Was Albert Einstein an atheist

[David T]

Cranial harassment happens here on RF quite a bit.

I have felt that to. We need a RF me too movement.

 

[Jollybear]

I think you're very limited in your views of possibilities if you thing it's "this or that" and some middle ground to it. What if there is a god who did create the universe by rolling 5 20-sided dice? What if there was a creator, but this being is not a god? What is something that just happens happened and here we are?

To say a god created the universe by rolling literal dice doesent resonate with sense or logic.

And to say there could be a creator but its not god. Well that dont make sense either because that fits what a god IS.

In all seriousness, either chance or intelligence made the universe.

Theres no TRULY third option.

 

[metis]

"Infinity" is a possibility here, and since it does work out and is sometimes used in mathematical equations, it has to be considered in the running.

 

[Prometheus85]

Once again, you stubbornly misrepresent what im saying einstein is saying.

I never said einstein believed in the judeo/Christian personal God. In fact i went out of my way to specifically say he DID NOT believe in a personal biblical God.

"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. No interpretation no matter how subtle can"

Whats childish to einstein is this personal, biblical god.

Like somebody else said on this thread. As usual your wrong.

You ever heard of something called
Monotheism?

If not, monotheism is the belief in the existence of a single god.
Deism is actually a form of monotheism, but it remains distinct enough in character and development to justify discussing separately.

In addition to adopting the beliefs of general monotheism, deists also adopt the belief that the single existing god is “PERSONAL” in nature and transcendent from the created universe.

 

[Jollybear]

Like somebody else said on this thread. As usual your wrong.

You ever heard of something called
Monotheism?

If not, monotheism is the belief in the existence of a single god.
Deism is actually a form of monotheism, but it remains distinct enough in character and development to justify discussing separately.

In addition to adopting the beliefs of general monotheism, deists also adopt the belief that the single existing god is “PERSONAL” in nature and transcendent from the created universe.

Thats incorrect. Deists do NOT believe god is PERSONAL, interactive or reveal himself or make himself known or do miracles or speak.

Deism definition

"belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe. The term is used chiefly of an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries that accepted the existence of a creator on the basis of reason but rejected belief in a supernatural deity who interacts with humankind"

deism definition - Google Search

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I got an idear, how about i give one qoute at a time and we see if you think hes a deist or not. Discussing all qoutes may be too much work all at once.

"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."

Quote by Albert Einstein: “Your question is the most difficult in the worl...”

So, from this do you see him as a deist?

Not really, no...no more than an atheist, agnostic, pantheist, etc.

You may have noticed that even Einstein himself said...in this letter..."Your question is the most difficult in the world to answer simply with a yes or no..."

And I don't believe that the question he was having trouble answering was, "Are you a deist?" And even so, his answer was simply not a yes or no.

I see this thread approaching 210 posts, and it seems like most every relevant quotation from Albert has been posted, perhaps several times. No one is changing their mind on this. I'm all for giving it a rest.

 

[Jollybear]

Not really, no...no more than an atheist, agnostic, pantheist, etc.

You may have noticed that even Einstein himself said...in this letter..."Your question is the most difficult in the world to answer simply with a yes or no..."

And I don't believe that the question he was having trouble answering was, "Are you a deist?" And even so, his answer was simply not a yes or no.

I see this thread approaching 210 posts, and it seems like most every relevant quotation from Albert has been posted, perhaps several times. No one is changing their mind on this. I'm all for giving it a rest.

That is true, he couldent give a yes or no answer, but then in his parable, he says the child KNOWS.

So, whats he saying? Is it a contradiction? No, i hear him saying he cant answer who or what that God is, but he knows he exists.

We cant let it rest. Its my life mission to try to convince you, lol.

 

[Jollybear]

Not really, no...no more than an atheist, agnostic, pantheist, etc.

You may have noticed that even Einstein himself said...in this letter..."Your question is the most difficult in the world to answer simply with a yes or no..."

