Einstein the atheist on religion and God

In his autobiography Prince Hubertus zu Löwenstein recounted that, at a charity dinner in New York, Einstein had remarked:

There are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.

This story was published in 1968, which was 13 years after Einstein’s death, when he could not comment on the veracity of the quote. Löwenstein was a Catholic activist, decorated by the Pope for his services to the Church, and the autobiography’s title, “Towards the further shore”, indicates its apologetic intent. Was Löwenstein accurately reporting Einstein? We don’t know, though he is hardly a disinterested party and the quote is thus suspect. What we do know is that many people, as shown by this example, want to deny that Einstein was an atheist.

Such claims also circulated when Einstein was alive. In 1945 Einstein received a letter from Guy Raner, saying that a Jesuit priest had claimed to have persuaded Einstein to abandon atheism. Einstein replied (letter to Guy Raner, 2nd July 1945):

I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.

Another example comes from 1954, the year before Einstein’s death. A correspondent had read an article about Einstein’s supposed religious views, and wrote to Einstein asking whether the article was accurate. Einstein answered:

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. 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.    [letter 24th March 1954, from “Albert Einstein: The Human Side”, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffmann, Princeton University Press. Hereafter “AE:THS”]

Despite the above, many people point to Einstein as a rebuke to atheists, a supposed example of a preeminent scientist flatly rejecting atheism. People who are prepared to accept that Einstein lacked belief in a personal god, nevertheless insist that he was not an atheist, and that he did believe in a god of some sort.

This position is expounded by Max Jammer in his book Einstein and Religion. At the end of a chapter aiming to show that Einstein believed in God, Jammer maintains that “Einstein always protested against being regarded as an atheist”, giving Löwenstein’s supposed quote as evidence, and states that: “Einstein renounced atheism because he never considered his denial of a personal God as a denial of God. This subtle but decisive distinction has long been ignored”.

Jammer continues, quoting Einstein’s phrase “science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind”, which Jammer regards as a “statement that summarizes [Einstein’s] religious credo”, and adds somewhat sarcastically that in so saying Einstein “did not use the term ‘religion’ to mean ‘atheism'”.

Didn’t he? Well, actually, we have a very good idea of what Einstein meant by “religion” in that phrase, since he had explicitly stated it just before:

Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts. […] science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.     [Ideas and Opinions, Crown Publishers, 1954, reproduced here]

Thus Einstein’s word “religion” had a very non-standard meaning that was nothing to do with any god, and thus has no bearing on whether he was an atheist. Indeed by “religion” he explicitly meant only “aspiration toward truth and understanding” and “faith in the possibility” that the world is “comprehensible to reason”. I have never met an atheist who would not subscribe to those!

Few people who quote that “science without religion is lame” snippet mention what follows immediately afterwards:

I must nevertheless qualify this assertion once again on an essential point […] This qualification has to do with the concept of God. During the youthful period of mankind’s spiritual evolution human fantasy created gods in man’s own image, who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate to influence, the phenomenal world. Man sought to alter the disposition of these gods in his own favour by means of magic and prayer. The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old concept of the gods. Its anthropomorphic character is shown, for instance, by the fact that men appeal to the Divine Being in prayers and plead for the fulfilment of their wishes. …

… teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God.

This points to a problem in interpreting Einstein’s words. He often used religious language and metaphors, but what did he mean by them? Did they signify a belief in God, or not?

To answer that we need to consider what qualities an entity needs in order to qualify as a “god”. These surely need to be god-like qualities. That would include intelligence and purpose and great capability to pursue those purposes. An apophatic god that lacks such qualities (and whose actual properties are left unspecified) hardly qualifies as a “god”.

In particular, an apersonal, amoral universe that follows the regularities of the laws of physics but has no awareness, purpose, oversight, or capacity for caring, is not a “god”. To claim that it is — in anything other than a weak and inapt metaphorical sense — is simply an abuse of language, a desire to believe in God, any god, sufficiently strong that one is willing to slap the label on anything.

So what did Einstein believe about “God”? Was his language purely metaphorical or not? We can answer this question fairly straightforwardly, provided we look below the surface metaphor and ask what qualities Einstein believed the universe to have, since on that he was quite straightforward and explicit.

Einstein on God

Einstein was educated at a Catholic school, but his religiosity “reached an abrupt end at the age of twelve” as he concluded that Bible stories were untrue and that “youth is intentionally being deceived by the state through lies”.

Let’s start with Einstein’s own autobiographical account:

As the first way out there was religion, which is implanted into every child by way of the traditional education-machine. Thus I came — though the child of entirely irreligious (Jewish) parents — to a deep religiousness, which, however, reached an abrupt end at the age of twelve. Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true. The consequence was a positively fanatic orgy of freethinking coupled with the impression that youth is intentionally being deceived by the state through lies; it was a crushing impression.     [Autobiographical Notes, 1979]

As a result of this loss of faith, at age 13 Einstein declined to undergo the Bar Mitzvah ceremony, a break from tradition even for secular Jews. And when it came to the education of his own children, and the religious education they would receive at elementary school, Einstein stated:

I dislike very much that my children should be taught something that is contrary to all scientific thinking.     [Einstein, his life and times, P. Frank, p.280]

In the last year of his life Einstein wrote to the philosopher Erik Gutkind:

The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but yet quite primitive legends. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. […] For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of primitive superstitions.     [See this note on the translation of this.]

Other quotes include:

I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts.     [The World as I See It, 1949, Philosophical Library, New York]

There is nothing divine about morality, it is a purely human affair.     [The World as I See It, 1949, Philosophical Library, New York]

“I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. […] Morality is of the highest importance—but for us, not for God.”     [Einstein Archives, letter 5th Aug 1927 from a Colorado banker]

And in an interview with Professor William Hermanns, Einstein said:

I cannot accept any concept of God based on the fear of life or the fear of death or blind faith. I cannot prove to you that there is no personal God, but if I were to speak of him I would be a liar.     [Einstein: the life and times, by Ronald W. Clark, World Pub. Co., NY, 1971, p.622]

In a letter to a Christian woman who had asked about souls, Einstein wrote:

Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seems to me to be empty and devoid of meaning. […]

The mystical trend of our time, which shows itself particularly in the rampant growth of the so-called Theosophy and Spiritualism, is for me no more than a symptom of weakness and confusion.     [1921 letter, AE:THS]

Einstein on the nature of the universe

The preceding quotes clearly demonstrate Einstein’s rejection of the personal god of the traditional Abrahamic religions. But we should also ask about Einstein’s view of nature; did it include some other type of “god”? And what did Einstein mean by “religion”?

Einstein explicitly rejected life after death and any moral agency beyond humans.

I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it.     [1953 letter, AE:THS]

How about a “purpose” or “goal” or “meaning” behind the universe? These, also, Einstein explicitly rejected. Here Einstein clarifies a mistranslation:


The misunderstanding here is due to a faulty translation of a German text, in particular the use of the word “mystical”. I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of “humility”. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism.     [1955/55 letter, AE:THS]

Here is a letter from 1950 to a 19-year-old in despair at seeing no purpose to life. Einstein argues that purposes derive from the desires of people. It is therefore a conceptual error to think of mankind as a whole, or nature as a whole, as having a “purpose”. That could only be the case if some god or nature as a whole had desires, feelings and thought, a concept that Einstein rejected:

I was impressed by the earnestness of your struggle to find a purpose for the life of the individual and of mankind as a whole. In my opinion there can be no reasonable answer if the question is put this way. If we speak of the purpose and goal of an action we mean simply the question: which kind of desire should we fulfill by the action or its consequences or which undesired consequences should be prevented? We can, of course, also speak in a clear way of the goal of an action from the standpoint of a community to which the individual belongs. In such cases the goal of the action has also to do at least indirectly with fulfillment of desires of the individuals which constitute a society.

If you ask for the purpose or goal of society as a whole or of an individual taken as a whole the question loses its meaning. This is, of course, even more so if you ask the purpose or meaning of nature in general. For in those cases it seems quite arbitrary if not unreasonable to assume somebody whose desires are connected with the happenings.     [letter, Dec 1950, AE:THS]

Running through Einstein’s thought is a thorough-going determinism, an acceptance that human actions and choices are determined by physical laws, and a consequent rejection of the notions of dualistic “free will” that underpin much theology. For example:

“A God who rewards and punishes is inconceivable for the simple reason that a man’s actions are determined by necessity, external and internal, so that in God’s eyes he cannot be responsible, any more than an inanimate object is responsible for the motions it undergoes.     [“Religion and Science”, New York Times Magazine, 9 November 1930]


The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exists as an independent cause of natural events.     [Ideas and Opinions, Einstein, 1954, pp.41–49]

And in his 1932 “My Credo” speech he says:

I do not believe in freedom of the will. Schopenhauer’s words: “Man can do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wills” accompany me in all situations throughout my life …     [“My Credo”, 1932]

This is also seen in the above-quoted letter to the religious Jew Erik Gutkind, where Einstein refers to the notion of free-will as “self-deception” and an “intellectual prop”:

As a man you claim, so to speak, a dispensation from causality otherwise accepted, as a Jew the privilege of monotheism. But a limited causality is no longer a causality at all, as our wonderful Spinoza recognized with all incision […] With such walls we can only attain a certain self-deception […] What separates us are only intellectual “props” and “rationalization” in Freud’s language.

In a letter to a colleague, Einstein wrote:

I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children for their numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held responsible; in my opinion, only His nonexistence could excuse Him.     [letter to Edgar Meyer, 2nd Jan 1915, Einstein Archives]

About his own attitude Einstein wrote:

I began with a skeptical empiricism more or less like that of Mach. But the problem of gravitation converted me into a believing rationalist, that is, into someone who searches for the only reliable source of truth in mathematical simplicity.     [letter to C. Lanczos, 24 Jan 1938, Einstein Archives, 15-267]

Einstein also insisted on an external reality, entirely independent of humans, rejecting the solipsistic notion of reality or truth being human constructions. This is seen, for example, in Einstein’s dialogue with the Bengali writer Rabindranath Tagore. They are discussing whether truth and beauty are independent of man:


EINSTEIN: If there were no human beings any more, the Apollo Belvedere no longer would be beautiful?


EINSTEIN: I agree with this conception of beauty, but not with regard to truth.

TAGORE: Why not? Truth is realized through men.

EINSTEIN: I cannot prove my conception is right, but that is my religion. […] I cannot prove, but I believe in the Pythagorean argument, that the truth is independent of human beings.

TAGORE: In any case, if there be any truth absolutely unrelated to humanity, then for us it is absolutely non-existing.

EINSTEIN: Then I am more religious than you are!

Another revealing piece is Einstein’s 1936 letter to an 11-yr-old, who had been encouraged by her sunday-school teacher to ask Einstein whether scientists pray. Einstein replied that they didn’t, though he softened the message with some sympathetic language:

Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the actions of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a supernatural Being.

However, it must be admitted that our actual knowledge of these laws is only imperfect and fragmentary, so that, actually, the belief in the existence of basic all-embracing laws in Nature also rests on a sort of faith. All the same this faith has been largely justified so far by the success of scientific research.

But, on the other hand, every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe — a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.     [letter, 1936, AE:THS]

So was Einstein an atheist?

Einstein explicitly rejected belief in a personal God. He regarded these as anthropomorphic, saying that “human fantasy created gods in man’s own image”, and that: “The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses”. He regarded the Jewish Bible stories as “childish superstitions”, and the teaching of religion (as he himself had received on being sent to a Catholic school) as “youth [being] intentionally deceived by the state through lies”.


Einstein thoroughly embraced materialism and determinism. He insisted that reality existed entirely independently of humans. He rejected the idea of an immaterial soul and the idea that an individual would live on after death (saying that such notions were “absurd egoism” for “feeble” people). He rejected notions of “purpose” or “will” beyond the animal and human domain. He said that he had “never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal”. He rejected the idea that human life had any purpose or goal.

He said that he could not conceive of a god who had “a will”, he rejected the idea of prayer, and that there was any god who could answer prayers, or who could “reward or punish his creatures”. He considered that “there is nothing divine about morality, it is a purely human affair”. He said that notions of gods, free will, and purpose to life, were “only intellectual `props’ and `rationalization'”.

So, yes, Einstein was an atheist. The above amounts to a thorough-going atheism in line with that of the most “strident” of New Atheists. Did Einstein ever declare belief (in explicit, clearly non-metaphorical language) in some property of the universe that was incompatible with atheism? Not as far as I’m aware.

Max Jammer’s claim that Einstein was not an atheist seems to rest (in his first two chapters) on a superficial reading of a few sound-bites, and making interpretations motivated by a desire to reconcile Einstein with Jewish theology. This is followed (in his third chapter) by projecting his own theological ideas onto Einstein. I suspect that Einstein would have rolled his eyes at the suggestion, for example, that the age of the universe can be reconciled with a literal Genesis by appealing to relativistic time dilation.

If Einstein was supposedly a deist, believing in some sort of “non personal” god, what actual properties of the universe does such a stance entail that are incompatible with atheism? If the answer is some sort of universal awareness or intelligence with purpose and goals, then Einstein explicitly denied any such thing.

Believing in an atheistic universe but choosing to call that universe “god” does not negate the fact that you are still an atheist. After all, atheism is about how one envisages the world actually to be, not about mere choice of words.

