Einstein Letter Goes on Sale 615
ErkDemon writes "For any Slashdotters who want a piece of frameable Einstein memorabilia, a letter from A.E. to Eric Gutkind goes on sale at Bloomsbury Auctions today (May 15th). The content of the letter mostly deals with Einstein's views on religion. (Einstein pronounces himself rather unimpressed by the whole idea and rejects it as "childish.") The Guardian has printed a translated excerpt from the letter."
Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
Reading it, you'd think this would stop the theists from repeatedly dragging the man unwillingly into their camp; but since this well-known remark...
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I don't need a fancy-schmancy degree, I have the real world experience of having a sweet tooth the size of Alaska!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Are people born under a white moon more likely to be X or Y ? That's not something astronomy confronts itself with. At best it answers the question when a white moon occurs. Astrology uses astronomy as a tool, to make their calendars and doesn't dispute the validity of it. The science they dispute the validity of is (mostly) biology and economics.
You will find most idiotic groupings disputing biology and eco
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
In case (a) we have some guy telling a story of how Jesus walked on water. In case (b) we have some guy telling a story of how Caesar conquered Gaul, plus coins found throughout France showing Caesar's image, plus Roman and Gaulish weapons of the period found throughout France, plus centuries of evidence in writing and in artefacts of continuous Roman occupation of Gaul which coincidentally begin at the time of Caesar.
And that's before we discuss the relative plausibility of the two written accounts we began with. One describes a man doing something exotically impossible, while the other describes a man doing something we know perfectly well that men do from time to time. Does that not make one far more likely to be a fiction than the other?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh wait, a civilization that hasn't invaded France. Nevermind.
-
Re:Well... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Well... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well... (Score:5, Interesting)
Iesu ben Iussuf, a carpenter's son from Nazareth who became a radical rabbi, probably existed. There's no contemporary documentary evidence, but there is plenty of evidence of radical Jewish religious movements about the same time and the later emergence of Christianity is reasonable corroboration. However, whether or not Iesu ben Iussuf existed casts precisely no light whatever on whether God exists.
Re:Well... (Score:4, Funny)
That would explain why the live-size Julius Caesar brass bust recently discovered in the south of France was underwater.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
What science cannot disprove is a story that is redefined every time it is questioned, and fobs most stuff of to 'the mystery'. But anyone who can conduct some honest self questioning does not need science to prove/disprove it.
*I saw a study of it somewhere previously, but can't find the link, so don't take my word for it, check it out if you want to repeat it
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The Christian religion believes that the bible in the inerrant word of their god.
The largest sect, the Catholic Church, believes no such thing. They fully understand that the bible was written and translated by men. They do believe that it was divinely inspired.
Most Christian sects share this belief - fundamentalists are more of the exception than the rule.
It is impossible for science to "disprove" anything about the supernatural world, as science only seeks to explain our natural world. As you state, though, science is well-equipped to disprove specific claims about the effects of rel
Re:Well... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not exactly the same thing, but I saw a study that found an inverse correlation between a patient's hospital stay and the number of people who said they were praying for the person (unbeknownst to the patient, as I recall). I consider it likely that the people who said they were praying for the patient thought they were doing enough just by praying, whil
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
Repeat after me: Correlation != causation.
It is equally likely, if not more likely, that the people for whom more prayers were said were more seriously ill or injured to begin with. You don't generally get hundreds of people praying for someone who had an appendectomy, but when somebody is in a car wreck or has pancreatic cancer, a lot of people are praying for that person. Unless the study focuses on a single cause of hospitalization within a single age group, etc., there are too many other variables that would have more of an impact.
Further, there were studies done that have shown pretty conclusively that religious patients under the care of doctors who were dismissive of religion or ignored it entirely tended to fare worse than patients whose doctors and other care providers were willing to pray with them. Whether this is the power of prayer or the power of self suggestion is, of course, more a matter of philosophical debate rather than scientific debate.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why am I bothering to reply to something so obviously foolish....?
