has real meaning, or substance, unless there is an immovable, fixed point against which to measure it. Einstein technically put God in the centre of everything.

Mark Perakh said: [snip]The third version, while massaging its author's ego, has almost no power of persuasion.[snip]

Mark Perakh said: Regarding the difference between the ancient and the modern Hebrew, they are substantial. ... However, with all these developments, it is still the same language, preserving the same structure and grammar. In fact, the differences between the Biblical and today’s Hebrew are much less significant than, for example, the difference between the language of Chaucer and the modern English, or between the language of the Lay of Igor’s Host and the modern Russian. Every Israeli school kid can read and understand the ancient Hebrew texts. The errors by, say, Hugh Ross, in his pseudo-interpretations of some Hebrew expressions are such that no linguistic proficience is necessary to reveal Ross’s ignorance of Hebrew.

Bayesian Bouffant, FCD said: First we have a NOMA claim, which is highly disputable but not presented as such. Then we have a claim that all values, moral and purposive, emanate from "religion." This is utterly ridiculous, and anyone writing for public consumption ought to be aware of that. Finally we have a misuse of the word "faith," when "confidence based on centuries of scientific inquiry" might be more appropriate. All this in one paragraph.

It is abundantly clear that one can find support in Einstein's writings for any proposition about God and its direct opposite and all possibilities in-between. Einstein's views about the divinity have evolved over the course of his eventful life and can only be described as confused and incoherent.

But the point of this post really eludes me when I realize how many other truly great scientists were unambiguous believers not only in God but also in the divinity of the Bible, such as Newton, Faraday, etc. The creationists can always hang their hats on these folks if they feel the need to do so.

Mark Perakh said: Hence, please try to avoid expressing contempt of your opponent, or to refer to him in a disdainful or obnoxious manner, or to use expletives, not because it would make the readers' cheeks red (in my almost 84 years I have probably heard all of such words in at least five languages) but just because understatement is always stronger than calling the opponent "idiot" or "fu...ng cretin" and the like.

Science Avenger said: Ban the lying idiots and you won't have this problem. This goes way beyond disagreeing with someone. PT shouldn't be a site for the mentally ill to spew venomous nonsense.

An aside: while looking for Mr. Kwok’s reference to my work on Amazon (which ref. I failed to locate) I came across a review of my book whose author, while providing an overall positive evaluation of the book, pointed out that, in his opinion, I was outside of my expertise when critisizing the misuse of certain Hebrew expressions in some publications by creos. Here is a factual clarification: I used to be for 5 years a full Professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem where I taught at the Graduate School of Applied Science various parts of theoretical physics and some other subjects. Hebrew (like English) is not my mother tongue, but I have had no problem lecturing in both languages, so hopefully I may say my command of both is adequate.

Let it never be said I don't pay attention to the authors I review :-) Based on your comments here, I've made some changes to my review, which, while not probably completely in accord with what you'd like, hopefully more accurately reflect the truth of your experience and knowledge. (You may have been referring to my or my friend Joe's similarily themed review, but I think the points you made here were important.) Again, I totally appreciated and enjoyed your book, and the ideas presente therein. And I always welcome Comments on my reviews (below the review), especially by the authors, and especially if they are able to correct some factual aspect of my review.

Mark Perakh said: An aside: while looking for Mr. Kwok's reference to my work on Amazon (which ref. I failed to locate) I came across a review of my book whose author, while providing an overall positive evaluation of the book, pointed out that, in his opinion, I was outside of my expertise when critisizing the misuse of certain Hebrew expressions in some publications by creos. Here is a factual clarification: I used to be for 5 years a full Professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem where I taught at the Graduate School of Applied Science various parts of theoretical physics and some other subjects. Hebrew (like English) is not my mother tongue, but I have had no problem lecturing in both languages, so hopefully I may say my command of both is adequate.

I actually learn a lot reading the Troll Trashing here ! In fact I wish you had some better Trolls here - the current lot have been 'hit' so many times they must have heads as flat as thin crusted pizzas....

Guys and gals, here is a question to those of you who resort to calling names and other similar devices when arguing against somebody’s having a different opinion...