Yes, Einstein did declare himself to be “religious”, but he also told us explicitly what he meant by that. By religion he meant: “unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it” and “aspiration toward truth and understanding” and “faith in the possibility” that the world is “comprehensible to reason”, and “humility” that we can comprehend nature only “very imperfectly”, coupled with the belief that an external world and truth about that world exist independently of human conceptions of it. By that terminology Richard Dawkins is also highly religious!

As Einstein wrote to a friend about how he used the word “religion”:

I can understand your aversion to the use of the term “religion” to describe an emotional and psychological attitude which shows itself most clearly in Spinoza, […] [But] I have found no better expression than “religious” for confidence in the rational nature of reality, insofar as it is accessible to human reason. Whenever this feeling is absent, science degenerates into uninspired empiricism.      [Letter to Maurice Solovine, 1 Jan 1951; Einstein Archive 21-274]


My feeling is religious insofar as I am imbued with the consciousness of the insufficiency of the human mind to understand more deeply the harmony of the Universe which we try to formulate as “laws of nature”.     [Letter to Beatrice Frohlich, December 17, 1952; Einstein Archive 59-797]


I am a deeply religious nonbeliever…. This is a somewhat new kind of religion.     [Letter to Hans Muehsam March 30, 1954; Einstein Archive 38-434]

Yes Einstein saw value in what he referred to as “religion”, saying for example:

Religion is concerned with man’s attitude toward nature at large, with the establishing of ideals for the individual and communal life, and with mutual human relationship.     [Ideas and Opinions, Crown Publishers, New York, 1954]

Such concerns are indeed of the highest value to us, but in the absence of any divine foundation (which Einstein explicitly rejected), they can just as aptly be referred to as “humanism” instead of “religion”.

In this context, it seems most reasonable to regard Einstein’s references to “God”, such as in the following quotes, to be metaphorical, referring to the ultimate nature of the universe, but not referring to any agency with intelligence, awareness and purpose:

“I cannot believe that God would choose to play dice with the universe.” (in the original German he actually said “the old one”, a personification of nature, not “God”)

“I want to know God’s thoughts… The rest are details.”

“When the solution is simple, God is answering.”

This interpretation is supported by the several times where he stated something in both metaphorical and non-metaphorical language, to make the meaning explicit. For example:

What I am really interested in is whether God could have created the world in a different way; in other words, whether the requirement for logical simplicity admits a margin of freedom.     [to Ernst Gabor Straus, quoted by Jammer, Einstein and Religion, p.124]

But didn’t Einstein call himself an agnostic?

Yes he did, for example:

My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment.     [Letter to M. Berkowitz, October 25, 1950; Einstein Archive 59-215]


I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervour is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.     [Letter to Guy Raner, 28th Sept 1949.]


Of course agnosticism and atheism are not incompatible, and most atheists are also agnostics (suggestions that they are mutually exclusive rest on misunderstanding the terms). Einstein seems to have adopted the term “agnostic” because it was less “strident”, less confrontational to believers. He didn’t share the “crusading spirit” sometimes associated with the term “atheism”.

This desire not to cause unnecessary offence is seen throughout Einstein’s writing on the subject, particularly in the letters to children and other believers quoted above, and should be borne in mind when interpreting his meaning.

The article from which the “science without religion is lame” snippet comes is a long argument that religions should abandon belief in god and become atheistic, but it is phrased in a diplomatic and conciliatory way. This non-confrontational style means that it is possible to cherry-pick quotes from Einstein as being very sympathetic to traditional religion, when reading more fully shows the opposite.

But wasn’t Einstein sometimes very critical of atheists?

Yes! Einstein did at times criticise atheists who attacked religion. He disassociated himself from that attitude, saying (quote just above) “I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervour is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth”.

Perhaps his most critical statement is in a 1941 letter quoted by Max Jammer, about the response to his articles (more about this below). In his first sentence he attacks defenders of religion, then he attacks “fanatical atheists”.

I was barked at by numerous dogs who are earning their food guarding ignorance and superstition for the benefit of those who profit from it. Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics and comes from the same source. They are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against the traditional “opium of the people”—cannot bear the music of the spheres. The Wonder of nature does not become smaller because one cannot measure it by the standards of human moral and human aims.     [letter to unknown person, 7th Aug 1941, quoted by Jammer, p97, as Einstein Archive 54-927]

Similarly, in a letter to Maurice Solovine he is quoted as saying:

There lies the weakness of positivists and professional atheists who are elated because they feel that they have not only successfully rid the world of gods but “bared the miracles.”

And he didn’t like the term “Freethinker” because he associated it with opposition to religion.

The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive. However, I am also not a “Freethinker” in the usual sense of the word because I find that this is in the main an attitude nourished exclusively by an opposition against naive superstition. My feeling is insofar religious as I am imbued with the consciousness of the insufficiency of the human mind to understand deeply the harmony of the Universe which we try to formulate as “laws of nature.” It is this consciousness and humility I miss in the Freethinker mentality.     [letter 23rd Feb 1954, to A. Chapple. Einstein Archive 59-405]

Einstein also refused to attack popular religion. Despite the fact that he himself rejected a personal God, Einstein considered that “the majority of mankind” needed such belief. To Eduard Büsching, who had written a book attacking religion, Einstein wrote:

It is a different question whether belief in a personal God should be contested … I myself would never engage in such a task. For such a belief seems to me preferable to the lack of any transcendental outlook on life, and I wonder whether one can ever successfully render to the majority of mankind a more sublime means in order to satisfy its metaphysical needs.     [letter to E. Büsching, 25 Oct 1929, Einstein Archive, 33-275]

A contemporary engraving of Baruch Spinoza, Einstein’s philosophical mentor. The Latin caption reads “… a Jew and an atheist”.

Does this criticism mean that Einstein was not an atheist? No it doesn’t. Notice that Einstein disassociates himself from the “professional atheist” and the “fanatical atheists” who attacked religion. Einstein insisted on humility and recognition of human limitations in trying to discover reality, and he rejected claims to certainty.

There is nothing inconsistent in both being an atheist and being critical of those who criticize religion. Such attitudes are widespread today. It is common to hear “I am an atheist but …”, followed by criticism of the “militancy” of the “strident” New Atheists who want to attack religion without seeing any good in it. Whether these criticisms are fair is a topic for another article, but holding such views is not a declaration of belief in a god, and does not disqualify someone as an atheist.

Martin Rees is just one example in the Einstein tradition, an eminent scientist who is an atheist himself but who is sympathetic towards religion and who deplores the tone of the “New Atheists”. Were Einstein alive today, he’d be a shoo-in for the Templeton Prize.

But didn’t Einstein believe in the God of Spinoza?

Einstein’s non-confrontational attitude to religion is shown clearly in one of his best-known remarks: “I believe in the God of Spinoza”. The context is worth analysing.