Physics is the study of the physical universe. God, as an entity, doesn't exist in it. Either
Personally I'm quite happy to accept that God is a real emergent property of human politics, and that, in that sense, God exists. By creating a God and persuadin
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Well... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
Absolutely not. (Score:2, Funny)
Physicists don't usually think about why things are, they only think about how things work.
So a physicist can explain the math behind quantum entanglement but a physicist cannot explain why math is capable of solving all the mysteries of the universe.
I'm getting a degree in philosophy so I can explain.
And if you think you can challenge my philosophy go ahead.
1. God is self awareness.
2. When an entity, individual or species becomes more self aware, they become closer to God. As a result, their science gets b
Re:Absolutely not. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
PErhaps self awareness existed on the particle level before the 3d universe big banged itself into existence. Perhaps the existence of the 3d universe was a result of self awareness of the 2d.
And since you believe all new age philosophy to be crap, you are probably a closed minded athiest so why does it matter how I came up with my opinion?
But if you want me to make it simple, nothing exists outside of our minds. You only think that stuff exists but you have no way to actually prove anything exists prior to
Re:Absolutely not. (Score:4, Interesting)
Basically I don't believe the universe exists independent of the observer. And if you somehow do believe the universe can exist independent on the observer then the burden is on you to prove something can exist without being observed by anything in the universe.
Quoting Wikipedia, Bertrand Russell wrote: -- B. Russel, Human Knowledge: Its Scope and Limits.
I don't mean to discredit any other way or thinking, but no other way of thinking seems to be as reasonable. The other ways of thinking seem to rely on faith, we are supposed to believe that "stuff" can exist outside of our minds, which to me doesn't seem any more reasonable than believing in a God who lives in the sky who we can't see, or aliens in space, or angels, or the devil.
Sure it's all possible, but I'm more likely to believe that it' all in our minds. The main different between what I'm saying and Solipsism is that Solipsism says that the individual mind "mine" is the only mind I know to exist, while I'm saying "our" as in the universal mind is the only thing I know to exist.
Btw what are some of those philosophical problems with Solipsism? And why exactly is it impossible to psychologically believe? Why should you believe anything exists outside of reality?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry, is that what they teach you at school ? To start with bland empty made up statements ?
(not impressed)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
God is the mind of the universe. Is that better?
Or, God is the collective mind of all beings in the universe. Is this more clear?
And this mind intelligently designed the universe.
Re:Absolutely not. (Score:5, Insightful)
In your response please do keep in mind that unicorns are pretty and they can do anything they want.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Or, God is the collective mind of all beings in the universe. Is this more clear?
No. It's still an empty assertion. You are claiming that self-awareness can exist independent of a material substrate ; you claim that the creation of the universe was the result of its perception by this ephemeral self-awareness (despite it not actually existing to be perceived). You then go on to claim that simple substrates (rocks, etc) are incapable of self-awareness, implying a correlation between substrate complexity and self-awareness ability and that zero matter has zero ability to be self-aware, w
Re:Absolutely not. (Score:5, Funny)
Please, sir! It is well accepted that Philosophers are permitted a certain amount of hand waving. This one appears to be waving only his right hand, curled into a tubular shape, vigorously about his nether regions.
Re:Absolutely not. (Score:4, Insightful)
1. God is self awareness.
What is the basis for your core assumption ?
This means, life is real if it's aware of itself. Humans and most mammals are real.
Most mammals ? Which ones are unlucky enough not to make the cut ? Who decides ?
Where do reptiles and fish fit into your scheme ? Or, aren't they cute enough to have feelings ? Do the poor old insects get a raw deal as well ?
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be willing to put a dollar down and say he's vegetarian too.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I like the 'fish vegetarians'. They try to convince themselves that fish are so dumb that it doesn't count as cruel. I like to fish and cook what I catch, and can say without a doubt that fish go absolutely ballistic about being bled out while alive and live longer in that situation
Re:Absolutely not. (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words, you believe in magic. But we can easily experimentally verify this state of affairs.
I put you inside a dark room, completely and utterly dark, so that most of your perception is disabled. What you don't know is that there is a hole in the floor of the room : but no worries, nobody is aware of the hole, and it isn't aware of itself : so you won't fall through it.
