debate-points, science-and-religion, einstein, spinozaFrom time to time I find myself in conversation or debate with theists, and the notion that “Even the greatest scientists believed in God” comes up. Frequently Einstein is mentioned.
Einstein said.
“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.”
But, he also refers to God in his famous line.
“God does not play dice.”
There’s a notion out there that people like Einstein and many other scientists may have believed in, and that’s Spinoza’s god. This is a ‘god’ that is abstract, impersonal, and completely uninvolved in the universe.
My question is this. What is the best way to answer the assertion of Einstein, Spinoza and others believing in ‘God’ - when it’s clear that they didn’t at all mean the same thing as a recognizable theist god?
As you said, Einstein believed in an impersonal god:
I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.
Baruch Spinoza is sometimes known for his pantheism. While that's based on a misconception of his beliefs, it is often believed he equated God with "nature." So, when it is said that Einstein believed in Spinoza's God, it's highly possible that this is what he meant.
Defining God so broadly and generally mean that most atheists could just as well be pantheist. Pantheists don't believe a personal, anthropomorphic, or creator god. It's nothing comparable to the the god of the Abrahamic religions. By all meaningful standards, a pantheist's god is synonymous with the word nature. The only difference really stems from how a pantheist view nature.
To understand the difference, it's worthwhile to look at what Einstein said about religion:
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.
Einstein's use of the word god is a mix between a metaphor and the elevation of nature of a greater standard. It's a fascination and admiration of nature, not of a supernatural being.
Difficult question. Einstein has (deliberately?) expressed several contradictory sentiments regarding his beliefs.
For example, he’s quoted as saying,
I believe in Spinoza’s God
but also for
My position concerning God is that of an agnostic
… either the meaning of the word “agnostic” has changed in the meantime or these two statements are at least slightly contradictory (if we accept Borror0’s analysis of Spinoza’s belief, which I find accurate).
But then, he has also said,
You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth.
which, to me, sounds as though he meant “I am an atheist in spirit but I want to dissociate myself from others who call themselves that merely out of rebellion”.
His clearest statement is probably this:
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.
(Emphasis mine)
All in all, it seems clear that while Einstein didn’t call himself atheist he did not believe in any “conventional” god and neither does he seem to hold any supernatural beliefs. His use of the word “god” was as a metaphor.
On the other hand, it’s clear that he considered himself (and was considered) Jewish. But that’s more a cultural attachment than a religious one.
Worth reading: Wikipedia on Albert Einstein’s religious views
People who ask this question are quote mining, or more likely they were told of one of these quotes and didn’t look into it any further than that. You can match the questioner with opposing quotes, that might get them to at least shut up.
Einstein said a lot of things, for a lot of reasons. The “play dice” thing had to do with his difficulty in understanding Quantum Physics, which very few people understand, and it really doesn’t have much to do with belief in god at all. Spinoza also wrote some extremely dense works that very few people have worked through with the determination they demand. He was also dealing with a culture that cared for atheism much less than modern Westerners, so he had to be careful what he said.
You don’t need to know all that to confront this question. The “philosopher god” approach is very good, or a Socratic method of discovering just where they are leading and what they know. i.e. “That’s interesting, what else do you know about what Einstein said about god?” “Hmmm, Spinoza, what were the name of the books he wrote?” “Yes, most scientists don’t believe in god, but some do, what does that mean to you?”
In terms of answering your question, you seem to have a good grasp on the difference between the commonly held concept of [God] and the Philosopher's God. You should elaborate on the Philosopher's God to draw attention to the contrast, and explain that their misconception that the scientist believing in [God] is the same as the scientist believing in some kind of Prime Mover or other concept misconstrues the meaning of God in those two very different cases.
Articles on the Prime Mover or First Cause might help open up how scientists were open to accept an idea of God, albeit as some abstract, non-causal factor in the universe whose existence explains nothing. For instance, with Einstein, his is not a suspension of disbelief, but its also not a statement of credulity in any creed either.
“He’s impersonal and uninvolved? Clearly your god is just not that into you. Dump the motherfrakker already.” (DTMFA™ Dan Savage)
If you have to debunk the claims of every semi-famous person on earth towards their gods … that’s gonna be a full time job!
Was Einstein a theologian or why is his meaning of interest? What’s about Elvis, Kennedy or Gagarin?
Spinoza was, afaik, a theologian but Spinoza is pre-Darwin, he didn’t knew electricity and radioactivity, Freud and Marx.
Try to read a book of Spinoza! I tried, and didn’t get into it. It’s more alien than Platon and Aristoteles who are much, much older.
Debating single sentences of famous scientists without context doesn’t make much sense. And as a free person, I can refuse god without understanding what Spinoza meant. Atheism is always a bit anti-authoritarian. I may study Einstein, but I don’t believe in Einstein, I’m not a follower. Not even in Woody Allen or Mick Jagger.
All content is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.