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.

Scientific materialism is often condemned by religious believers as being reductionist, as though perceiving the essential truth of something were a bad thing. But does it justify this pejorative abuse of the term?

What do people of a scientific inclination see when they look at the world? They see the complex bonding of elements. They see the intricate play of physical forces. They see the comprehensible strangeness of the quantum realm, the staggering immensity of the universe, the eternal truth of natural laws, the sublime irrationality of pi.

Our accumulated scientific wisdom is vast - so huge, in fact, that no-one today can simply be a ’scientist’, not even just a physicist, chemist, biologist. To have any chance of fully comprehending and utilising any branch of science means specialising.

But this enormous treasury of knowledge is not enough for scientists. They want more. Every true scientist is driven by what he or she does not know. The existence of science as a discipline is an acknowledgment of our ignorance, but also our desire to leave that condition. It is an assertion that ignorance is undesirable, a form of failure, a primitive state that we, as evolved life forms, should leave behind. All true knowledge is valuable, even if we can’t put it to use immediately. Talking about the curiosity that motivates mathematicians, E C Titchmarsh said:

It can be of no practical use to know that pi is irrational, but if we can know, it surely would be intolerable not to know.

Scientists are explorers, constantly expanding our horizons. So how can a discipline that is almost incomprehensibly vast and complex, and to which we are adding every day, be reductionist? Such an accusation is oxymoronic at best. In fact, you can probably drop the ‘oxy’.

What does the believer comprehend while gazing on the magnificence of nature, with all its complexity?

God did it.

This, surely, is the ultimate in reductionist thinking. As an explanation for the world and all it contains, it is disappointingly banal, feeble, simple-minded, crude, unimaginative. Frankly, it’s a bit silly.

The faithful complain when rationalists ‘explain away’ the mysteries of the spiritual realm - when they provide logical, supportable, real-world mechanisms by which apparent visions or miracles come about. But these explanations are made possible by that accumulated wisdom, acquired painstakingly by innumerable explorers after truth, collected and refined over centuries. Even the simplest assertion in science is built on a sophisticated foundation of knowledge that was hard won and required vast effort.

In this sense, no rational explanation of a supernatural phenomenon is ever ’simple’, however easy our fund of knowledge has made it. Flying from Paris to New York is simple. All you do is sit on a plane for several hours. What could be easier? But start thinking about the effort and knowledge required to build a flying machine, jet engines, the seat-back video, and you will understand that there is nothing simple about it.

On the other hand, the believer would ‘explain away’ the miraculous (and even those things that scientists already understand) with nothing more than “it’s god’s will” or worse, “we can never understand this. It’s not for us to know”.

The so-called ‘mystery’ of religion is nothing more than glorified ignorance. Can anyone explain the benefit of not knowing something?

If you enjoy the experience of standing in awe and wonder at the magnificence of the universe, try learning some science. There is nothing so splendid as the complex truth of nature.

In our last instant of life, I have a hunch that we all have a moment of revelation. And I think it is this: it’s all over, there’s nothing else.

Even those people who might have been screaming for a priest a minute before, who might have seen the white light approaching (a common phenomenon with near-death experiences and therefore almost certainly some neurological effect), who have even uttered the name of their favourite deity or prophet - yes, even these people must know as the final few cells shut down that it is all over. No heaven. No hell. No harps or virgins. No coming face to face with Jesus.

(more…)

There seem to be almost as many definitions of atheism as there are atheists. Perhaps that’s because it is a proposition that frees the mind rather than constricts it.

Many definitions of atheism embrace science as the framework for knowledge and understanding of our universe. Many adopt humanist codes of ethics and humanitarian principles as guides for our behaviour in the world. These are all valid and worthwhile practices, but they are unnecessarily complex as definitions of the atheism that enables them.

(more…)

Margaret Downey was kind enough to send me this picture of herself with fellow freethinkers of the Freethought Society of Greater Philadelphia. Behind them is the Tree of Knowledge which I wrote about in my last blog. This seems an entirely appropriate way of wishing everyone:

A Happy Winter Solstice

&

A Rational New Year

Atheists in Philadelphia have erected a ‘tree of knowledge’ in the free speech area outside a courthouse, alongside a Christian nativity scene and a Jewish menorah. Sadly, and predictably, only the atheist celebration has attracted controversy and hate. And ironically, the tree has also highlighted the astonishing ignorance of those who seem threatened by it.

(more…)

It’s a common accusation by believers, who feel threatened by non-believers, that atheism is ‘just a religion too’. So is it? Well, not by any sensible definition…

But let’s look at that accusation first. You have to admit, it’s very funny. Basically, it’s saying, “Well, you’re just as bad as we are”. Beyond the hilarity, let’s see if there’s any truth in it.

There’s a problem because defining ‘religion’ is a notoriously slippery task. However, the miscellaneous faithful over at Religious Tolerance think they have a handle on it. Their definition is:

“Religion is any specific system of belief about deity, often involving rituals, a code of ethics, a philosophy of life, and a worldview.”

They go on to say that, “A worldview is a set of basic, foundational beliefs concerning deity, humanity and the rest of the universe.” And they further explain that:

“We also include Agnosticism, Atheism, Humanism, Ethical Culture etc. as religions, because they also contain a ‘belief about deity’. Their belief is that they do not know whether a deity exists, or they have no knowledge of God, or they sincerely believe that God does not exist.”

Hmm. Not very convincing, is it?

(more…)

When challenged on Christianity’s dark and savage history of repression, torture and abuse, the more intellectually challenged sometimes retort with the long-discredited assertion that worse atrocities were committed by two infamous ‘atheists’ - Stalin and Hitler. It’s a tired and feeble argument, deployed only by those too ignorant to know better. So why go over this ground again? Well, it does have a habit of coming back…

(more…)

I remember clearly the moment I became an atheist. I was 10 years old when I suddenly realised that there was no good reason to believe in god or Jesus. That realisation has been a strength to me ever since.

It was all because of an argument. One sunny day, a friend and I were walking home from primary school. For some reason, now lost in time, we were arguing about whether Jesus was ‘real’. I was stoutly defending the historical truth of the Christ story while he was saying that it was all ‘made up’.

Not that I was what you would call ‘religious’. My family were not believers. My mother survived the allied bombing of Hamburg, and you don’t come out of that both sane and religious. I had, though, absorbed the unconscious, unthinking social conventions of believing that god was up there somewhere, that Jesus was real and that Christmas was great.

(more…)

The BBC’s Have Your Say programme will be interviewing Dr Richard Dawkins. You have the opportunity to post messages to the good doctor - go here to post your question or make your statement.

(more…)