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."

18 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 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!
    2. 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);
    3. 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?
    4. 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
    5. 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
    6. Re:Well... by Fred_A · · Score: 5, Funny

      And unless you *also* have a degree in Chocolate Philosophy, don't even think of discussing Easter !

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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
    10. 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.

    11. Re:Well... by cmaurand · · Score: 5, Informative

      Religion is a leap of faith. I'm a Christian and I don't believe that the Bible is the infallible word of God. It was written by men before there was much of an understanding of science. It was written by men who were subject to the prejudices of the time. The Bible that we know of today was translated from Hebrew and Greek. Jesus spoke Aramaic, probably closer to Hebrew than Greek. Aramaik doesn't translate well to Greek, Hebrew doesn't translate well to either English or Greek and Greek doesn't translate that well to English. The Hebrew Bible refers to Moses parting the sea of reeds, not the red sea. The Hebrew Bible starts with "When God began creating..." not "In the beginning..." I could go on, but you get my drift. Look up a couple of books by Bishop (Episcopal) Shelby Spong. You'd all be very impressed. You're right the Bible is full of inconsistencies because its not a historically accurate book. Its poorly translated and it is a collection from a lot of different authors that were chosen by committee.

  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. 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.
  4. 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?

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. Re:Absolutely not. by indifferent+children · · Score: 5, Funny
    And how did this mind exist when nothing existed before it existed?

    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.

    --
    Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain