Einstein: God belief is childish

[Deleted member 4644]

http://www.breitbart.com/artic...3ds3b6j&show_article=1

New letter from him. This will be sure to stoke some debate, although I think fewer people really appreciate his genius today than say, 25 years ago.

Albert Einstein described belief in God as "childish superstition" and said Jews were not the chosen people, in a letter to be sold in London this week, an auctioneer said Tuesday.

The father of relativity, whose previously known views on religion have been more ambivalent and fuelled much discussion, made the comments in response to a philosopher in 1954.

As a Jew himself, Einstein said he had a great affinity with Jewish people but said they "have no different quality for me than all other people".

"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.

...

 

[Atreus21]

What difference does it make? Lots of people think this.

 

[RightIsWrong]

I guess that settles any debate about his true thoughts on religion(s) and its place in his personal and professional lives.

Edit: More of the letter (almost complete version)

 

[CycloWizard]

He is entitled to his opinion just like everyone else. I don't know anyone who thinks Einstein was a great philosopher or theologian - he was a great scientist. Therefore, I don't give his opinion any more weight in this matter than any other scientist.

 

[Deleted member 4644]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
What difference does it make? Lots of people think this.

For me, it makes no difference. But I think quite a few people do respect Einstein and his "brainpower" to such an extend that it will make them stop and think about their own beliefs.

 

[ProfJohn]

From a historical perspective what he said is interesting, but it isn't going to change the views of anyone when it comes to god or religion.

 

[jonks]

This is a completely distorted view of Einstein's beliefs. He did not believe in organized religion. But he absolutely was a deist. He often refuted the atheists who claimed he was on their side or shared their view.

This article conflates the idea of a supreme being with that of organized religion and paints a false picture of Einstein. Go read on the the dozens of books on Einstein if you want to know what his beliefs in god were, instead of relying on one article that twists words to arrive at a conclusion different from the truth.

"Albert Einstein described belief in God as "childish superstition". The author is paraphrasing, and badly. Now lets see the whole sentence, shall we?

"For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions," he said. Clear enough? Religion is superstition, not god.

I'm an atheist by the way. Einstein was not.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
This is a completely distorted view of Einstein's beliefs. He did not believe in organized religion. But he absolutely was a deist. He often refuted the atheists who claimed he was on their side or shared their view.

This article conflates the idea of a supreme being with that of organized religion and paints a false picture of Einstein. Go read on the the dozens of books on Einstein if you want to know what his beliefs in god were, instead of relying on one article that twists words to arrive at a conclusion different from the truth.

I'm an atheist by the way. Einstein was not.

It seems kind of ironic that you say don't take the word of the author of this article...take the words of authors that I agree with instead.

Don't you think that his own words carry more weight about his beliefs than those of someone that studied him?

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: sirjonk
This is a completely distorted view of Einstein's beliefs. He did not believe in organized religion. But he absolutely was a deist. He often refuted the atheists who claimed he was on their side or shared their view.

This article conflates the idea of a supreme being with that of organized religion and paints a false picture of Einstein. Go read on the the dozens of books on Einstein if you want to know what his beliefs in god were, instead of relying on one article that twists words to arrive at a conclusion different from the truth.

I'm an atheist by the way. Einstein was not.

It seems kind of ironic that you say don't take the word of the author of this article...take the words of authors that I agree with instead.

Don't you think that his own words carry more weight about his beliefs than those of someone that studied him?

I edited my post to give an example of the author's rather liberal conflation of religion and god. I think most intelligent people who critically examine religion don't believe in Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden 5000 years ago. They don't believe wine actually transforms into blood when you drink it, nor wafers into human flesh. Scientifically, there's no difference in believing Judeo-Christian mytholody than ancient Greek mythology.

Einstein believed in a supreme being who doesn't play the reward/punishment game on an individual human level nor set up lists of rights/wrongs, dietary requirements, marriage rituals, listens and responds to prayer, causes ecological disasters to punish, makes his likeness appear on toast or freeway underpasses, etc.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
What difference does it make? Lots of people think this.

Lots of people aren't as intelligent as Einstein.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: sirjonk
This is a completely distorted view of Einstein's beliefs. He did not believe in organized religion. But he absolutely was a deist. He often refuted the atheists who claimed he was on their side or shared their view.

This article conflates the idea of a supreme being with that of organized religion and paints a false picture of Einstein. Go read on the the dozens of books on Einstein if you want to know what his beliefs in god were, instead of relying on one article that twists words to arrive at a conclusion different from the truth.

I'm an atheist by the way. Einstein was not.

It seems kind of ironic that you say don't take the word of the author of this article...take the words of authors that I agree with instead.

Don't you think that his own words carry more weight about his beliefs than those of someone that studied him?

I edited my post to give an example of the author's rather liberal conflation of religion and god. I think most intelligent people who critically examine religion don't believe in Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden 5000 years ago. They don't believe wine actually transforms
into blood when you drink it, nor wafers into human flesh. Scientifically, there's no difference in believing Judeo-Christian mytholody than ancient Greek mythology.

Einstein believed in a supreme being who doesn't play the reward/punishment game on an individual human level nor set up lists of rights/wrongs, dietary requirements, marriage rituals, etc.

I also linked to a more complete version of the letter. From that link:

The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.

..........