Shebardigan said: If the virtual pub doesn't have a virtual bouncer, it will become virtually infested with virtual yobbos, who will gradually replace most of the decent patrons. There are those who claim that this has already happened.

To contextualize a bit, it would be like a theistic evolutionist saying "I am an atheist from the viewpoint of a young earth creationist."

contextualize? you mean reach way the hell and gone out there?

If you want to pursue that as an analogy, you'd have to find a YEC calling a theistic evolutionist an atheist.

frankly, after having watched the idiocy of the YEC's for years, I've never ever heard one call other xians atheists.

even a YEC would recognize that calling someone an atheist would define them as not believing in any god.

in fact, they do this on a daily basis.

try again.

But the point of this post really eludes me

shocker, Carol.

shocker.

@JKC:

again, specifically, name the features of being a jesuit that would qualify them to call all non-jesuits atheists.

or don't you know anything about jesuits?

Ichthyic said: @JKC: again, specifically, name the features of being a jesuit that would qualify them to call all non-jesuits atheists. or don't you know anything about jesuits?

Ichthyic,

OK, so my analogy wasn't the best. I haven't heard of YECs calling theistic evolutionists atheists, although it wouldn't surprise me. The amount of disdain is probably about the same (perhaps worse since they think TEs ought to know better).

In any case, I'm tired of trying to explain this to you. Why don't you explain to us what "from the standpoint of a Jesuit priest" means? If he was truly an atheist why did he add that? And why did he later in the same letter call himself an agnostic?

Ichthyic said: @JKC: again, specifically, name the features of being a jesuit that would qualify them to call all non-jesuits atheists. or don't you know anything about jesuits?

J. L. Brown said: Unfortunately, banning posters leads to a slippery slope at the bottom of which you find garbage like Uncommon Descent.

If you want to pursue that as an analogy, you’d have to find a YEC calling a theistic evolutionist an atheist. frankly, after having watched the idiocy of the YEC’s for years, I’ve never ever heard one call other xians atheists. even a YEC would recognize that calling someone an atheist would define them as not believing in any god.

Eh, Mark, give us some of those expletives deleted from those other five+ languages. It would break the monotony.

J. L. Brown said: Unfortunately, banning posters leads to a slippery slope at the bottom of which you find garbage like Uncommon Descent.

I was outside of my expertise when critisizing the misuse of certain Hebrew expressions in some publications by creos.

Isn't someone who'd say that to someone named "Perakh" kind of demonstrating that they don't actually know what they're talking about? It doesn't take much Hebrew knowledge at all to be able to shoot creos' usage in the already-lame foot; I'm fairly sure my Hebrew is up to it, and I can about answer the phone and make small talk.

Interrobang said: I was outside of my expertise when critisizing the misuse of certain Hebrew expressions in some publications by creos. Isn't someone who'd say that to someone named "Perakh" kind of demonstrating that they don't actually know what they're talking about? It doesn't take much Hebrew knowledge at all to be able to shoot creos' usage in the already-lame foot; I'm fairly sure my Hebrew is up to it, and I can about answer the phone and make small talk.

Mark Perakh said: ... please try to avoid expressing contempt of your opponent, or to refer to him in a disdainful or obnoxious manner, or to use expletives, not because it would make the readers' cheeks red (in my almost 84 years I have probably heard all of such words in at least five languages) but just because understatement is always stronger than calling the opponent "idiot" or "fu...ng cretin" and the like.

Hello,

Does anyone know who bought it (the letter)? Just thought I'd ask. Do we know if they have a particular dog in this fight or was it an uninvolved collector?

Regardless of Einstein's view of God, IMO it would be a travesty for the letter to disappear from public view.

Reply to Eric: The auction house keeps the buyer's name under wraps.

harold said: As an interesting coincidence, Einstein’s views on both religion, and on the behavior of a subset of atheists, appear to coincide exactly with mine, something I was not previously aware of.

Draconiz said: Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Einstein's greatest folly is his earlier belief in God made him add a universal constant to his calculation when in fact there was none?

I would like to know the whole statement made by Einstein...."Coincidence is God's way of ........."