And I don't believe that the question he was having trouble answering was, "Are you a deist?" And even so, his answer was simply not a yes or no.

I see this thread approaching 210 posts, and it seems like most every relevant quotation from Albert has been posted, perhaps several times. No one is changing their mind on this. I'm all for giving it a rest.

Ok here is another qoute.

Is he a deist to you here?

"Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and this holds for the actions of people. For this reason, a scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a supernatural Being…Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe – a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive."

Misquoting Einstein: Walter Isaacson doctors a quote (maybe)…

So, he was "convinced". Thats a defenate YES answer.

What say you now?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

That is true, he couldent give a yes or no answer, but then in his parable, he says the child KNOWS.

So, whats he saying? Is it a contradiction? No, i hear him saying he cant answer who or what that God is, but he knows he exists.

We cant let it rest. Its my life mission to try to convince you, lol.

In his parable, "The God" that the child "knows" did this, is actually a large number of adults--the work of an entire society, in fact, which is not even a singular, nor technically a 'thing' to the primitive understanding of a young child--doing things she can't even imagine yet, to create the order she sees but doesn't understand.

Attributing what we can't understand to the work of a single entity seems unreasonable to me, and I would think it would be unreasonable to Einstein, too, if someone had ever thought to pose it to him that way.

I think Einstein was very clear in stating that the universe is a mystery, and humans can only dimly perceive it at that. But it is wondrous, awe-inspiring.

I think that's why he wouldn't let himself be pinned down on this question, because he himself couldn't decide on one, or more than one, and deity or something else...and could see no way in which he or any human could resolve the mystery.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Ok here is another qoute.

Is he a deist to you here?

"Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and this holds for the actions of people. For this reason, a scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a supernatural Being…Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe – a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive."

Misquoting Einstein: Walter Isaacson doctors a quote (maybe)…

So, he was "convinced". Thats a defenate YES answer.

What say you now?

see answer 209, above.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Deist form of God is an infinate spirit of intelligence that created the universe by its laws, ...

Good grief. Show me anything by Spinoza that approximates such slop.

 

[Prometheus85]

Ok here is another qoute.

Is he a deist to you here?

"Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and this holds for the actions of people. For this reason, a scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a supernatural Being…Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe – a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive."

Misquoting Einstein: Walter Isaacson doctors a quote (maybe)…

So, he was "convinced". Thats a defenate YES answer.

What say you now?

Joollybear I don’t know what your trying to prove but this is getting ridiculous. Albert Einstein stated, I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.

Einstein went further in saying he fascinated by Spinoza's Pantheism.” This pantheism would form the basis of his worldview, and even influence his ideas in physics.

Pantheists don't believe in a supernatural God at ALL, but use the word God as a non-supernatural synonym for Nature, or for the Universe, or for the lawfulness that governs its workings. Deists differ from theists in that their God does not answer prayers, is not interested in sins or confessions, does not read our thoughts and does not intervene with capricious miracles. Deists differ from pantheists in that the deist God is some kind of cosmic intelligence, rather than the pantheist's metaphoric or POETIC synonym for the laws of the universe. Pantheism is sexed-up atheism. Deism is watered-down theism.

End of Subject!

 

[Jollybear]

Good grief. Show me anything by Spinoza that approximates such slop.

Spinoza said

"This impels me, before going into your reasons, to set forth briefly my opinion on the question, whether the world was made by chance. But I answer, that as it is clear that chance and necessity are two contraries, so is it also clear, that he, who asserts the world to be a necessary effect of the divine nature, must utterly deny that the world has been made by chance; whereas, he who affirms that God need not have made the world, confirms, though in different language, the doctrine that it has been made by chance; inasmuch as he maintains that it proceeds from a wish, which might never have been formed. However, as this opinion and theory is on the face of it absurd, it is commonly very unanimously admitted, that God's will is eternal, and has never been indifferent; hence... the world is a necessary effect of the divine nature. Let them call it will, understanding, or any name they like, they come at last to the same conclusion, that under different names they are expressing one and the same thing. If you ask them, whether the divine will does not differ from the human, they answer, that the former has nothing in common with the latter except its name; especially as they generally admit that God's will, understanding, intellect, essence, and nature are all identical; so I... lest I... confound the divine nature with the human, do not assign to God human attributes, such as will, understanding, attention, hearing, &c. I therefore say, as I have said already, that the world is a necessary effect of the divine nature, and that it has not been made by chance. I think this is enough to persuade you, that the opinion of those (if such there be) who say that the world has been made by chance, is entirely contrary to mine; and relying on this hypothesis, I proceed to examine those reasons which lead you to infer the existence of all kinds of ghosts."

