Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Einstein and a personal God
Sylas
Member (Idle past 5260 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 1 of 37 (88664)
02-25-2004 5:21 PM


In another thread (Message 47) some quotes from Einstein have been juxtaposed with the notion of a personal God. This is supremely ironic, given that Einstein was emphatic in his disbelief in a personal God.
Einstein's religious views are interesting. He has been claimed by the pantheists, because when Einstein spoke of God he generally meant simply the order apparent in the universe itself.
Einstein does not have any special authority as a religious teacher. I do not share all his views; and in fact I think his metaphysical perspectives on a comprehensible universe were a contributing factor to his most famous scientific errors; rejection of quantum machanics and indeterminacy, and resistances to singularities and the instability of large scale spacetime which follow from general relativity. However, I do honour his breadth of thought, his foundational contribitions to modern physics, and his gentle and thoughtful approach to religious belief.
If Einstein is to be cited in the context of discussions of God, and a personal God in particular, then in fairness we need to recognize Einstein's own views, whether they fit well with our own views or not.
An excellent collection entitled "Some of Einstein's Writings on Science and Religion" has been made available on-line, courtesy of Arnold Lesikar. One of the pages is specifically Einstein on a Personal God.
Here are three brief extracts, taken from that page. They are given on the page with a bit of additional context and references.
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.
(From a letter written in 1954)
My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance-but for us, not for God.
(From annotations Einstein added to received correspondance, ~1927
The religious feeling engendered by experiencing the logical comprehensibility of profound interrelations is of a somewhat different sort from the feeling that one usually calls religious. It is more a feeling of awe at the scheme that is manifested in the material universe. It does not lead us to take the step of fashioning a god-like being in our own image-a personage who makes demands of us and who takes an interest in us as individuals.
(From a letter written in 1939 or 1940)
Cheers -- Sylas

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Tamara, posted 02-26-2004 11:17 AM Sylas has replied
 Message 5 by Phat, posted 11-15-2011 7:41 AM Sylas has not replied
 Message 8 by kbertsche, posted 11-16-2011 3:05 PM Sylas has not replied
 Message 12 by IamJoseph, posted 11-17-2011 9:10 PM Sylas has not replied

  
Tamara
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 37 (88814)
02-26-2004 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Sylas
02-25-2004 5:21 PM


I think it may be questionable to put blame for Einstein's errors on his spiritual views while not giving credit as well for the hypotheses that panned out... how do you separate it out?
Einstein said: "Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of nature -- a spirit vastly superior to that of man."
It seems to me that E. may have believed that the universe is permeated by intelligence. Whether he was strictly speaking a panteist, I am not sure. Maybe our notion of pantheism is closest to what he believed... I never could decipher Spinoza.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Sylas, posted 02-25-2004 5:21 PM Sylas has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Sylas, posted 02-26-2004 4:36 PM Tamara has not replied

  
Sylas
Member (Idle past 5260 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 3 of 37 (88893)
02-26-2004 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Tamara
02-26-2004 11:17 AM


Tamara writes:
I think it may be questionable to put blame for Einstein's errors on his spiritual views while not giving credit as well for the hypotheses that panned out... how do you separate it out?
Very good point. I should also acknowledge that Einstein's metaphysical perspective was a significant contributing factor to his greatest achievements.
Einstein's landmark work on general relativity was driven in part by an appreciation of underlying elegance and consistency to the laws of the universe; and it was by assuming certain consistencies that he was able to work out relativity almost from first principles.
In one of the great ironies of twentieth century science, when Einstein received his Nobel prize it was not for relativity; but for work in quantum mechanics and the photoelectric effect. Yet it is in quantum mechanics where Einstein's beliefs led him astray.
Einstein is famous for the remark "God does not play dice" . This statement was a metaphorical one, rejecting the indeterminacy inherent in quantum theory. Yet as it turns out, Einstein was wrong.
Not only does God definitely play dice, but He sometimes confuses us by throwing them where they can't be seen.
(Stephen Hawking, in his public lecture Does God Play Dice?)
Einstein said: "Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of nature -- a spirit vastly superior to that of man."
It seems to me that E. may have believed that the universe is permeated by intelligence. Whether he was strictly speaking a pantheist, I am not sure. Maybe our notion of pantheism is closest to what he believed... I never could decipher Spinoza.
I'm no philosopher, and I am content to admire Spinoza from a safe distance. I think Einstein used the word "intelligence" as he used the word "God"; as a metaphor. The trouble with such words is that they are anthropomorphic; they project onto the universe qualities which are associated with persons; will, design, intent. Though some scientists certainly have metaphysics in which such notions play a role, Einstein did not.
Here is an extract which shows how Einstein used the word:
You will hardly find one among the profounder sort of scientific minds without a peculiar religious feeling of his own. But it is different from the religion of the naive man. For the latter God is a being from whose care one hopes to benefit and whose punishment one fears; a sublimation of a feeling similar to that of a child for its father, a being to whom one stands to some extent in a personal relation, however deeply it may be tinged with awe. But the scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation. The future, to him, is every whit as necessary and determined as the past. There is nothing divine about morality, it is a purely human affair. His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection. This feeling is the guiding principle of his life and work, in so far as he succeeds in keeping himself from the shackles of selfish desire. It is beyond question closely akin to that which has possessed the religious geniuses of all ages.
(From The World as I see it, by Einstein, quoted in A. Lesikar's pages)
It is interesting to observe Einstein above apparently elevating classical determinism and universal causation to scientific necessities; yet this is precisely the point where he was most in conflict with the trends of twentieth century quantum physics.
I think it would be interesting to have in this forum some further consideration of the religious or metaphysical views of other scientists. I have some material on Paul Davies, which I may clean up and post sometime.
Cheers -- Sylas

