I found this discussion while looking for something else entirely, but as I like to think that I’m relatively impartial on the issue (and a Jew, which seems to have become important with respect to Einstein) maybe I can help to clear some things up (and to do so with a bit more civility).

Einstein. I actually had the good fortune to study with a few individuals who knew him personally and loved to speak about him–although I was young and they were already fairly old, I realize that this still betrays my age.:wink: I’ve also read a few of the better known biographies, which always tend to dwell on his religious belief. First, Einstein’s judaism was purely ethnic and not religious, although he did have the same religious upbringing that most German Jews would have had at the time, he quickly secularized (as so many of his generation did). He even became a socialist and late in his life he published a Marxist analysis of labor exploitation in capitalist economies in the socialist journal Monthly Review. He denounced “the economic anarchy” and “crippling egotism” of capitalist society and called for “the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system oriented towards social goals.” Neither I nor any of my friends who are Jewish distinguish between being a “Jew” and being a “Hebrew.” The term “Jew” covers both what TedintheShed described as a Jew and what he described as a Hebrew. If Einstein was a religious Jew, he would have believed in a personal God. He stated unambiguously, however, that he did not. He also did not believe that the universe was created.

What does it mean, then, that he stated “I am not an atheist?” I think that this is a distinction that Greve missed, though he may have touched on it with all of his silly talk about Fairies. During the first half of the 20th century, especially in the writings of Einstein’s very anti-religious friend, Bertrand Russell, there was a much more careful distinction drawn between agnosticism and atheism. Now, agnosticism usually (not always) means that you’re “on the fence”about the existence of God. Russell, however, though he’s more critical of belief in God than just about any philosopher that comes to mind, always stated that he was no atheist because he did not believe that the non-existence of God could be proved, though he did believe that all arguments for the existence of God could be disproved. Greve conflates these two notions, as do some of the people who are so keen to criticize him.

What Einstein did believe strongly (as most scientists do) was that the universe is magnificently orderly and that humans may never completely understand its rules. He was critical of religion insofar as it occasionally impeded the progress of science, although he also recognized that science lacks a value system of its own and occasionally runs amok. He was, therefore, an outspoken critic of the “nuclear age.” It is not, however, accurate to claim Einstein in support of a belief in anything remotely similar to the Christian God.

I’ll finish with some commentary on the excellent passage selected by TedintheShed in the hopes that I can explain how it relates to what I’ve already written (my comments are in square brackets)
I can’t answer with a simple yes or no [Here we find the position of the agnostic]. I’m not an atheist and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. [This analogy is difficult because readers tend to want to assume that Einstein means that God "wrote"the laws of the universe. This is misleading. In fact, as we can gather by remarks made by Einstein elsewhere, the universe is the "author"of its own laws because nature is not distinct from God"Deus sive Natura, as Greve seems fond of citing]. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see a universe marvellously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations. [This refers explicitly to limitations in the science of Einstein's day"I won't bore you with the details, but the problems have been taken up by other scientists who've built on Einstein's work]. I am fascinated by Spinoza’s pantheism, but admire even more his contributions to modern thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and the body as one, not two separate things.”[Spinoza rejected Descartes' mind/body dualism in favor of the notion that mind and body describe two perspectives on the same entity. In the context of 20 th century science, however, this position would have been recognized as anti-religious insofar as it refuses the notion that an immortal soul is distinct from mortal flesh. Consequently, Spinoza, along with Thomas Hobbes, took the first step toward jettisoning the idea of the soul altogether.]

But all of this is merely an argument from authority, right? If Einstein jumped off of a bridge, I certainly wouldn’t do the same.

Once in answer to the question “Do you believe in the God of Spinoza?” Einstein replied as follows:

I can’t answer with a simple yes or no. I’m not an atheist and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see a universe marvellously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza’s pantheism, but admire even more his contributions to modern thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and the body as one, not two separate things.”

yeah, you should go over to some bible-thumping xtian boards now and troll them too. maybe you can find some that want to joust. right on

i just want you guys to know you are aight! yo man yore my peeps!

That isn’t possible. In the course of rational debate, one can not prove a negative.

“Back to poor Einstein: Allow me to repeat myself: Being a Jew can mean alot of things. It can mean that you attend Synagogue, believe in the God of Abraham, keep Kosher, celebrate high holidays, etc. OR it can mean that you have been born into a family that traces its ancestry back to one of the twelve tribes of Israel.”

That is again not accurate. Your fisrt description is the definition of Jew. Your second description is that of a Hebrew.

That aside, it is irrelevent as the context of the quote was religious:

“As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene.”

In other words, even though his religion is Jewish and thus does not beleive in a Christians Jesus, he is still fascinated by him.

“He’s expressed it clearly–who has the problem with reading comprehension?”

Clearly, you do. As I said, he was a deist. Again, the definition of a deist is “The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.”

“Apparently TedShed admits that his belief in God = a belief in fairies or unicorns”

No I didn’t say that, no more than I said that the belief in science is the belief in faries in unicorns. Since you so like to quote out of context, let me repeat what I said: “Of course it is as that is the very definition of faith- belief in something that you can not prove.”

Science assert things that they can not and can never prove, such as the concepts of black matter and string theory. It is not outside of human nature to have faith. It occurs in most facets of life.

As far as faith goes, I am completely comfortable in its existance. It is arrogant of us as a race to beleive that we will be able to understand or comprehend everything there is to comprehend. If our race survived time infinitum, we would never be able to comprehend it all.

“Listen guys–maybe you should stick to calling liberals “gorebots”or whatever and leave the stuff about religion to somebody who can handle it better.”

Ahh yes, the old liberal verses conservative ploy. Small minded people make small minded assumptions on both ends of the spectrum. Perhaps you should stick to cheerleader on the sidelines as it appears you have even less to contribute than people in the discussion who resort to ad hominem attacks.

Look it up, mouth breather…:roll:

I totally agree! All these guys are pretending that they’ve won the argument and it’s totally pathetic. They haven’t said anything. They totally missed the stuff about Einstein and they threw out some bullshit about intelligent design and greve smacked all of it back at them. Its like they couldn’t understand the posts or something.

Listen guys–maybe you should stick to calling liberals “gorebots” or whatever and leave the stuff about religion to somebody who can handle it better. You all totally embarassed yourself.

He’s right: you all got SPANKED!!