 

[Jollybear]

Joollybear I don’t know what your trying to prove but this is getting ridiculous. Albert Einstein stated, I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.

Einstein went further in saying he fascinated by Spinoza's Pantheism.” This pantheism would form the basis of his worldview, and even influence his ideas in physics.

Pantheists don't believe in a supernatural God at ALL, but use the word God as a non-supernatural synonym for Nature, or for the Universe, or for the lawfulness that governs its workings. Deists differ from theists in that their God does not answer prayers, is not interested in sins or confessions, does not read our thoughts and does not intervene with capricious miracles. Deists differ from pantheists in that the deist God is some kind of cosmic intelligence, rather than the pantheist's metaphoric or POETIC synonym for the laws of the universe. Pantheism is sexed-up atheism. Deism is watered-down theism.

End of Subject!

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

In other words, a deist God.

And einstein said "i dont know if you could call me a pantheist"

Also einstein said "my god created the laws"

Notice he did not say 'my God IS the laws itself'?

Hense, einstein distinguishes God from the universe and its laws.

Einstein is NOT a sexed up atheist. He said

"I am not an atheist" PERIOD.

"END OF SUBJECT"

 

[Prometheus85]

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

In other words, a deist God.

And einstein said "i dont know if you could call me a pantheist"

Also einstein said "my god created the laws"

Notice he did not say 'my God IS the laws itself'?

Hense, einstein distinguishes God from the universe and its laws.

Einstein is NOT a sexed up atheist. He said

"I am not an atheist" PERIOD.

"END OF SUBJECT"

No. In other words panentheist
It’s very well documented jollybear that Pantheism was popularized in Western culture as a theology and philosophy based on the work of the 17th-century philosopher Baruch Spinoza.

But Unfortunately, because many respected scientists call the universe "God" in a pantheistic sense, their statements are the unwitting target of quote mining.

This is especially the case when you quote mine Einstein due to his almost universal respect.

You qoute Albert Einstein and take his quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the your viewpoint.

It’s a way lying.

 

[Prometheus85]

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

In other words, a deist God.

And einstein said "i dont know if you could call me a pantheist"

Also einstein said "my god created the laws"

Notice he did not say 'my God IS the laws itself'?

Hense, einstein distinguishes God from the universe and its laws.

Einstein is NOT a sexed up atheist. He said

"I am not an atheist" PERIOD.

"END OF SUBJECT"

There’s a difference between pantheist and panentheist.

Panentheism - Wikipedia

 

[Shadow Wolf]

To say a god created the universe by rolling literal dice doesent resonate with sense or logic.

Sure it is. Asteroid belt? God rolled a 1 on that one and the planet failed to form. Maybe a 17 or 18 when he rolled for the Earth.

And to say there could be a creator but its not god. Well that dont make sense either because that fits what a god IS.

If creating the universe is the only thing this creator did, I wouldn't be calling it a god.

Theres no TRULY third option.

We can barely describe what matter is, so much of the cosmos has left us clueless, and you think there are no more options other than the two you presented?
Truth is, we don't know. We still don't even know how we got here. Myself, I'm content just admitting I have no idea. Others may claim they have an answer, or the answer, but they don't.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Einstein never said in this qoute that HE IS an atheist. He said FROM THE VIEWPOINT OF THE JESUIT PRIEST he is an atheist. Then in his second letter below, he clarified more by saying


"Dear Mr. Raner:

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. Your counter-arguments seem to me very correct and could hardly be better formulated. It is always misleading to use anthropomorphical3 concepts in dealing with things outside the human sphere--childish analogies. We have to admire in humility the beautiful harmony of the structure of the world--as far as we can grasp it. And that is all.