In general I find it painful that you claim a privileged position and try to defend it by two walls of pride, an external one as a man and an internal one as a Jew. As a man you claim, so to speak, a dispensation from causality otherwise accepted, as a Jew the priviliege of monotheism. But a limited causality is no longer a causality at all, as our wonderful Spinoza recognized with all incision, probably as the first one. And the animistic interpretations of the religions of nature are in principle not annulled by monopolisation. With such walls we can only attain a certain self-deception, but our moral efforts are not furthered by them. On the contrary.

Not only does he denounce God of all religious incarnations, he also denounces the idea that there is a single god which negates your declaration that there is proof of his belief in a "supreme being".

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
This is a completely distorted view of Einstein's beliefs. He did not believe in organized religion. But he absolutely was a deist. He often refuted the atheists who claimed he was on their side or shared their view.

This article conflates the idea of a supreme being with that of organized religion and paints a false picture of Einstein. Go read on the the dozens of books on Einstein if you want to know what his beliefs in god were, instead of relying on one article that twists words to arrive at a conclusion different from the truth.

"Albert Einstein described belief in God as "childish superstition". The author is paraphrasing, and badly. Now lets see the whole sentence, shall we?

"For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions," he said. Clear enough? Religion is superstition, not god.

I'm an atheist by the way. Einstein was not.

Good post. I was going to post something to this effect, but you beat me to it. Einstein was condemning traditional organized religion and the tribalism it evolved from, not belief in a God (or "higher power" if you prefer).

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
He is entitled to his opinion just like everyone else. I don't know anyone who thinks Einstein was a great philosopher or theologian - he was a great scientist. Therefore, I don't give his opinion any more weight in this matter than any other scientist.

+1

It doesnt matter who says what, it will always be a debate. God cant be disproven nor proven. Thats what faith is about. Very many great people believe in God (Mother Theresa for one) and very many great people dont. We;ll find out wont we

 

[RightIsWrong]

Mother Theresa was never considered the world's smartest person though. She was the epitome of religion in the 20th century and an example of what the good will of humans can accomplish...but was never turned to as a source for solving anything that required more than compassion.

Not really the best example that you could have given.

 

[jonks]

"I'm not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. 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 the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws."


Einstein was a man, and as such I'm sure his ideas on god evolved throughout his life. The view he expresses above I think helps clarify somewhat his no doubt deeply pondered ideas. He doesn't believe in the god of Abraham or a resurrected Jesus.

"I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the lawful harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."

RightIsWrong: my interpretation of Einstein's belief in a supreme being is not that of well, god god. But the natural force(s) that propel the universe, and the mysteries of existence he believed will never be solved.

I suppose if he were on a dating site he would list his faith as "spiritual but not religious."

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Atreus21
What difference does it make? Lots of people think this.

Lots of people aren't as intelligent as Einstein.

Does it follow that atheists are atheists because they're smarter than theists?

 

[Atreus21]

What difference does it make? Lots of people think this.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
It seems kind of ironic that you say don't take the word of the author of this article...take the words of authors that I agree with instead.

Don't you think that his own words carry more weight about his beliefs than those of someone that studied him?

Words are twisted to fit a perception. Perception defines reality so beware the messenger.

Is it not obvious then that people would choose their own messenger? Yourself included. There is no neutral party here to deliver his words. Frankly, sirjonk gave a very clear explanation.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Fair enough SirJonk. I see the angle that you are coming from and agree with it for the most part.

I think that he just got to the point where he actually stopped thinking about it and came to the conclusion that it really wasn't important in the grand scheme of things. That belief or lack thereof would neither enhance nor negate his findings so why bother. That he only spoke of it when confronted or was asked directly.

 

[Moonbeam]

Religions were created so that people who knew nothing and would never meet anybody who did, could have a foundation that could act as a bridge.

Each was a bridge based on what people believed at the time and each had nothing to do with what one can find by crossing.

 

[Foxery]

The headline Breitbart chose is incorrect, for the purpose of being sensationalist and getting them some views.

That said, so what? Religious people don't dump their beliefs just because someone else does. This doesn't change anything, either about who Einstein was, or who you are.

 

[Moonbeam]

When children are small you tell them not to ever go in the road. Later you tell them to look before crossing. Later still they will learn to drive. Humanity is still to discover there's a highway.

 

[Rio Rebel]

So now the argument of belief in God comes down to an appeal to an authority? Not even a philosophical or metaphysical authority, but an authority on physics?

Should we now just list off all the smart people we know on each side of the argument, and then count up the votes for the winner?

:disgust:

 

[CrazyHelloDeli]

Originally posted by: Rio Rebel
So now the argument of belief in God comes down to an appeal to an authority? Not even a philosophical or metaphysical authority, but an authority on physics?

Should we now just list off all the smart people we know on each side of the argument, and then count up the votes for the winner?

:disgust:

Of all the logical fallacies, the appeal to authority is the one that irritates me the most. I have always imagined it akin to using a cardboard cutout of someone who holds the same position someone is arguing, presenting it, and then running out the back door. It is the epitome of intellectual laziness and abject cowardice.

"Yeah, well, Dawkins, Sagan, Azimov, and Nietzsche were atheists..."
"Yeah, well, Darwin, Russel, Hume, and Feynman were agnostics..."
"Yeah, well, Newton, Leibniz, Faraday and Planck were believers..."

 

[mikelish]

was this letter written towards the end of Einstein's life? i think his religious views changed one way or another in the last few years of his life