Obviously if you do fall through : your "philosophy" is worthless and untrue : it failed a prediction.
Your philosophy is different in nothing from any ancient belief that you would call utterly stupid. They believed something that could be trivially disproven and "the world is only what you think about it".
Obviously it's not. The world exists independantly of you.
You are confused. (Score:3, Funny)
I propose a simple experiment. You say the universe exists only inside one's awareness.
In other words, you believe in magic. But we can easily experimentally verify this state of affairs.
I put you inside a dark room, completely and utterly dark, so that most of your perception is disabled. What you don't know is that there is a hole in the floor of the room : but no worries, nobody is aware of the hole, and it isn't aware of itself : so you won't fall through it.
If the universe were not self aware, there would be no such thing as a hole. The example you give depends on some God like being creating a concept called a room, creating a hole, and putting us in that room. The simple fact is, if nothing ever perceives the hole then there simply is no such thing as a hole.
The same argument athiests use to try and explain how there isnt a God because we can't collectively perceive of a God, is the exact argument I'm using to prove that nothing exists without being perceiv
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Until he died, assuming there's an afterlife, he was no closer to the answer than I. In either case, now that he's dead and whether there's an afterlife or not, he still can't tell us the answer.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And why does their spiritual leader claim this is the truth path? Faith. And that's the same problem -- how do you change someones mind that homosexual repression is equally as wrong as black repression, or that having sex in the day is acceptable? Sure we all have some beliefs in our lives but beliefs are generally unhelpful things, for adults.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
(his meaning of spiritual don't include belief in supernatural).
If this is true, why does he make a distinction between natural and spiritual? "Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity." It is clear here, that he sees that "the spiritual" is something other than "the natural." However, he believes that both can be experienced. If you mean by "super-natural" something that can not be experienced, then very few people believe in a superna
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The universe is self aware. (Score:2, Insightful)
It's as simple as this. The universe is completely in our collective minds. When I say our, I do not mean humans, I mean the collective self awareness of the universe.
That collective self awareness of the universe perceived the universe into existence. The big bang was the beginning of the universe(self awareness), becoming aware of itself.
Existence is self awareness. That which is self aware is all that is real in the universe. Everything else is just junk information, noise. If all self awareness in the u
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
So to be clear here, what you are saying is that you have to be trained in religion to have an opinion on it? Surely this rules out 99% of theists out there today, pretty odd that they can't have a view.
The flip side of this is that no-one (theist or atheist) should have an opinion on science unless correctly trained. That no-one can have an opinion on the Law unless fully trained in the law and become a politician unless trained in politics.
Its a bit childish to refer to Einstein and saying "yeah see, proves it" but using his arguments (that religion is not rational for instance) certainly shouldn't be ruled out just because he was only a Nobel Prize winning physicist who revolutionised mankind's view of the universe. Philosophy of religion is the study of only a limited domain and it is a domain that has been reduced over the centuries by science, the best way to understand why religion is bunk is to read science books because they explain the universe much more effectively than "man with beard did it".
Enlightenment is the antidote to religion, and you don't get much more enlightened than Einstein.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
To imply that Einstein didn't think about his position and wasn't well read on the subject certainly appears to go against both his education and background as well as the writings and arguments he made on the topic.
If I want to know what is wrong with me, I ask a doctor not someone who studies the philosophy of illness, if I want to know what governs the universe then I'll ask a scientist over people who study the philosophy of religion. Einstein is an authority on what makes the universe tick, much more so than people who study religion.
So maybe the question is what authority do philosophers of religion have when talking about what created and governs the universe?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Putting aside the fact that other notable Nobel Prize winners have managed to demonstrate brilliance in multiple fields (Currie for instance) this really is a crock. It is a classic insular mind argument that only the "blessed" are smart enough to understand all the complexities of religion, that it takes a huge amount of study to truly "understand the mind of god" and to understand the arguments of religion.
The reality is, as has been proven by science for t
The mind of God (Score:3, Insightful)
And yet 50+ yrs after his death, religious philosophers, fellow scientists, and popular writers are all trying to understand what he meant by the phrase "The mind of God". So I hardly think "http://www.einstein-website.de/z_biography/credo.html">the personal philosophy of one of the great thinkers of the 20th century can be dismissed as inappropriate.