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Tamara, posted 02-26-2004 11:17 AM Tamara has not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 4 of 37 (88901)
02-26-2004 5:45 PM


Einsteins last words....
Is'nt it sad his attending nurse did not speak German?
Or so I have heard his last words are lost to us.
[This message has been edited by 1.61803, 02-27-2004]

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 5 of 37 (641000)
11-15-2011 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Sylas
02-25-2004 5:21 PM


Classic EvC
One of my efforts, as of late, is to resurrect older topics that never got off the ground yet that have excellent opening posts. Sylas, a longtime EvC member, had this gem.
Sylas writes:
An excellent collection entitled "Some of Einstein's Writings on Science and Religion" has been made available on-line, courtesy of Arnold Lesikar. One of the pages is specifically Einstein on a Personal God.
The whole idea of randomness within the known universe is somewhat fascinating to me.
Another gem of a quote attributed to Einstein:
quote:
"I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Sylas, posted 02-25-2004 5:21 PM Sylas has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Theodoric, posted 11-16-2011 10:27 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 6 of 37 (641069)
11-16-2011 7:11 AM


Einstein writes:
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 (for me) change this.
Einstein in letter to philosopher Eric Gutkind, January 3, 1954.
Lots of people tend to forget this when they claim Einstein as one of their own. Especially when they also quote "God does not play dice with the Universe"

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 7 of 37 (641083)
11-16-2011 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Phat
11-15-2011 7:41 AM


Re: Classic EvC
One of my efforts, as of late, is to resurrect older topics that never got off the ground yet that have excellent opening posts. Sylas, a longtime EvC member, had this gem.
There seems to be a reason they never got off the ground. So far I think your attempts at resurrection are just wasting valuable space on the forum.
IMHO

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Phat, posted 11-15-2011 7:41 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 8 of 37 (641105)
11-16-2011 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Sylas
02-25-2004 5:21 PM


quote:
Einstein does not have any special authority as a religious teacher. I do not share all his views; and in fact I think his metaphysical perspectives on a comprehensible universe were a contributing factor to his most famous scientific errors; rejection of quantum machanics and indeterminacy, and resistances to singularities and the instability of large scale spacetime which follow from general relativity. However, I do honour his breadth of thought, his foundational contribitions to modern physics, and his gentle and thoughtful approach to religious belief.
I've also heard it argued that Einstein's religious views may have subconsciously led to what he called his "biggest blunder" involving the cosmological constant. Since the universe was essentially the same as God for Einstein, he may have subconsciously willed the universe to be static and unchanging.
quote:
If Einstein is to be cited in the context of discussions of God, and a personal God in particular, then in fairness we need to recognize Einstein's own views, whether they fit well with our own views or not.
Yes, but as you point out, Einstein's religious views are well-known. He was not shy about expressing them. So is it really necessary for us to explain his religious views every time we quote him on religion?
I definitely believe in a personal God, yet I use an Einstein quote on religion in my sig file. No one should infer from this that my view of God is the same as Einstein's. Rather, I include Einstein's quote to combat the views of the modern "militant atheists" (Dawkins, Hitchins, et al), who claim that religion is a terrible evil that should be eradicated. The Einstein quote illustrates that someone more intelligent than them thought otherwise.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Sylas, posted 02-25-2004 5:21 PM Sylas has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Pressie, posted 11-17-2011 8:01 AM kbertsche has replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 9 of 37 (641149)
11-17-2011 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by kbertsche
11-16-2011 3:05 PM