Einstein was, of course, one of the world’s most famous Jews, achieving near totemic status, for example being offered the Presidency of the nascent state of Israel. Many people took note of his opinions. And throughout Einstein’s lifetime the status of Jews, even their very existence, was under dire threat, leading to the Holocaust in Einstein’s homeland Europe and, later on, threats to the existence of Israel.

Einstein receiving American citizenship

Einstein receiving American citizenship

In those times the Western world was still predominantly Christian and atheists were at best regarded with suspicion. The communist USSR was identified with atheism. In Mein Kampf Hitler had associated Jews with atheism. In highly religiose America atheists were seen as unworthy of citizenship.

In 1940 the eminent philosopher Bertrand Russell was denied a teaching position at City College in New York City, after a law suit asserting that, since he was an atheist, he was immoral and an unacceptable influence on youth. “Atheist” was a pejorative word.

In this climate for Einstein to have pronounced himself as an atheist would have hampered his own acceptance in his adopted America, and would have been politically problematic for Jews.

Even the much milder statements that Einstein did make caused a backlash. In 1940, after Einstein had written his Science and Religion article, with the suggestion that “teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God”, the Detroit Free Press wrote in a leader:

[Einstein] does his own people a grave injury by making public such a statement. By doing so, he is giving the religious bigots, especially the followers of Hitler and the Ku Klux Klan, fuel for their fanatical fires. They will charge that he is presenting the Jewish faith when, as a matter of fact, what he is presenting is an utter denial of the whole Jewish concept of God.    [Detroit Free Press, 14 Sept 1940, as quoted by Jammer]

Such responses were typical. A Catholic wrote to Einstein expressing:

Deep regret that you … ridicule the concept of a personal God. In the past ten years nothing has been so calculated to make people think that Hitler had some reason to expel the Jews from Germany as your statement. Conceding your right to free speech, I still say that your statement constitutes you as one of the foremost sources of discord in America.     [letter, 19 Sept 1940, Einstein Archive, 40-330]

Another correspondent said:

You are among those adding fuel to the fire, and believe me Doctor Einstein, fuel is being added to the fire, and there is definitely a growing spirit of anti-Semitism in the United States.     [letter, 3 Oct 1940, Einstein Archive, 40-343]

While a Christian declared:

Professor Einstein, I believe that every Christian in America will answer you … you come along and with one statement from your blasphemous tongue do more to hurt the cause of your people … if you do not believe in the God of the people of this Nation go back where you came from.    [letter, 12 Sept 1940, Einstein Archive, 40-372]

The following interview reveals how Einstein regarded himself. He’d been asked whether he saw any “discrepancy between your previous somewhat anti-religious statements and your willingness to be identified publicly as a Jew?” and he answered:

Not necessarily. Actually it is a very difficult thing to even define a Jew. The closest that I can come to describing it is to ask you to visualize a snail. A snail that you see at the ocean consists of the body that is snuggled inside of the house which it always carries around with it. But let’s picture what would happen if we lifted the shell off of the snail. Would we not still describe the unprotected body as a snail? In just the same way, a Jew who sheds his faith along the way, or who even picks up a different one, is still a Jew.     [conversation with Peter A. Bucky]

Earlier, in April 1929, the Catholic Cardinal O’Connell of Boston had made a public attack on Einstein and his science as dangerous to religion, saying:

“Now, I have my own ideas about the so-called theories of Einstein, with his relativity and his utterly befogged notions about space and time. It seems nothing short of an attempt at muddying the waters so that without perceiving the drift innocent students are led away into a realm of speculative thought, the sole basis of which, so far as I can see, is to produce a universal doubt about God and His creation.

I mean that while I do not wish to accuse Einstein at present of deliberately wishing to destroy the Christian faith and the Christian basis of life, I half suspect that if we wait a little longer we will find he unquestionably will ultimately reveal himself in this attitude. In a word, the outcome of this doubt and befogged speculation about time and space is a cloak beneath which lies the ghastly apparition of atheism.

In response, and trying to defend Jews from this charge, Rabbi Herbert Goldstein of New York cabled Einstein to ask: “Do you believe in God? Answer paid 50 words”.

Einstein replied, famously,

I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.

At one level this can be read as “Yes I believe in God”, rebutting Cardinal O’Connell’s charge. Rabbi Goldstein took it that way, writing in the New York Times (25 April 1929) that Einstein’s reply “very clearly disproves … the charge of atheism made against Einstein”.

However, Baruch Spinoza’s “god” was really just a synonym for nature, the “orderly harmony of what exists”. Spinoza had declared that “neither intellect nor will appertain to God’s nature”, that the universe contained only material, that it was deterministic, and that morals were a concern only of humans. Einstein wrote:

We followers of Spinoza see our God in the wonderful order and lawfulness of all that exists …     [letter to E. Büsching, 25 Oct 1920, Einstein Archive, 33-275]

Spinoza himself had been excommunicated for atheism. The writ of cherem issued by Amsterdam’s Jewish community ordered that owing to his “abominable heresies” that “no one should communicate with him orally or in writing … or read anything composed or written by him”.

Was Spinoza’s 17th-century pantheism much different from today’s atheism? Or was it, like many deistic notions, more an intellectual precursor of today’s atheism, a term used by those who had got most of the way there but were not quite ready to go the whole hog, especially in nations were outright atheism was socially unacceptable and even illegal? Certainly it is not at all clear what property of the universe either Spinoza or Einstein believed in that would disqualify them as atheists.

Einstein’s ambiguous language was politically astute. If people wanted to regard him as religious then they could do so, cherry-picking his words, picking out phrases such as “science without religion is lame”, while ignoring the surrounding context.

Often this desire to paint him as a supporter of religion led to Christians embellishing his words. An example occurred in December 1940, when Time magazine quoted Einstein as saying:

Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler’s campaign for suppressing truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual truth and moral freedom. I am forced thus to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly.

This statement was later broadcast nationally in full by the Catholic Fulton John Sheen, later Archbishop of Newport (and now on the path to sainthood!).

Unfortunately for the Catholics, this is another quote that Einstein didn’t say. In 1950 Rev. Cornelius Greenway of Brooklyn asked Einstein to write out the statement in his own hand, and Einstein replied:

I am, however, a little embarrassed. The wording of the statement you have quoted is not my own. Shortly after Hitler came to power in Germany I had an oral conversation with a newspaper man about these matters. Since then my remarks have been elaborated and exaggerated nearly beyond recognition. I cannot in good conscience write down the statement you sent me as my own. The matter is all the more embarrassing to me because I, like yourself, I am predominantly critical concerning the activities, and especially the political activities, through history of the official clergy. Thus, my former statement, even if reduced to my actual words (which I do not remember in detail) gives a wrong impression of my general attitude.    [letter, 14th Nov 1950, AE:THS]

Of course this doesn’t stop the quote still being regularly repeated, along with Prince Löwenstein’s unverified quote, and the totally out of context “science without religion is lame”.