However I do agree with the rest of your post it's more entert
Re:Well... (Score:5, Informative)
you can't have it both ways (Score:3, Interesting)
I openly asked them if they still find the logic persuasive, but intellectual inte
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, that, and does anyone want to date these quotes? It seems very likely that his beliefs changed; after all, how many of us were born or raised atheist? It seems mostly something that you come to on your own -- having once believed, you start to have doubts, which eventually turn into disbelief.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sorry, and I'm not buying it. You don't call the sane people "dis-paranoid", or "un-shizophrenic".
We don't "doubt". I "doubt" the christian god about as much as I "doubt" the flying spagetti monster, invisible pink elephants and moon-cheese. It's not a matter of "doubt", which is a negatively-loaded word and implies that there is some truth that could be believed. But in fact there's only a load of made-up bullshit. Not believing every shit someone came up with while on drugs isn't properly expressed with the word "doubt", and using that word indicates a tendency already.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Interesting)
Spinoza didn't believe in a personal God either. In Ethica, his philosophical masterpiece, Spinoza says that God is "immanent" in nature, not some supernatural entity beyond the world, interfering or having feelings.
Spinoza's concept of Deus sive natura (the God from nature) does not fit in the concept that most people mean when they speak of God. Schopenhauer wrote that because Spinoza called the substance God, he created his own problem of people misunderstanding him. Schopenhauer thinks Spinoza used the term God to make his ideas less objectionable. If only Spinoza choose to call his God-concept by any other name, his ideas would be understood more frequently for what they are: atheism in awe for the Beauty of Nature and the Universe; not theism, or pantheism, etc.
Einstein has the same problem: he stated many times not to believe in a personal God; the quote from this letter is just one quote among many others, many times equally clear as in this letter. But because Einstein, like Spinoza, did use the term God (for instance in the dice comment), even if it meant something that falls outside of most people's definition of God, theists like to talk about him as if he were one of their own.
In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins explains why Einstein's God-quotes do not contradict his unbelief.
This is a quote from Albert Einstein, which summarises his position best (in my opinion):
Re: (Score:2)
"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.
A belief in a world with natural and supernatural causes is on par with merely accepting supernatural cause
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
Er... all of us were born atheist. Many of us were later taught theism, and then some of us still later rejected that. Nobody is born believing in God, any more than they are born believing in Father Christmas.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:He just does not believe in the Christian God. (Score:5, Informative)
He never said self-aware, nor did he suggest anything about how it was created. That's more Hawking's department, anyway.
However, the fact that he recognized a symmetry in the Universe in no way suggests that he believed in a creator, or that the "God" he believed in was even sentient. He claimed to believe in Spinoza's God. [wikipedia.org] Quoting that Wikipedia article:
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Nope. Fail.
He never said self-aware, nor did he suggest anything about how it was created. That's more Hawking's department, anyway.
His theory proves the universe is self aware. Mass is simply energy like everything else, and energy is never created or destroyed. It's his theory that allows people today to say that the universe is self aware.
So while there might not be a personal God, we do know that time is relative. If you travel at a faster speed time slows down, because distance shrinks. Now we have discovered non-locality and we see that distance itself is the illusion and that when an object is on the quantum level, distance ceas
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
E = mc^2 != (mass == energy) (Score:5, Informative)
It does not state that matter and energy are the same thing.
It states that mass has energy, and inversely, energy has mass. [wikipedia.org]
A body travelling at enormous speeds gains mass because of the mass of its kinetic energy, which is the quantity described by E=mc^2. The body does not gain any matter (it's particle count remains constant).
The constituents of a nuclear fission reaction neither lose or gain mass. No mass is converted to energy. The energy released is the spare binding energy that the larger nuclei required but the more stable products do not. Products like photons with no intrinsic mass of their own carry away the mass of the energy they embody. No mass is destroyed or "converted to energy".
