Talk:Religious and philosophical views of Albert Einstein

bad footnote reference

The correct URL for footnote 10 is http://aeu.org/library/display_article.php?article_id=2082

Sorry I don't know how to fix this myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.88.17 (talk) 14:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

inverted commas

in the following quote,

"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.[11]

where exactly does the quote end? i assume after 'foot.' but i don't want to add it without being certain.

63.239.95.114 (talk) 16:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The necessity for a beginning.

Einstein's quote, where he admits "the necessity for a beginning" and a "superior reasoning power," is oft-quoted in defence of Einstein's acceptance of a personal god. (Despite Einstein arguing the converse.)

It's got to be somehow relevant. 71.238.210.28 (talk) 23:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

As a human weakness

I undid another rewording of the section with the title "As a human weakness" which has this ref. Sorry for the lack of edit summary – I accidentally hit Enter while trying to enter "unknowable" is not in ref. I have therefore felt the need to write this explanation: any section title has to have a good relation (not requiring original research) to the content of the ref. An alternative title that is more soundly based on the ref would be "As a childish superstition" but I do not support that as it is unnecessarily more inflamatory than "As a human weakness". Johnuniq (talk) 03:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Is this true?

"Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life." Anyone have a source for this? I did a web search but it's all religous sites that claim Einstein was "obviously" religious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.86.44 (talk) 20:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

This is from an interview with Viereck- the quote was an answer to a question about whether he accepted the historicity of Jesus, it wasn't a question whether he accepted the historicity of Jesus as the messiah. Here is the full exchange- "To what extent are you influenced by Christianity?" "As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene." "Have you read Emil Ludwig’s book on Jesus?" "Emil Ludwig’s Jesus is shallow. Jesus is too colossal for the pen of phrasemongers, however artful. No man can dispose of Christianity with a bon mot!" "You accept the historical existence of Jesus?" "Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life.Ninahexan (talk) 05:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

"Einstein was then asked if he accepted the "historical existence of Jesus," to which he replied, "Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life." "

This does not make Einstein a xtian. Sorry folks. Just so you know. Therefore I think this section should be REMOVED as a section and inserted elsewhere. It makes Einstein appear xtian and he clearly was not.75.21.152.164 (talk) 12:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Einstein's use of the word "religious"

It might add to the page to give insight into what Einstein meant when he used the word "religious", since his views might at times appear to be contradictory in light of varying definitions of the word. Here is an excerpt that relates to this from Einstein and religion: physics and theology- "I can understand your aversion to the use of the term 'religion' to describe an emotional and psychological attitude which shows itself most clearly in Spinoza," he wrote. "[But] I have not found a better expression than 'religious' for the trust in the rational nature of reality that is, at least to a certain extent, accessible to human reason."Ninahexan (talk) 05:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

More inclined to denigrate disbelievers

The top of page 3 of the source includes: "Einstein never felt the urge to denigrate those who believed in God; instead, he tended to denigrate atheists" and that is apparently the source for text recently inserted into the article, namely "Einstein was more inclined to denigrate disbelievers than the faithful".

I have not seen any denigration of disbelievers by Einstein (and the source and our article have no examples). Yes, Einstein did denigrate "fanatical atheists", but that's nothing like denigrating atheism or disbelievers. I have left the new text in the article for the moment because it is sourced, but what I really think is that we are relying too much on a casual sentence in the source, and it should be removed unless someone takes the time to read the book—is there a more substantive treatment of this claim, with examples of Einstein denigrating atheism? Johnuniq (talk) 07:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the quotes in the articles, both the Time article and this one, he is denigrating not only the fanatic but atheism itself, namely for the lack of awe, humility, inability to see order ("music of the spheres", the child in the library, etc.). He says' "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." We have the assertion from a reliable source, it is consistent with his own words and other reliable sources back it up. That is sufficient. It is not proper to dissect it based on our own perceptions of his statements as that is original research and merely the personal gloss of editors. The fact of the matter is that Einstein was a deist who did not believe in a personal God. While he found it acceptable, even in some regards desireable, to eschew the dogma of religion, he found it audacious arrogance to say there is no God. Mamalujo (talk) 20:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

When directly asked if he believed in God he answered: "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." Mamalujo (talk) 21:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

You are reading far too much into the words in the Time article (I have not read the book). It is not OR to point out that this article exists precisely because Einstein never clearly said anything about religion that cannot be misinterpreted or countered by something else he said: those who want to read Einstein's words to show he favored religion will find support, just as those who want the opposite. Accordingly, it is not satisfactory to take what is really an insubstantial glue comment in the Times article as a definitive ruling that Einstein denigrated atheism, and that is particularly so when reading the text shows that no such case is made.