As we’ve seen, a lot of stories have circulated about Einstein’s attitude to religion, and not all of them are accurate. Einstein did use religious language and wrote about these topics in a non-confrontational style that could, when read superficially, be taken as comforting to believers in the traditional religions. He also criticised and disassociated himself from “professional” atheists who were out to attack religion.

But Einstein did not believe in God. He explicitly disclaimed all of the attributes such a being would have to have to qualify as a god. Nowhere did he state a belief in any intelligent, aware or purposeful god-like being, certainly not one that would care at all about humans, or that would even have the capability to care about anything. Any claim about Einstein believing in some sort of “god” needs to resort to an unspecified apophatic god of utter vacuity.


Albert Einstein: Autobiographical Notes, Translated and edited by Paul Arthur Schilpp, 1979, Open Court Publishing Company, Chicago.

Albert Einstein, Ideas And Opinions, 1954, Crown Publishers, New York

Albert Einstein: The Human Side, Edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman. 1981, Princeton University Press (abbreviated to AE:THS above)

Einstein and Religion: Physics and Theology, Max Jammer. 2002, Princeton University Press

Albert Einstein, The World As I See It, 1949, Philosophical Library, New York.

37 thoughts on “Einstein the atheist on religion and God

  1. Coel Post author

    A religious friend lent me Max Jammer’s book and asked me to consider it, saying that it showed how a profound thinker like Einstein believed in God. I did consider it, and the above post is the result, though I suspect that my friend won’t like it!

  2. Justin Zimmer

    Very well done! I never understood the point of the religious pointing to Einstein and saying “See, he believed in God and he was smart!” Anyone who plays that card has some apparent inferiority issues. This also displays the surprising dishonesty among religionists who will twist words and omit contradicting statements to further their cause. It’s one thing to hold confirmation biases in your own mind, but once you lay them out on paper, the bias become plain to see and you appear either dishonest or lazy or both. Judging the position of a person based on a couple of words, is simply lazy, especially when that person has written so much on the specific subject you are judging. What you’ve done here with your sources is wonderful and I shall refer to it in the future!


    I was led to this post by your intervention on Vridar.
    This is a first-class compilation of all the sides of a complex question. I doubt it can be improved with additional material. You seem to have covered all the angles.
    In my view this is way above the kind of analysis Vridar is capable of offering.
    This is a Ph.D.-level review compared to the high-school exposes for adults that Vridar usually presents. Godfrey has been a high-school teacher before becoming a librarian and has never learnt the critical thinking required for your kind of presentation.
    Very impressive.

    1. Coel Post author

      Thanks for your comments on my post, though personally I often appreciate Neil Godfrey’s articles on Biblical studies which seem to me to be of a good standard (which is why I read Vridar). Cheers, Coel.

    2. Roo Bookaroo

      This is the same reason why I have been following Vridar, which is valuable only when Godfrey presents reviews of new books on biblical criticism, which is his forte.

      But when he tries to pass himself off as an Australian pundit preaching universal peace and political correctness, I find him very superficial and easy to dismiss, at least from an American perspective.

      When it comes to Biblical studies, I am one of the few followers who have become hard-core critics of this Irish-Canadian Earl Doherty who has been turned into an icon of this Australian site not from pure whimsy, but from having discovered that this autodidact is in fact for his basic ideas a borrower, a plagiarist, and for his extensive speculative constructions, a master of Irish gabbing transposed to idiosyncratic interpretations of biblical documents.

      For this good reason, I have been barred from additional comments on the Australian site, which you seem to have joined only recently.

      This is the only site in the world dedicated to the cult of this aging autodidact, who has no standard college education, and no grounding in philosophy, mathematics or science (exactly like Godfrey).

      I am one of the few who consider this Doherty very close to being a charlatan who passes himself off as pseudo- scholar, an easy thing to do on the American market.

      I have expressed my views on Doherty explicitly in the TALK page of the Wikipedia article on Doherty, and my two Amazon reviews on his latest two books. Godfrey does not have the baggage and background necessary to appreciate the critiques of Doherty proffered by the small group of his readers I have joined.

      In general, I find the postings on blogs written by people with a bona fide philosophic and scientific education much more rewarding and precise than amateurs like Godfrey who is always a bit floating in the air. My favorites are people like Dawkins, Harris, Jerry Coyne, Steve Weinberg, and others.

      On this matter of “Einstein and religion”, you’ve done an excellent job. I think it’s good enough to be added as a reference to the Einstein article in Wikipedia or as an additional link to “External links”.

      Cordially yours ROO


    Well, I did add this article to the “External links” of the Wikipedia article on Einstein.
    It didn’t survive long. Within a couple of hours, I got the message that the link had been deleted by an administrator, a member of the Wikipedia police.
    ” Hello, I’m DVdm. I wanted to let you know that I removed an external link you added to the page Albert Einstein, because to me it seemed inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thanks,DVdm (talk) 11:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)”

    This being reflected in the “History” page, that records all modifications to the article
    ” 11:32, 26 April 2013‎ DVdm (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (102,052 bytes) (-167)‎ . . (Removed inappropriate external llink per wp:ELNO (HG)) (undo)
    (cur | prev) 10:48, 26 April 2013‎ ROO BOOKAROO (talk | contribs)‎ . . (102,219 bytes) (+167)‎ . . (→‎External links: Einstein the atheist on religion and God) (undo)”

    I did not want to dispute this decision, because I know the reason is in essence valid and the decision will stand.

    The problem is that the link refers to a private blog, and the present article can be considered as “original (i.e. personal) research”, and not secondary research by published critics.
    If you somehow managed to have this compendium of quotes published under any title by a known public media, for instance as an introduction or foreword to any re-edition of a book on Einstein, or as an article published by a known newspaper, or an established site (for instance the blog of the New York Review of Books, or Slate magazine, or the New Yorker, or any similar media in the UK), then the article would become quotable as coming from an acceptable “secondary” source. Original research is usually barred from Wikipedia articles, and the way to introduce it into a Wikipedia article is to be able to get this research published, making it quotable from a secondary critic.
    The alternative is to mention the link in the discussion of the TALK page, presenting it as a positive contribution to the discussion. Even there, administrators are very jealous of their prerogatives as enforcers of “encyclopedic” standards, and may object to additional information on the TALK page if they feel it is not adding to the discussion in TALK..
    There’s a section on the TALK page titled “Quotes”, where it might be possible to show a link to the article as follows:
    “On the subject of Einstein quotes on God and religion, the most complete compendium can be found in this list of quotes [https://coelsblog.wordpress.com/2013/04/08/einstein-the-atheist-on-religion-and-god/ “Einstein the atheist on religion and God”] by Coel Hellier, a Professor of Astrophysics at Keele University in the UK.”
    Let’s see if this addition will last.