Even in a matter-antimatter annihilation, the products carry energy equivalent to the combined rest mass of the reagents and thus mass and energy are conserved.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
His theory proves the universe is self aware. Mass is simply energy like everything else, and energy is never created or destroyed.
WTF? How did you make that leap?
I can see why others don't want to give you serious replies. That's like saying "Electricity flows from positive to negative, therefore IT'S ALIVE!" Complete non-sequitur.
Athiests have faith in the idea that a God doesn't, and shouldn't exist. How they rationalize it is their business, but these beliefs are the core of athiesm.
I see, so you really don't know anything about atheism. Go read. [wikipedia.org]
You're not much of a philosopher if you assume that absence of belief == belief of absence.
If there is no randomness in the universe, then everything in the universe is deliberate, and this is the entire basis for intelligent design.
Again, WTF?
No, everything in the universe is deterministic. For all you know, God exists, but it was really a big accident. [yoism.org]
If all events are caused, then even the big bang had to have a cause.
It proves no intelligence
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You know what, screw this; I'm not staying in this semantic labyrinth. Make a better one. Give it some cushy pillows, a chumby [chumby.com], and an Apple TV. Make a chocolate cheesecake with a heath bar crust. Bring some playing cards. Maybe, just maybe, I'll stick around a little longer. Until then, you get to remain a lonely fuckin' minotaur.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What a disgraceful slander.
"Intelligent design" is a sly relabeling of creationism. Einstein was above all a scientist. He would certainly not want to be associated with such intentionally deceptive pseudoscience.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Athiests believe the universe is a complete accident and that everything in the universe is random.
This is a much better explanation of atheism:
The natural condition of all humans at birth and prior to indoctrination in or self-invention of Theism.
Honestly, it seems there's a silent majority of agnostics out there who would rather be left alone regarding religious matters. I also suspect a lot of people who claim to be atheist are agnostic, because it's only natural to play with ideas over time and not be quite as resolute as most attempt to appear when posting on internet forums.
Re:He just does not believe in the Christian God. (Score:5, Informative)
If I should ever encounter an entity with god-like powers I'll treat them with a sensible amount of respect, either to gain their favour or avoid their wrath. But god-like powers aren't proof of being creator of the universe. Quite simply I can't conceive of any kind of proof that would make this evident to anyone within the universe. It's an impossibility.
All it says (Score:2)
Reading it, you'd think this would stop the theists from repeatedly dragging the man unwillingly into their camp; but since this well-known remark...
All it says is that Einstein does not believe in a personal God. The God in the bible is a personal God that cares about the fate of humanity.
I don't believe in a personal God either, but I do believe in a God. Einstein also said that God does not play dice with the universe. If the universe is not random, there must be a God.
Re: (Score:2)
Sigh. And so it goes.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Do people still write letters? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Do people still write letters? (Score:4, Insightful)
We already have a few historical emails about the creation of internet, spam, linux, and so on...
Re:Do people still write letters? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
emails and blog posts don't?
Israel (Score:2, Insightful)
This probably goes a fair way to explaining why he turned down the offer to be the second president of Israel. To do that job I would suggest that a belief in a god who does concern himself with the fate and the doings of mankind is something of a prerequisite.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, he would probably have been an excellent president, but at the time (1950's) I think his lack of agreement with the Jewish religion's beliefs would have been a major obstacle for him and for the people.
Translation of "man"? (Score:2)
Is "man" here meaning "adult male human", or just "human"? Is there a German speaker with access to the original text who can clarify this?
Prophetic statement? (Score:2)
Did he foresee their actions in Gaza and the West Bank when they did get power!
A present to Richard Dawkins (Score:2, Interesting)
Can you think of anybody else who you'd like to end up with this letter?
(I won't go as far as to propose a fund to buy the letter for these people)
amused (Score:2)
It is just a letter by one of the scientists. Well, renowned scientists in the field of photoeffect (just kidding), but hardly a great philosopher or metaphysicist or actually anyone who's opinion on religion should matter for the rest of the mankind who consider religious experience to be outside of realm of science and deeply personal experience.
Who cares what Einstein says about religion? Did he "disprove" religion?