Einstein was careful to avoid talking about people, and your interpretation that his comment about a child in a library being related to a denigration of atheism is not correct. There is a big difference between suggesting that awe and not atheism is the correct attitude and denigrating atheism ("disagree" and "denigrate" are different words because they mean different things). Johnuniq (talk) 23:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not mere glue. Isaacson means what he says. In fact, he reiterates in the following paragraph (see [his book at pp. 389-390]). Consistent with his rejection of atheism, he had also said that he felt that belief in a personal God was preferable to no transcendent belief at all. I've added that to the article. Mamalujo (talk) 01:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Mamalujo's deletion of text

Mamalujo added the following material in the section representing Einstein’s thoughts on the Roman Catholic Church: "As an adult, both in Berlin and in the U.S., he kept a statue or statues of the Madonna and Child in his home." and on a similar topic "Regardless of the validity of the quote, Einstein has been quoted as making similar statements - when asked whether he had said that the Church was the only opponent of communism, he answered, "I don't believe I have to emphasize that the Church at last became a strong opponent of National Socialism, as well." They are both from the same book. Taking the same book that Mamalujo used I then checked to see if these were representative of Einstein’s views and they most certainly were not. Rather than point out this oversight I simply added in all the quotations Einstein made about the Catholic Church. [1] I also tried to gave some background to his quotes, i.e what was happening at the time of the quotations that might help the uninformed reader to see that two quotations in particular were not contradictory, i.e when Einstein is critical of the Church's silence regarding the Nazi's he is saying so before the conclusion of WWII and when he says that it finally became a strong opponent of National Socialism he saying it at the end of hostilities when the Pope XII finally explicitly name’s names. (multiple citations available to source this). Mamalujo deleted the background information because he felt it was OR, but left Einstein’s own words intact. I didn't argue that at the time but now Mamalujo has deleted much of Einstein’s views and left it hopelessly unbalanced and unrepresentative of how Einstein viewed the Church based on Mamalujo’s own source book. In short Mamalujo uses a book to selectively quote passages that are favourable to the Church and omits practically all the others that are critical. After I edited the article not only were the favourable ones included but also the critical. Mamalujo seems to think that neutral pov means that if somebody says something critical of the Church then it must be balanced by something positive. This is an article about Einstein’s religious views and in a section dealing with his opinions of the Catholic Church. I have no objection to Mamalujo adding any other material from the book in question or any other book for that matter which reliably represents Einstein’s views.

Please note I’m not trying to make this personal but I am concerned about edits I sometimes come across from Mamalujo e.g in this one the original text has been altered to read “Catholic Church” when neither the article in question claims that nor the original article in Time magazine. [2] Yt95 (talk) 15:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

-"I simply added in all the quotations Einstein made about the Catholic Church. I also tried to gave some background to his quotes, i.e what was happening at the time of the quotations that might help the uninformed reader to see that two quotations in particular were not contradictory" Sounds too much like WP:SYN and WP:OR. The whole section is a massive "quote mining" project. What makes more sense is to put in the section what reliable secondary sources, typically biographers, have to say about the subject with perhaps a quote used by the biographer. The section obviously has undue weight for the subject as well.

This isn't an ancient manuscript or primary source, it's a friend of Einstein quoting Einsteins views which, as an R.C apologist, you will know is done frequently in your own source books, especially with the so called [mis]quotes of Einstein and the Church. If you want I can give you a list as long as your arm of Catholic apologetics books doing what you condemn here. I'm not interested in what Mamalujo or somebody else thinks Einstein said, especially after you distorted what Time Magazine wrote etc. If you wish to add material from your own source book, that I also used, that gives greater context then feel free to do so but don't simply ditch direct quotations from Einstein and substitute the opinions of others who may never have known him or cannot give direct ref's to published sources, e.g when it was said and where it was said.Yt95 (talk) 13:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

-"In short Mamalujo uses a book to selectively quote passages that are favourable to the Church and omits practically all the others that are critical." This is patently untrue I specifically left in highly critical quotes, and merely trimmed down the section for weight and to deal with issues of SYN and OR. The section I trimmed to included this:

"But what makes me shudder is that the Catholic Church is silent. One doesn't need to be a prophet to say, 'The Catholic Church will pay for this silence...I do not say that the unspeakable crimes of the Church for 2,000 years had always the blessing of the Vatican, but it vaccinated its believers with the idea: We have the true God, and the Jews have crucified Him.' The Church sowed hate instead of love, though the ten commandments state: Thou shalt not kill" (August 1943)[28]

"If I were allowed to give advice to the Churches," Einstein continued, "I would tell them to begin with a conversion among themselves, and to stop playing power politics. Consider what mass misery they have produced in Spain, South America and Russia." (September 1948)[29]