Why do you think that Einstein was more intelligent than Dawkins or Hitchens?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by kbertsche, posted 11-16-2011 3:05 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by kbertsche, posted 11-17-2011 9:35 AM Pressie has replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 10 of 37 (641157)
11-17-2011 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Pressie
11-17-2011 8:01 AM


quote:
Why do you think that Einstein was more intelligent than Dawkins or Hitchens?
I probably should have said "more prominent" or "more renowned" or "more highly awarded" or maybe "more respected".

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Pressie, posted 11-17-2011 8:01 AM Pressie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by PaulK, posted 11-17-2011 10:07 AM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied
 Message 16 by Pressie, posted 11-18-2011 3:01 AM kbertsche has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 11 of 37 (641161)
11-17-2011 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by kbertsche
11-17-2011 9:35 AM


The more important question is what makes you think that what Einstein meant by "religion" had anything to do with the ideas that Dawkins is criticsing ?
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by kbertsche, posted 11-17-2011 9:35 AM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 12 of 37 (641201)
11-17-2011 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Sylas
02-25-2004 5:21 PM


A GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED
True Einstein did not accept a personal God and aligned with Spinoza, namely there is a Creator, but one who does not interfear with the personal day to day lives of people. However, this is most mis-interpreted what it actually means.
Consider the final entry in Genesis' opening creation chapter:
quote:
And the heaven and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 2 And on the seventh day God finished His work which He had made; and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had made.
Consider the words, FINISHED; FINISHED HIS [THE] WORK; RESTED FROM FROM ALL CREATION.
These mean the creation of the universe was both completed and 'COMPLETE'. This means there is nothing incomplete or deficient, namely, all and everything that is required is done and given. This includes the purposeful free fall of human activity.
Here, if there was an interfearence in the personal day to day lives of people, it does not mean the Creator is not aware of it or unable to do something about it. In fact, the deeper meaning is that if there was such an interfearence....wait for it....
.......
It means the creation WAS/IS incomplete - deficient - needing constant input. Such a premise fully contradicts an omnipotent God's creation! Einstein was right - and wrong.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Sylas, posted 02-25-2004 5:21 PM Sylas has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Pressie, posted 11-17-2011 11:26 PM IamJoseph has replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 13 of 37 (641211)
11-17-2011 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by IamJoseph
11-17-2011 9:10 PM


Re: A GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED
Now IamJoseph wants to "explain" one of Einstein's quotes from the Bible. For in case IamJoseph missed it the first time round:
Einstein writes:
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 (for me) change this.
Einstein in letter to philosopher Eric Gutkind, January 3, 1954.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by IamJoseph, posted 11-17-2011 9:10 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by IamJoseph, posted 11-18-2011 12:58 AM Pressie has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 14 of 37 (641215)
11-18-2011 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Pressie
11-17-2011 11:26 PM


Re: A GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED
As I said, Einstein, and also Newton, both accepted creationism [a force behind the universe's emergence] and monotheism. Both these premises come from the Hebrew bible. Some 70% of the Hebrew bible, excepting only some FX miracles, has already been scientifically proven as historically evidenced.
There is nothing wrong in being old or early [primitive]; but which part is legend and childish has been long debunked. In contrast, a host of not so primitive scriptures cannot measure the primitive Hebrew: why is that?
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Pressie, posted 11-17-2011 11:26 PM Pressie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Pressie, posted 11-18-2011 1:52 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 15 of 37 (641218)
11-18-2011 1:52 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by IamJoseph
11-18-2011 12:58 AM


Re: A GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED
Well, Einstein was very clear that he saw the Bible as childish legends. No word salad from your side is going to change that.
In contrast, a host of not so primitive scriptures cannot measure the primitive Hebrew: why is that?
Speaking in riddles again? What on earth does this even mean? How do you "measure" a language?
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by IamJoseph, posted 11-18-2011 12:58 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by IamJoseph, posted 11-18-2011 3:10 AM Pressie has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024