Amazon.com
Amazon.co.uk13 May 2008
Lies believers tell #1: Einstein was a believer
The religious have long claimed Albert Einstein as one of their own. It’s always been a lie, and now there is further proof.
Einstein did have an unfortunate habit of using the word ‘god’. It has always been clear - not least from Einstein’s own writings - that his definition of ‘god’ was more in line with what the rest of us might call ‘nature’ or ‘the mysterious forces of the universe’ than the all-powerful imaginary friend of religion. Nevertheless, the religious have continued to claim that the famous physicist - a man who practically defines the concept of the rational thinker - was actually one of the mindless faithful.
One of the comments they cling to is:
“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
That blinkered (and dishonest) view has taken a major blow. A previously unknown letter written by Einstein in 1954 to philosopher Eric Gutkind, and which is now up for auction, includes the passages:
“The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.”
And while Einstein was culturally Jewish (and had both Catholic and Jewish education), he clearly had little time for the idea of the Jews as god’s chosen people:
“For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything ‘chosen’ about them.”
As a boy, Einstein was given a religious upbringing by his largely non-religious parents. Throughout his life, he retained a respect for the cultural traditions provided by religion. But that is not the same as being religious. By the age of 12, he was questioning Biblical stories, and would later write about this awakening:
“The consequence was a positively fanatic [orgy of] freethinking coupled with the impression that youth is being deceived by the state through lies; it was a crushing impression.”
Einstein was clearly a spiritual person, in a generalised sense. He was moved and inspired by a sense of mystery. But to suggest that he believed in god, as most people understand that term, is now (and actually always has been) completely insupportable.
(1) 13 May 2008 at 12:42 pm
Doris Tracey
I think Einstein was a chosen one; He chose to be the instrument of something great! Einstein was like the California giant redwoods, those trees by no law known to man can draw water to their foliage hundreds of feet in the air! They draw in hundreds of gallons every day. These trees pull fom above, it is not done through pressure from below–from the roots. Einstein was like those trees and so he had the “Kingdom” consciousness. Mankind, like Ancient Gaul, can be divided into three parts. 1st–Those who are still in a simple consciousness, living, acting and thinking as the animals do. Men and woman in this class can be said to exist—nothing more. 2nd–Those who are in a state of self- consciousness. This comprises the great bulk of the higher races of mankind. They reason, they study, they work, they sorrow and enjoy: But they are forced to depend for all good things upon their own efforts and they are subject to all manner of circumstances and conditions beyond their control; theirs is a state of struggle. 3rd–Those entering into or who have reached the intuitional or higher consciousness (Kingdom). Einstein drew into himself from above that consciousness.
(2) 13 May 2008 at 5:03 pm
DK
Thanks for commenting Doris. I don’t know what you’re smoking, but it must be good stuff.
> California giant redwoods, those trees by no law known to man can draw water to their foliage hundreds of feet in the air!
Do you have any references for this unsupported assertion? I think you’ll find you’re flat wrong on that.
> Mankind, like Ancient Gaul, can be divided into three parts.
On what do you base these fanciful notions - other than pure fantasy? Do you have any evidence for any of this? And your mention of ‘higher races’ does sound dangerously … well … racist. Who or what are these higher races?