Slashdot Mirror


Einstein Letter Goes on Sale

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."

28 of 615 comments (clear)

  1. Well... by fyngyrz · · 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...

    "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

    ...didn't do it... somehow, I doubt this new letter will, either, clear as it may be.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:Well... by CRCulver · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Certainly theists trying to ascribe some form of theism to Einstein are mistaken. However, the atheists can be just as bad. I have already seen in Internet forums that atheists are using this newly found statement of Einstein to boost their cause, arguing along the lines of "Einstein was a genius, and he didn't believe in God, so clearly rejecting the existence of God is the smart thing to do." Einstein, though a brilliant physicist, was not trained in the philosophy of religion. It's a pity that when atheists could refer to eminent philosophers of religion like Mackie in his The Miracle of Theism (Oxford University Press, 1983) or (pre-conversion) Flew as examples of how to argue well against theism, they instead use completely inappropriate figures like Einstein.

    2. Re:Well... by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 5, Insightful
      He also said:

      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. My own interpretation of that is, he appreciates the beauty and intelligence of how the world is put together, almost reveres its symmetry -- but certainly doesn't believe that there's a white-bearded man in the sky. The idea is that one can have an almost religious experience in the form of an equation, but the "I do not believe in a personal God" says that he doesn't believe praying is going to do any good -- if God is Nature, then Nature certainly doesn't care about your personal problems.

      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.
      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    3. Re:Well... by kestasjk · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why do you need to be a "philosopher of religion" to have a say on whether God exists? Surely a physicist has as much to say on what's real as anyone?

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    4. Re:Well... by AuMatar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Agreed. Thats like saying an astronomer's opinion means nothing regarding astrology. If you're studying "the philosophy of religion", you've already decided on a camp.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    5. Re:Well... by Tom · · Score: 5, Insightful

      having once believed, you start to have doubts, which eventually turn into disbelief. That's a very friendly way of putting it, on course with what the various religions bash into our heads: That not believing in their bullshit is a kind of "fall from grace", that it has to do with "doubt" and "disbelief".

      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.
      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    6. Re:Well... by martin-boundary · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Einstein, though a brilliant physicist, was not trained in the philosophy of religion.
      Sure, and brain surgeons are not trained in snake oil quackery. News at 11!
    7. Re:Well... by MosesJones · · Score: 5, Insightful

      not trained in the philosophy of religion
      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.

      --
      An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
    8. Re:Well... by meringuoid · · Score: 5, Insightful
      how many of us were born or raised atheist?

      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.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    9. Re:Well... by meringuoid · · Score: 5, Insightful
      the evidence that Jesus walked over water is exactly as strong as the evidence Julius Caesar conquered Gaul

      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?

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    10. Re:Well... by MosesJones · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What makes you think that Einstein didn't think long and hard about his position? Given the number of people who tried to claim him as a theist and his rebuttals (including this letter) he comes across as someone who is extremely well read on the subject and has a huge advantage over those who limit themselves to a philosophical discussion on religion. Religion is not a testable scientific proposition and Einstein was (at the time) the man who saw further than all others on how the Universe operated and thus had greater insight about the universe around us than anyone who simply studied religion.

      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?

      --
      An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
    11. Re:Well... by Pietzki · · Score: 4, Insightful

      nope. I have studied a fair bit of philosophy of religion. And I came out way more balanced than before. I used to call myself an atheist. I believed in Kant's ideas of rationalism and that any form of theology is just the irrational 'opium for the masses'. After learning more about arguments for/against and generally more about religious ideas I've realised that agnosticism is a much more rational position on the whole idea of a god.

    12. Re:Well... by martinmcc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Science can easily disprove a Christian-style religion, it is a trivial task to be done. The Christian religion believes that the bible in the inerrant word of their god. The bible is full of in-factualities and inconstancies, therefore the Christian religion is proved wrong. Now, many of the slightly more enlightened followers realise this, but then get scared, so they redefine their religion to cater for it, picking and choosing what passages are what god meant, and which are merely popped in for the fun of it. But again, many claims can be tested. Do you believe praying can have a positive outcome in medical cases? Then there should be a statistical difference between the mortality of praying Christians and non-praying. There isn't*, so again, it is proved wrong.

      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 :)

    13. Re:Well... by Ginger+Unicorn · · Score: 5, Insightful

      he's not saying the evidence for jesus is false because it is in favour of some religion or other, he's saying it is useless because it is completely unverifiable and completely inadequate to support the claim. on the other hand, the evidence caesar invaded gaul is verifiable, manifold and varied, and so supports the claim well. As redundant as this is, but for the sake of clarity, he also pointed out that the well supported caesar claim was also inherently more likely even without the evidence.

      --
      (1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
    14. Re:Well... by Devout_IPUite · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Most people who I know who identify themselves as atheists, myself included are technically agnostic. Just like I'm agnostic that Santa exists. Which of course means that I realize I can't absolutely disprove it, and I'd believe if I saw compelling evidence, but for now I'm going to live my life like it's poppycock.

    15. Re:Well... by dgatwood · · Score: 4, 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.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  2. Re:Views on Religion? by totallyarb · · 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.

    --
    -- Note to Mods: There is a good reason there's no "-1 Disagree" option. --
  3. Re:Views on Religion? by rumith · · Score: 4, 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.

  4. Metaphor, dude by Moraelin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It may come as a shock, but people use metaphors or analogies or funny quotes all the time, without actually believing in the thing used as a metaphor.

    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.

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
  5. Re:Views on Religion? by haeger · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Do I have to be religious to ask you to go to hell?

    Can an atheist use the expression "The devil is in the details?"

    .haeger

    --
    You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. -- Harlan Ellison
  6. Re:Do people still write letters? by Yvanhoe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What do emails fail to achieve ?
    We already have a few historical emails about the creation of internet, spam, linux, and so on...

    --
    The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
  7. Re:Absolutely not. by Thiez · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Explain this: if the universe cannot exist without self-awareness, and there was a time when the universe did not exist, then how did the universe came to be? One cannot be aware of oneself if one does not yet exist. Your philosophy sounds an aweful lot like that new-age crap, but let's assume you came up with this yourself. How did you come to this philosophy of yours?

  8. Re:Absolutely not. by drsmithy · · Score: 3, 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 ?

  9. Re:Do people still write letters? by teslar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What do emails fail to achieve ?
    Well, for one I guess just-another-printed-copy of an email will never sell for as much as the original of a handwritten (or even typed) letter :)
  10. Re:Absolutely not. by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    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.

  11. Re:Absolutely not. by holloway · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The arguments about the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Pink Unicorn and Russel's Teapot are all good responses to that. For example, I'm going to claim that pink unicorns did it and that you're wrong. How is your theory any better than mine? Where the evidence?

    In your response please do keep in mind that unicorns are pretty and they can do anything they want.

  12. Re:amused by meringuoid · · Score: 3, Insightful
    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.

    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.

    --
    Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  13. So the point of this story is? by east+coast · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So the atheists are trying to beat on the theists by proving that a really smart guy was one of them?

    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.

    --
    Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.