Tell the truth, you deleted most of the material and left in a token passage to give a veneer of npov. Yt95 (talk) 13:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

-The reason this all began was because of the dubious article in Skeptic (being an advocacy magazine, not a particularly reliable souce, written by a dilettante to the subject - a mathematician) which we now know falsely claims that the words attributed to Einstein in the 1940 Time article were not his. Waterhouse wrote the Skeptic article in 2006. Since then a manuscript expert athenticated a letter of Einstein's in which he confirmed the words of the 1940 Time article were his own. For this reason I am going to remove all citations to and material supported by Waterhouse's article. I also think the quotes in the section need to be trimmed - his feelings about the Catholic Church should be taken from reliable secondary sources, rather than editors culling his opinion from a synthesis of his quotes. Mamalujo (talk) 19:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

This is simply incredible. You not only falsify what Time Magazine said [they never mentioned Catholic Church], what the "mathematician" wrote, and now your doing it again with Einsteins letter to a questioner of the Time article. Einstein never mentions "Catholic Church" in this document “yes, he [Einstein] did say that the Christian Church was standing up to Hitler and Nazism” and also says "It's true that I made a statement which corresponds approximately with the text you quoted. I made this statement 'during the first years of the Nazi regime'-- much earlier than 1940 [i.e when Time Magazine quotes him] -- and my expressions were a little more moderate.” You will see from the quotations you have tried to delete from the article why Einsteins views likely changed. Prior to the Concordat many of the catholic Bishops in Germany had indeed stood up against National Socialism but this all changed with the signing of the Concordat in 1933. I can give multiple scholarly citations for this but you deleted the background information on the spurious grounds that it's synthesis. It's clear you simply don't want material in articles that are not in accord with your cause.Yt95 (talk) 13:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Mamalujo, you do not own this article, you do not know what is or isn't false, you are not in a position to say Catherine Williamson from Bonhams & Butterfields trumps Waterhouse/Wolff (remembering that Wolff is from the Einstein Archives), that the letter from 1943 trumps a letter from 1947, that one is the truth and the other is false, that the Antiques Roadshow is reliable and the Skeptics Society is not. Both letters say the same thing but to different degrees. Readers need to be given all versions not your preferred version. Your opinion about which letter represents the truth doesn't matter. And please cut out the nonsense about advocacy, polemics, a mathematician and someone from the Hebrew University's Einstein Archives being dilettantes. There can and usually are multiple conflicting versions and accounts of things and it's okay. When there are conflicts we describe the conflicts. We don't decide who is right on behalf of the reader. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

What is the actual wording found in the source?

In the section Albert Einstein's religious views#The Catholic Church, what is the wording used in the text cited, in support of our statement that:

"As an adult, both in Berlin and in the U.S., he kept a statue or statues of the Madonna and Child in his home."

This is the source provided.

What is the actual wording found in the source? Bus stop (talk) 20:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

You can see it here. Of course, I don't think that sentence is the major point of contention. Both of the page number cites to that source were incorrect. I have made the correction. Mamalujo (talk) 20:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I can't find it. Can you quote the sentence or sentences that would support the following statement in our article:

"As an adult, both in Berlin and in the U.S., he kept a statue or statues of the Madonna and Child in his home."

What wording in the text would support the above statement in our article? Can you please put the wording onto this Talk page? Bus stop (talk) 20:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The author at bottom of 116 through top of 117 refers to an "altar-like arangement" in Einstein's home with the Madonna and child. He says Einstein had similar displays when he visited him in Berlin a quarter century before. Please read if you want actual wording. I spend enough time here without transcribing easily available text. Mamalujo (talk) 21:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I can find no wording in the above link that you provide to support the following statement:

"As an adult, both in Berlin and in the U.S., he kept a statue or statues of the Madonna and Child in his home."

I think that the onus is on you to show that a reliable source supports the above assertion. I think the best way you could go about demonstrating the called-for support is to present actual quotes from your source here. But I do not see any language coming close to supporting the above assertion in the source that you have provided. Bus stop (talk) 22:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Really?!! Did you read it. The author clearly says there was an altar with a Madonna and Child statuette in his home and similar displays in the Berlin home a quarter century earlier. Mamalujo (talk) 23:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes I have read it and there is nothing remotely supportive of the above statement. The above statement is completely unsourced and consequently does not belong in the article. I have asked you if you would bring wording from your citation to this Talk page that you feel is supportive of the above assertion. I have looked for such wording in the citation and found none. Therefore the only conclusion I can reach is that there is no wording that might support the above statement. Bus stop (talk) 00:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Cosmic religion

Fulton Sheen suggested that Einstein's "cosmic" religion should drop the "s". Einstein said that scientists, led by himself, were the chief exponents of the "cosmic religion". Some one should find a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 12:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