With best wishes,
yours sincerely,
/s/ A. Einstein.
Albert Einstein

Four years later, on September 25, 1949, I wrote again:

Dear Dr. Einstein:

[The letter begins with a recapitulation of the prior correspondence.] I considered your letter . . . strictly personal . . . and have never permitted any of it to get into any publication, although I have showed it to a few personal friends. Last summer, [a classmate in a historiography seminar at the University of South California] remarked that such a letter is of historical value, and that I should get your permission to publish it at some future date . . . Have you any objection to its future publication, if an occasion should arise making publication possible.

[In your letter,] You say that "From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, and have always been, an atheist." Some people might interpret that to mean that to a Jesuit priest, anyone not a Roman Catholic is an atheist, and that you are in fact an orthodox Jew, or a Deist, or something else. Did you mean to leave room for such an interpretation, or are you from the viewpoint of the dictionary an atheist; i.e., "one who disbelieves in the existence of a God, or Supreme Being"? . . . . . . polls taken in high schools have indicated that about 95% of the students held orthodox religious opinions, reflecting . . . general opinion, which indicated a long, uphill climb before the mists of superstition give way to a more humanistic outlook.
Einstein's reponse, again typed by him, is dated September 28, 1949, so he must have responded almost immediately upon receiving my inquiry. It says:

Dear Mr. Raner:

I see with pleasure from your letter of the 25th that your convictions are near to my own. Trusting your sound judgment I authorize you to use my letter of July 1945 in any way you see fit.

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.

Sincerely yours,
/s/ A. Einstein.
Albert Einstein.

And he dont mean he dont know if god exists or not by the word agnostic either, he merely means that he dont know this God personally, whom he believes exists.

I see that you did not understand his second letter. He merely said that he does 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."

Perhaps you should learn what an atheist is before claiming that he is not an atheist. Here is a hint, most agnostics are atheists.

Let's look at this from another angle. Just because a person claims to be a theist that does not mean that he is a Christian, do you understand that?

 

[Jollybear]

No. In other words panentheist
It’s very well documented jollybear that Pantheism was popularized in Western culture as a theology and philosophy based on the work of the 17th-century philosopher Baruch Spinoza.

But Unfortunately, because many respected scientists call the universe "God" in a pantheistic sense, their statements are the unwitting target of quote mining.

This is especially the case when you quote mine Einstein due to his almost universal respect.

You qoute Albert Einstein and take his quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the your viewpoint.

It’s a way lying.

Panentheisms definition does not say God IS the universe. It says "the belief or doctrine that God is greater than the universe and includes and interpenetrates it."

Also wer not talking about many scientists, just einstein. And i wouldent go off saying and assuming many scientists say the universe is God without looking at each one independently.

Also, you keep making that point that im qoute mining einstein as if that point has some magical refuting power or something and it DONT. Im merily qouting, AS WELL as you yourself has done, qoute the relavent sections on the subject of God.

And i have not qouted out of context, and IF i did, SO HAVE YOU. Quit this double standard. If you dont got anything better to say, fall back.

Calling me a lier attacks me rather then my content. Not only does that break rules, but its a terrible way of debating period.

 

[Jollybear]

Sure it is. Asteroid belt? God rolled a 1 on that one and the planet failed to form. Maybe a 17 or 18 when he rolled for the Earth.

If creating the universe is the only thing this creator did, I wouldn't be calling it a god.

We can barely describe what matter is, so much of the cosmos has left us clueless, and you think there are no more options other than the two you presented?
Truth is, we don't know. We still don't even know how we got here. Myself, I'm content just admitting I have no idea. Others may claim they have an answer, or the answer, but they don't.

What would you call a God?