This Week in God

First up from the God machine this week is an unexpected story about Albert Einstein and a previously unknown letter in which the scientist detailed his theological perspective.

A letter the physicist wrote in 1954 to the philosopher Eric Gutkind, in which he described the Bible as “pretty childish” and scoffed at the notion that the Jews could be a “chosen people,” sold for $404,000 at an auction in London. That was 25 times the presale estimate.

The Associated Press quoted Rupert Powell, the managing director of Bloomsbury Auctions, as describing the unidentified buyer as having “a passion for theoretical physics and all that that entails.” Among the unsuccessful bidders, according to The Guardian newspaper, was Oxford evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, an outspoken atheist. […]

Diana L. Kormos-Buchwald, a historian at the California Institute of Technology and head of the Einstein Papers project, said she was not surprised that the Gutkind letter, which was known to Einstein scholars, fetched such a high price.

“It is an important expression of Einstein’s thoughts and views on religion, on Judaism, on his views about God and religious texts,” she wrote in an e-mail message. She said the letter, which was not written for publication, was “concise and unvarnished” and more straightforward than the metaphors he usually turned to in public.

Einstein had described himself as an agnostic, but his religious beliefs have nevertheless been the subject of speculation for many years. While rejecting the notion of a personal, interactive God, Einstein would frequently use divine metaphors in his explanations of physics, and his line on religion and science has been repeated endlessly: “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”

Statements like these led some believers to hope that Einstein might be sympathetic to theism, and this auctioned letter effectively settles the debate. Einstein wrote that “the word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.” All religions, the physicist opined, are “an incarnation of the most childish superstitions.”

They aren’t the kind of assertions that leave much doubt about Einstein’s perspective.

Other news from The God Machine this week:

* The Arizona Constitution prohibits the state from using tax dollars to finance private religious ministries and their schools. Two years ago, the legislature signed a voucher bill anyway. Yesterday, a unanimous state appellate court ruled that the program is illegal. While the Legislature sets public policy, “only by ignoring the plain text of the Arizona Constitution prohibiting state aid to private schools could we find the aid represented by the payment of tuition fees to such schools in this case constitutional,” Judge Garye L. Vasquez wrote.

* Something for Pittsburgh residents to look out for: “A religious group is planning to distribute 250,000 Pittsburgh-themed New Testament Bibles in advertising pouches to be delivered with editions of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette newspaper.”

* Good news out of Texas: “Hallelujah. Rationality returns. A religious group has been rejected in its bid to offer a Master of Science degree. The Institute for Creation Research, which backs a literal interpretation of the Bible, including the creation of Earth in six days, seeks a certificate to grant online degrees in science education in Texas, reports Nature. But the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board voted unanimously last week not to pass the request, following the recommendation of Raymund Paredes, the state’s commissioner of higher education. ‘Religious belief is not science,’ Paredes said.”

* Focus on the Family has launched a new crusade: “Focus on the Family Action is calling on families to co-sign a letter urging Marriott hotels to stop offering in-room pornography. The letter, signed by 47 family groups, will be presented at a meeting May 14 between pro-family leaders and Marriott International officials. It’s the first time a major hotel chain has agreed to meet to discuss the issue.” The meeting occurred earlier this week, but Marriott would not commit to making any changes.

As to Einstein’s letter, I think it’s obvious that Dan Rather forged it.

  • Einstein got it right, imho. Now if only it were possible to run for public office — in a nation Constitutionally committed to freedom in this area — while holding such beliefs.

  • It isn’t clear to me why the bit on pornography is included in this post. Depending on how they define pornography (and I would be the last person to deny they might have a ridiculously broad definition); I don’t see a desire to block exploitative and violent material is particularly a religious one.

  • In case my last comment seems out of left field, I note that I’ve just now been reading the first chapter of The Secular Conscience : Why Belief Belongs in Public Life by Austin Dacey, which included the following paragraph:

    The conventional view that genuine conscience requires religion has it precisely wrong: genuine religion requires conscience. If one’s practice of a religion is to be authentic, it must be based on one’s own honest assessment of what makes sense. The difference between believers and unbelievers, then, is not that the latter lack a conscience but rather that their conscience inclines them away from belief. That same conscience, however, can guide them in living ethically, without religious reference points. In this way, the secular conscience stands prior to and independent of all religions and points toward a shared vocabulary for public debate in a pluralistic society.