Re:amused (Score:4, Insightful)
No? Einstein discovered some of the most important principles upon which the Universe is built; he revealed the strange nature of space and time and how the two are related, the equivalence of solid material things and abstract energy, the connection between the propagation of light and the principle of causality itself.
If there exists a creator, then Einstein's study of the creation has told us more about that creator than any prophet ever has.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So the point of this story is? (Score:5, Insightful)
Frankly, considering the off-kilter nature of genius as we know it, I wouldn't want to lay too much value on having some of the same ideals of other geniuses, or many other people for that matter.
Re:Views on Religion? (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a good lesson here: Poetic/metaphoric language can get you in trouble when people take you too literally. The dice comment is regularly trotted out as "proof" of his religious convictions, but the later statements in which he unequivocally denies that he believes in God somehow get missed.
In any event, this is all a rather sad reverse ad hominem; whether or not Einstein believed in God has no bearing on whether or not God exists. But both theists and atheists try to "claim" Einstein, because having a genius on your side *seems* to add weight to your argument. It doesn't, but there you go.
Actually, appeal to false authority (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Views on Religion? (Score:5, Insightful)
When person A comes to visit his neighbour and sees him lying in a pool of blood and shrieks "Oh my God!", does that mean that person A is religious, too?
The word is pretty deeply rooted in the language, so even if you completely dismiss the concept of God, you may find yourself using the word more or less frequently.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
When person A comes to visit his neighbour and sees him lying in a pool of blood and shrieks "Oh my God!", does that mean that person A is religious, too?
This is why I always yell "Oh my Buddha!" whenever I happen to be lying in a pool of blood (not necessarily my own). To confuse people into thinking that Buddha is just another god in some religion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly.
And also:
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.
So in this case, he did not believe that the "lawful harmony of the world" could allow for randomness, or could itself be an emergent pattern from randomness.
Here's a question: Has he ever said anything about faith? Or about how God loves... anything? Or how God will do anything? That would be a clear mark of a man with religious convictions: "God will protect me," or even "In God we trust."
Instead, we get the equivalent of, really, "God bless you" when someone sneezes.
Re: (Score:2)
How about "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Metaphor, dude (Score:5, Insightful)
E.g., we may spew or quote stuff like "Mother Nature always sides with the hidden flaw" or "Mother Nature is a bitch", without actually believing that there is such a sentient entity. Or when Stalin said that "artillery is the god of war", chances are he didn't mean it literally.
E.g., you may have noticed quotes from Futurama's characters before on Slashdot. I'll take a wild guess that most of those people don't actually believe that Bender or Dr Zoidberg are real.
More importantly, look at the context in which he said that. There was _nothing_ theistic about it. Einstein's view of the world was based on the evidenced-based large-scale physics, where stuff is very deterministic. More importantly, there seemed to be no obvious way to reconcile relativity with quantum physics, so one or the other had to be false. Einstein obviously favoured his own relativity, and had plenty of experimental confirmation (at macro level) that it's correct.
If anything, it just shows that even really really smart people can be occasionally wrong, when talking about stuff outside their expertise domain.
But the crucial thing is that it was based on falsifiable evidence, not on some belief in a deity whose will is absolute and whose habits can be guessed. There was nothing inherently theistic about that belief.
Yes, he used the word "god". It was just a metaphor/anthropomorphisation of the universe. He could have just as well used "mother nature" or just personified the universe itself. It was just supposed to get the point across, not be some declaration of faith in a god.
Re:Views on Religion? (Score:5, Insightful)
Can an atheist use the expression "The devil is in the details?"
Re: (Score:2)
Einstein and God are family members.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I also wonder if this whole issue as to what einstein's religious beliefs were isn't driven almost entirely by his famous god and dice quote?
Find a good biography of Einstein. Albert was famous as much for his religious views as he was his published scientific papers.
Atheism was popular, as it still is, in scientific circles in the early 20th century. Einstein was notable on this subject BECAUSE he subscribed to neither his native judaism nor atheism.
During his lifetime Atheists tried to claim this deterministic-jew as one of their own, and despite his rejection of their point of view they have continued non-stop ever since.