  5. JJ81@aol.com

    Anyone who calls Einstein an atheist is immediately discredited by Einstein’s own words. The appropriate theological description for Einstein is “pantheist” and perhaps more specifically, “agnostic pantheist”. Most atheists, sadly, are just as delusional and insincere about Einstein as theists.

  6. JJ81@aol.com

    …and no, pantheism is not a kind of atheism. This debate is centuries old. Small minded black/white self labeling “atheists” have forever been ignorant of the pantheistic mindset, and it continues to this day. Believing that everything is God or that natural laws are divine is not ‘a kind of atheism’. It is the complete opposite. And when Einstein says the word God is the product of human weakness, that’s because humans ARE weak and God from this perspective is UNKNOWABLE. You know-it-all “fanatical atheists”, as Einstein called you, pretend you are not a part of human ignorance. It pains you to admit that Einstein was fundamentally agnostic and you didnt even acknowledge his statement that he prefers belief in a personal god to no transcendental outlook. Boy is that an inconvenient statement by Einstein for your b.s. article. You guys have psychological issues was what Einstein told you and you’re trying to twist it into he’s an atheist. Get real.

    1. Coel Post author

      So if pantheism is not a kind of atheism, what is it? What properties does pantheism attribute to the universe that makes it not atheistic?

    2. JJ81@aol.com

      Atheism would not exist if it was not for theism. The word has everything to do with theism. Pantheism ignores theism, it has *nothing* to do with theism. Spinoza, Einstein (and others) find everything to be a part of divinity. The (il)logical conclusion you reach from that (saying this equals atheism) is not at all what was believed by these people. They did not frame their worldview based on what they do not believe in. Rather they found everything to be a miracle. For Spinoza and Einstein, these were ideas that they likely learned from Jewish mysticism. At least study the ideas rather than disrespecting them and twisting them around to conveniently fit into your black/white model. Take a break from masturbating to atheism and realize not every non-theist is an “atheist”. Deists and pantheists believe in God; not the God that you want to live to be against, but God nonetheless. Sorry that it’s inconvenient to your simple minded model of theism versus atheism. Get your brain back from your Lord and Savior Dawkins, Hitchens etc. and change the model.

    3. Coel Post author

      Spinoza, Einstein (and others) find everything to be a part of divinity. … Deists and pantheists believe in God; not the God that you want to live to be against, but God nonetheless.

      I asked you what the attributes of this “God” are, what distinguishes this pantheism from an atheistic conception of the universe, and you haven’t really replied.

      If the word “pantheism” actually means something, and is different from atheism, then you need to be able to point to attributes of this pantheistic god that are incompatible with atheism. Until you’ve done that you only have empty words.

      Once you’ve listed these attributes of this pantheistic god, then quote Einstein to show that he explicitly believed the universe to have those attributes.

    4. Gary Hill

      “You know-it-all “fanatical atheists”……It pains you to admit that Einstein was fundamentally agnostic”

      As are the vast majority of atheists I’ve ever met – so, by your own admission, Einstein can be considered atheist…….

    5. Rory Cornelius

      A-theism = without god. Pan-theism = All is god. Is it really so difficult to see the glaring dissonance there? The idea that you can believe all as being god itself, and at the same time be without a belief in a god is a logical absurdity. If you want to redefine the word “atheism” to something along the lines of: “Being without a belief in a god, except for certain specific ideas of a god of some sorts.” You render the term meaningless and nonsensical. The definition becomes self-contradictory.

      In Glimpses of the Great, published in 1930, Einstein said, quote: “I am not an Atheist.” The argument ends there. We should take his word for what he wasn’t. Einstein wasn’t an atheist — he was *with* a belief in a type of god. And that, by definition, makes him not an atheist. And, atheists really, really need to get over it. It’s no big deal. There’s plenty of great thinkers who were atheists, and plenty of great thinkers who weren’t. It doesn’t mean anything. Nobody is an expert on the topic – not even Einstein. Einstein was really no more qualified to know whether a god exists than is my plumber. The truth lies far, far outside the realm of the understanding of anyone who has ever existed on the Earth, at least until thus far.

      I’m sorry, but the repeated attempts by atheists, ad nauseam, at trying to claim Einstein just makes atheists look desperate, silly and entirely motivated zealous ideology.

    6. Coel Post author

      A-theism = without god. Pan-theism = All is god. Is it really so difficult to see the glaring dissonance there?

      It all turns on what one means by a “god”. The atheist would say that if “all is god” then the word “god” has been stripped of so much meaning that it no longer means “god”, in any sensible meaning of the word.

      This is the point I was making in the article, to qualify as a “god” (and thus be incompatible with atheism), the pantheist has to ascribe properties to this “god” that make it a “god”.

      I, for example, am an atheist, lacking any belief in god. I also accept the existence of all the universe around. Thus if “all” is labelled “god” then I’m also a pantheist, except that pantheism is then an empty label that means nothing.

      The idea that you can believe all as being god itself, and at the same time be without a belief in a god is a logical absurdity.

      It’s not absurd, if in the latter half (“without a belief in a god”) the word “god” actually means something and in the former half (“all as being god”) it doesn’t.

      You render the term meaningless and nonsensical.

      Exactly, that is exactly what the pantheist definition (“all is god”, but we won’t list any properties of this “god” that makes it a “god”) achieves.

  7. Geoff

    Thank you. Terrific post. I have long loathed religious ignoramuses that quote “science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind” to bolster their ignorant viewpoint by trying to draw an association with Einstein. Of course even if Einstein had been a devout religious believer it would still not be conclusive evidence of a divine being. However, it is no great surprise that such a fine mind, even with his intellectual flaws and the religious pressures of society, would inevitably reject religion. The context of the quote and the time period in which it was said are very important for understanding Einstein’s views. Given that Einstein lived through the rise of Communism and much of the fear of atheism associated with it, I think it is fair to say that he most certainly would have been a much more outspoken critic of religion if he lived in today’s world. He had the unfortunate task of trying to communicate with a fear driven religious society and it is clear that he often tried to relate his ideas to them in the least confrontational way he possibly could. Sadly that has lead to much of the misinterpretation of Einstein’s true views on the the subject of religion.


      “even with his intellectual flaws”.
      Pray, what intellectual flaws? Poor Einstein, he never knew that he was “intellectually” flawed. I wish I had the same flaws.

      “lived through the rise of Communism and much of the fear of atheism associated with it,”.
      I have studied extensively that period (1st half of the 20th c.) and I doubt that the fear of Communism was the fear of atheism. It was more the fear of the absolute state control of the economy and personal liberties at the expense of private capitalism and personal freedom, and the fear of the Soviets’ geographical imperialism.
      When the Cuba crisis erupted, the fear was not of atheism creeping into the US, but the nuclear heads stored on Cuban soil.

      Using only big abstract words to discuss such matters leads only to confusion and make-believe.