See the New York Times Magazine, November 9, 1930, pages 1-4. Einstein says, "cosmic religious feeling"..."the serious scientific

workers are the only profoundly religious people". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.139.177.181 (talk) 14:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Life after death?

the article doesn't make a reader much wiser with regard to Einstein's religious views. I can't imagine that none of the books quoted says anything about his opinion on life after death. In Judaism, Christianity and Islam that's more or less the essence of the belief. Without his views on that, this article is incomplete. DS Belgium (talk) 15:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. Einstein quotes

User:DIREKTOR says: "The quote is genuine, no question. Here's one source". Well, the collection of Einstein quotes on stephenjaygould.org, at best a Secondary source, has "I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves" from The World as I See It p. 5 alright, but goes on: "An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls." Before trying again, User:DIREKTOR should make himself familiar with the way citations are supposed to be made on this project. Thank you. --Vsop.de (talk) 20:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The point of this article?

I think it's a bit out of proportions to dedicate an entire article to the religious beliefs of AE. Why not simply make it part of his own page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.44.134.204 (talk) 08:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Because,this issue is important(at least to some ignorant atheists) and extremely debatable(which is unnecessary,btw,What I think we all should stand for Truth despite where it points)...Skashifakram (talk) 07:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Calling atheists, or any other class of people, "ignorant" is neither informed or productive. If you can't be civil you should just move along. Miguel Chavez (talk) 07:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

You missed my point,I said some ignorant atheists,Einstein rejected atheism,why do you want Einstein to be atheist after all,isn't he the one who failed to give a conclusive answer to God's existence?Move beyond him and prove your point..Skashifakram (talk) 18:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

You were name calling. Please own up to it, and try to be more civil. And when have I ever classified Einstein as an atheist? Miguel Chavez (talk) 16:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, if it hurt you, but I didn't mean that.The second ‘You’ I used to denote all the audience, not only you.Please, don't take it personally.Skashifakram (talk) 06:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Einstein's religious views are of interest to many people. Unfortunately this is probably so because a lot of people try to use his views to support their own. Atheists are guilty of this. Christians are certainly guilty of this, as are Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, and many other groups. Singling out atheists for this and calling them "ignorant" is just missing the point. What we ought to do, I think, is be dispassionate about the truth of what Einstein actually believed, while at the same time acknowledging that his views are completely irrelevant to the overall truth of religious propositions. Religious claims must ultimately stand or fall on the soundness of their premises and the validity of their arguments. End of story, full stop. Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 08:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Quid est veritas? We are all ignorant. Some just make bolder statements than others.137.111.13.167 (talk) 10:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

"Rejecting" Pantheism

Einstein is quoted as saying: "I am not an atheist. I do not think I can call myself a pantheist."

Those two statements are not equal. Atheism is clearly rejected and done so on many occasions. But "I don't think I can call myself" leaves open the possibility of pantheism (and possibly suggests he was aware that others may rightly call him a pantheist for identifying with Spinoza's God). "I don't think I can call myself" is not "I am not". The article should not state that Einstein "rejected" pantheism, and should certainly not say that he rejected "both atheism and pantheism" as if the two were equally rejected. He certainly never accepted the label pantheism, but to say he flat out rejected it is misleading. His quote, which is stated in the article speaks for itself. (Allisgod (talk) 06:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC))

Actually he did reject that label, in his own words. "I do not think I can call myself a pantheist". We need not concern ourselves with what others might or might not say of him when he explicitly suggested that he didn't think the label of "pantheist" applied to him. In plain terms that is a rejection of the label. He was making a reference to his own definitions, which is precisely why he chose those words "I don't think I can call myself a pantheist". When it comes to him using labels we should reflect what he actually said. If you want to get into what other people would define him as then find appropriate sources. The vehemence of his rejection doesn't alter the fact that he nonetheless averred that the label didn't suit his position.Ninahexan (talk) 03:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

"I do not think I can call myself" is not the same as "I am not". Period. Einstein was very precise in that quote in distinguishing what he is not and what he doesn't think he can label himself as. "I do not think I can call myself" is also not the same as "I reject that label". That's clear to me and it should be to you. Your statement that he is rejecting that label is taking what Einstein said a step further than what he actually said. (Allisgod (talk) 05:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC))

All that is clear to me is that you disagree. I can't understand your reasoning at all. His statement about not being an atheist isn't even relevant. It is not a matter of equating the strength of his stance on either position, it is a matter of whether he made a statement relating his opinion about whether particular labels apply. His reply was about labels, which is what the article was trying to communicate. How can you take "I do not think I can call myself a pantheist" and somehow suggest he wasn't stating that he wasn't a pantheist? This seems to be a matter of interpreting simple English.Ninahexan (talk) 07:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)