  • Einstien wasn’t the only one with unique views on religion. Here’s another rather well known politician discussing religion:

    However, on religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There
    is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs.
    There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ,
    or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any
    powerful weapon, the use of God’s name on one’s behalf should be used
    sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are
    not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force
    government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree
    with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they
    threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I’m frankly sick and
    tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen
    that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in “A,” “B,” “C,” and
    “D.” Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to
    claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more
    angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group
    who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll
    call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step
    of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans
    in the name of “conservatism.”
    — Senator Barry Goldwater, Congressional Record

    So that’s how the “founder” of the “modern” Republican party viewed politics and religion.

  • Thanks, Glen.

    It really is sad that when I read that among my first thoughts was “what would happen today if an elected official stood in the well of the Senate and gave equal billing to Allah?”

  • I like to recall Goldwater’s statement during the O’Connor nomination, when Falwell raised a fuss. “I think every good Christian ought to go out and kick Jerry Falwell right in the ass.”

  • I’ve never ordered porn in a hotel room but I believe you have to pay for it in the same way you have to pay for any other premium channel. The guest has to agree to buy Lisa Licks Los Angeles so the chances of some like a kid accidentally switching to a scene of two (or more) people humping like bonobos is less than zero.

    So what’s Focus on the Family Action (a name that sounds a bit pornographic to me) complaining about? The idea that they might stay in a Marriott hotel where someone DID watch porn? WTF?

  • Pingback: Left of Centre
  • tAiO, @9,

    My guess is they’re worried about their own minions, going to a hotel for some conference or other, buying porn and then presenting a chit for “expenses”.

  • No worries, the god-botherers still have a different famous German to tout.

    “My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter.”
    – Adolf Hitler 1922

  • “It isn’t clear to me why the bit of pornography is included in this post.”

    Because it’s exclusively Christian religious groups who are lobbying for the removal of the availability of porn from the Marriot hotels.

    “I don’t see a desire to block exploitive and violent material is a particuarly religious one.”

    Are you implying that only pornography is “violent and exploitive?” These groups are not lobbying for, say, the removal of cable movie channels that show movies like “Commando” where Arnold Schwarzenegger hacks off a guy’s arm with a machete….something that’s certainly “violent and exploitive” in my book.

  • I hope all of you non believers are so smug on your death beds. If there is no God or morality, why shouldn’t we resort to the good ole barbaric days. Kill or be killed. Pretty sick.

  • ***Glenn #5*** thanks for posting that. Copied for future reference.
    Einstein may have questioned his own thoughts on the subject if he were apart of the ongoing quantum physics studies taking place today. It takes logic to whole unknown level. Right time, right place, right word and something makes sense that never did before.

    Arizona is so weird…seems there’s a bank or a church on every corner.

    If you don’t like the porno on the tv..turn it off or don’t subscribe. Why do these focus on the family groups feel it necessary to decide what is right for everybody else?

    A masters in science for rejecting science? The mind reels.

  • Oh Live and Let Live, the answer you seek is in your own post, grasshopper.

    If there is no God or morality

    You see, you don’t need the former to have the latter. Hence, even without a concept of God, we would not inherently resort to anarchy and barabarism.

    And that is without even getting into the laundry list of barbarism done in the name of a God that would not have happened without such a concept.

  • This argument about “can’t have morals without religion” is so Judeo-Christo-Islamic-centric. People who argue about that only recognize religion and morals in the format of “supreme being(s) hands down a few common-sense rules for society”. But not every culture has a religion like that and magically those people have morals too. Or do they not belive that people outside of those three religions have morals?

  • Live and Let Live is full of it. Japan is a very non-religious country, and that country’s crime rate has been consistently low throughout the years.

  • RE: Live and Let Live’s comments (isn’t that moniker a bit ironic?)…

    “If we did a good act merely from love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? …Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God.”
    -Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814

  • “I hope all of you non believers are so smug on your death beds. If there is no God or morality, why shouldn’t we resort to the good ole barbaric days. Kill or be killed. Pretty sick.”

    Pretty sick that “God and Morality” are considered on in the same. I find few things as morally repugnant as the concept of a god who created people, gave them innate human failings, and then submits them to eternal damnation for acting in a way He designed them to act. What kind of sadistic evil jerk would pull that kind of crap? I think I’m a far more moral being than the Judeo-Christian god. I think most people are.

  • What is a God machine? Can I have one?

    Morals without religion….. you can have ’em, but if you are honest with yourself you gotta stop calling them “good”. I’m not a religious believer, per se quid pro quo, but without some external thing, some “God machine” if you will, backing up morality, it really has no currency. So if we obviously have morals, and there is obviously no God, then those morals don’t really mean anything. That’s the reason I can’t stand Richard Dawkins et al calling religion evil because it blinds the masses or whatever. Without external morality, who is to say that blinding the masses is a bad thing? It’s just something that happens.

  • Comments are closed.