    2. Gary Hill

      Roo wrote: “I doubt that the fear of Communism was the fear of atheism.”

      On a global basis, I think you’re right

      I lived in Australia during the Vietnam war when the ‘Domino Effect’ was talked about a lot, i.e., if Vietnam fell to communism, then Malaysia would, then Indonesia, then Australia. All the talk was of economics and politics, I can’t recall a single person invoking atheism as the boogie man. I’ve now lived in Europe for 23 years and, likewise, the old-Eastern European nations were generally considered a threat to the West because of their insular economic system, not their atheism (though, in reality, Poland and Romania were far from atheist).

    3. Geoff

      I realize that a lot of people worship Einstein with religious fervor. Those people are just as ignorant as the religious people that try to leverage his quotes to further their narrow minded view point. However, if you think that he was without intellectual flaws you are quite naive.

      You are correct that the central source of fear of Communism stemmed from its lack of personal liberty, control of economy, and potential for expansion. However, atheism was associated with the communist movement by religious people in the western world that were looking for ways to distinguish and discredit it as immoral. I suggest you revisit your history of the first half of the 20th century.


    As an aside, but still related to the topic, I find it interesting to post two letters written in 1911 as recommendations of Einstein for a teaching position in Zurich. They were published by “Letter of Note”, Nov. 6, 2013
    I am reproducing the whole article here below, because it is such a first-rate tribute to Einstein’s genius, when he still was only 32

    One of the Most Original Thinkers I Have Ever Met (Henri Poincare)

    In November of 1911, two of the world’s most revered scientists, Henri Poincaré and Marie Curie, were asked to write letters of recommendation for a 32-year-old man who was looking to become a professor of theoretical physics at ETH Zurich (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology), and who, 6 years previous, had authored a renowned set of groundbreaking scientific papers. That man was Albert Einstein. Then a respected professor at Prague’s Charles-Ferdinand University, Einstein was keen to return to his alma mater in Switzerland to teach; however, certain local officials in Zurich weren’t convinced of his suitability.

    These invaluable letters soon arrived. Einstein moved to Zurich some months later.

    (Sources: Poincare’s translated letter via Solvay Conferences on Physics: Aspects of the Development of Physics Since 1911, Curie’s translated and supplied by Jeremy Harding; Image: Albert Einstein, via.)

    From Henri Poincaré:

    Nov. 1911

    My dear colleague,

    Mr Einstein is one of the most original thinkers I have ever met. In spite of his youth, he has already achieved a very honourable place among the leading savants of his age. What one has to admire in him above all is the facility with which he adapts himself to new concepts and knows how to draw from them every possible conclusion. He has not remained attached to classical principles, and when faced with a problem of physics he is prompt in envisaging all its possibilities. A problem which enters his mind unfolds itself into the anticipation of new phenomena which may one day be verified by experiment. I do not mean to say that all these anticipations will withstand the test of experiment on the day such a test would become possible. Since he seeks in all directions one must, on the contrary, expect most of the trails which he pursues to be blind alleys. But one must hope at the same time that one of the directions he has indicated may be the right one, and that is enough. This is indeed how one should proceed. The role of mathematical physics is to ask the right questions, and experiment alone can resolve them.

    The future will show more and more the worth of Mr Einstein, and the university intelligent enough to attract this young master is certain to reap great honour.

    Your most devoted colleague,



    From Marie Curie:

    Paris, November 17, 1911

    Dear Sir,

    I have just received your letter, in which you asked for my personal impression of Mr. Einstein, whom I recently had the pleasure to meet. You also say that Mr. Einstein wishes very much to return to Zurich and could soon have the opportunity to do so.

    I have often admired the papers published by Mr. Einstein on issues dealing with modern theoretical physics. Moreover, I believe that theoretical physicists agree that these papers are of the highest order. In Brussels, where I participated in a scientific conference in which Mr. Einstein also took part, I was able to appreciate the clarity of his mind, the extent of his documentation and the depth of his knowledge. If we consider that Mr. Einstein is still very young, we are right to have great hope in him, and to see him as one of the leading theoreticians of the future. I think that the scientific institution willing to give Mr. Einstein the work he desires, either by appointing him an existing chair or by creating for him the chair in the conditions he deserves, could be greatly honored by such a decision and would certainly be providing a great service to science.

    If, by offering my opinion, I could by a small measure contribute to the solution desired by Mr. Einstein, I would be extremely pleased.

    Accept, I beg of you, dear Sir, the assurance of my best wishes.

    M. Curie

    Faculty of Sciences, Paris
    (General Physics Laboratory)

  9. jack

    …. It appears to me that fanatical atheists have this identity problem of knowing what the ‘hell ‘ they are …. they keep shifting the goal posts to suit their game of a lame argument. You guys come across as so desperate as wanting to change not only language but the principles of logic. You can call yourselves what ever you like atheists, agnostics or unicorn hunters, the simple fact remains that Einstein clearly said that he’s not an atheist. Here’s the argument of differentiation presented by Dr. William Lane Craig. Craig is the guy who has destroyed in debates all atheist scientists pretending to be philosophers. He’s also the guy who Dawkins refuses to debate for fear of appearing as what he truly is, a philosophically inept media tart. Einstein did say that one should leave philosophy to philosophers and that scientists make very bad philosophers. Quite ironic! Here, see if you can follow the logic without getting caught up in your insecurities. You guys may not believe in a god but you certainly believe in magic …. …. the way you are able to defy logic has to be magic …. …. or perhaps delusion. .. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHIIjfxr4o0

    1. Coel Post author

      the simple fact remains that Einstein clearly said that he’s not an atheist.

      Really?, where did he say that?

      Dr. William Lane Craig. Craig is the guy who has destroyed in debates all atheist scientists pretending to be philosophers.

      I suspect we would not agree on the “scoring” of these debates.

  10. jack

    the simple fact remains that Einstein clearly said that he’s not an atheist.

    Really?, where did he say that?

    In an interview published in 1930 in G. S. Viereck’s book Glimpses of the Great, Einstein, in response to a question about whether or not he believed in God, explained:

    Your question [about God] is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza’s Pantheism. I admire even more his contributions to modern thought. Spinoza is the greatest of modern philosophers, because he is the first philosopher who deals with the soul and the body as one, not as two separate things.

    Viereck, George Sylvester. “Glimpses of the Great”. Duckworth, 1930. p. 372-373.

    Dr. William Lane Craig. Craig is the guy who has destroyed in debates all atheist scientists pretending to be philosophers.

    I suspect we would not agree on the “scoring” of these debates.

    …. yeah, I’m sure your fanatical bias is stronger than your capacity for objectivity.

    Many would certainly disagree with your ‘scoring’ …. on this point. Here’s a list of scoring from the atheist site Common Sense Atheism ….. remember these guys are on your side … http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=392

    Also if you feel like a laugh then the following will have you in stitches… .http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-M-vnmejwXo

    Have a good day and thanks for your time. …God bless! …. just remember if there were no theists then there will be no atheists. ….. …. to quote Voltaire, “If there were no God, it would have been necessary to invent him”.

    1. Coel Post author

      “Your question [about God] is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds.”

      And in that quote he is using “atheist” in the sense of somebody certain that there is no god. In the more usual sense of “somebody who does not believe that there is a god”, Einstein was an atheist, as is clear if you read all his writings.

      …. yeah, I’m sure your fanatical bias is stronger than your capacity for objectivity.

      Perhaps a whiff of the pot calling the kettle black? Anyhow, formal verbal debates are pretty much a side-track, they are all about theatre, since you cannot properly examine arguments and evidence in that format. What really matters is the written form.

      … just remember if there were no theists then there will be no atheists

      For once I agree with you. If there were no theists around we’d have no need to label the lack of belief.

  11. jack

    “I am not an Atheist.”

    And in that quote he is using “atheist” in the sense of somebody certain that there is no god.

    Which part of the ‘not’ don’t you understand?

    I thought atheists were certain that there is no God?
    Otherwise you are ambiguously venturing into the realm of agnosticism. I asked you to see if you could follow the logic of William Lane Craig’s argument which exposes the confusion atheists like Hitchens and others have defining not only their philosophical position on the matter but also on the definition of themselves. If you don’t know who or what you are, how in the hell are you going to know what you really stand for? You can’t on the one hand want objective clarity when it comes to the notion of the existence and nature of a god, but on the other be totally careless, ambiguous and contradictory when it comes to dealing with your own nature. As I stated early the problem you guys have is that you keep shifting the goal posts in the middle of your lame game. You also have a tendency to ‘play’ the ‘man’ and taking your eyes off the ball in your quest to win at all costs. Now see if you can follow the logic … http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHIIjfxr4o0

    “Anyhow, formal verbal debates are pretty much a side-track, they are all about theatre, since you cannot properly examine arguments and evidence in that format. What really matters is the written form.”

    Obviously you have conceded that Craig made a meal of his opponents…. …. and I don’t even like the guy, just like all those other ‘common sense atheists’ who ‘scored’ the debates heavily in his favour. Remember it was you who brought up the notion of a ‘score’ …. … all of a sudden debates and ‘scores’ don’t matter … again you shift the goal posts. ….hmm.. … if “Anyhow, formal verbal debates are pretty much a side-track, they are all about theatre, ” …. … why did you keep ‘score” on them? …. are you that desperate, that insecure that you are willing to keep score on things that don’t matter?

    “If there were no theists around we’d have no need to label the lack of belief.”

    Now just replace “theists” with God. If there was no God you’d have ‘nothing’ to talk about. That ‘nothing’ has given meaning and purpose to all civilizations thus far. He exists in the social, philosophic and psychologic spheres because as Voltaire states,“If there were no God, it would have been necessary to invent him”. ‘Nothing’ comes out of nothing therefore like “for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction”, there would necessarily had to have been a starting point. “In the beginning was the ‘word’ and the word was with God and the word was God”. …. …. in other ‘words’ it’s the only concept we really know … …. and we know ‘nothing’. It’s the source of all humility, including that of Einstein’s. What Einstein, like Newton (Atheism is so senseless and odious ) detested was the arrogance and hubris of the “professional atheists”, the hard sellers who think they know more than the civilizations and the concept that ‘made’ them. It’s all thought and through thought we observe, we experience and we postulate and call it knowledge. This knowledge is limited as this conclusion by Roger McCan illustrates ( I added this lengthy summary because you need to subscribe to Philosophy Now to get full access to it). Have a good day and I thank you for the last time for your time.


    We have considered several possible sources of knowledge, none of which have proved entirely satisfactory. However, our examples, mostly based on rational thought and experience, indicate several plausible attributes of knowledge:

    (1) Knowledge exists;

    (2) Some, but not all, knowledge comes from rational thought;

    (3) Some, but not all, knowledge comes from experience;

    (4) Some knowledge is absolute, while other knowledge is relative to postulates;

    (5) At least some knowledge is discovered and not created; and

    (6) Knowledge cannot be established by human proclamation.

    We apparently need to develop further attributes to prevent the use of inappropriate postulates in rational thought and to identify which experiences yield knowledge. If these attributes exist, then we can hardly maintain the assumption that knowledge is a primitive notion.

    Due to the infinite variety of life and thought provided by different cultures, I doubt the latter attributes exist. However, I fear that as advancing communication technology homogenizes cultures, formulations of such attributes identifying knowledge will appear plausible, and may enable the creation of totalitarian societies, as depicted in the novels Fahrenheit 451, Brave New World, and 1984. In short, I fear that what passes for knowledge can and will be both created and destroyed. This certainly seems to be a major goal of some political campaigns.

    Furthermore, if these latter attributes are found, they would greatly reduce the importance of faith in all its aspects, and generally make life much less interesting and amusing, by removing its diversity. I hope instead that a paraphrase of Mark Twain’s observation about religion applies to knowledge: Humankind is the only animal that has the True Knowledge – several of them. If so, a judge of Knowledge is indeed shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods; and hopefully by our laughter as well.

    © Roger McCann 2014

    Roger McCann was a professor of mathematics for seventeen years, then spent fifteen years at the research lab of the Exxon Mobil Corporation. He is retired in the mountains of western North Carolina.

    Philosophy Now July/august 2014

    The only point of disagreement I have is with number (4) “Some knowledge is absolute, while other knowledge is relative to postulates;” using critical rationalism and quantum theory even what may appear as “absolute” is ultimately relative to ‘specific’ postulates.

  12. Coel Post author

    Hi jack,

    I thought atheists were certain that there is no God?

    Well you thought wrong. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in God or gods.

    Otherwise you are ambiguously venturing into the realm of agnosticism.

    Most atheists are also agnostics. Atheism is a lack of *belief*; agnosticism is a lack of *knowledge*. See this post for an explanation.

    William Lane Craig’s argument which exposes the confusion atheists like Hitchens and others have defining not only their philosophical position on the matter but also on the definition of themselves.

    We are not the ones who are confused about this!

    If you don’t know who or what you are, how in the hell are you going to know what you really stand for?

    We do know who we are and what we stand for!

    If there was no God you’d have ‘nothing’ to talk about.

    Not on the subject of God, no, but there are plenty of other topics to talk about.

    This knowledge is limited as this conclusion by Roger McCan illustrates ( I added this lengthy summary …

    Just giving the conclusion, but not the argument that defends the conclusion, is not that convincing.

  13. Guillermo Zuniga

    If you want to see God, It is very simple , ask him to appear ,if he does appears tell him I said hi,if he does not show up,there is your answer, think no more, life is waiting for more mistakes

    1. Coel Post author

      And if you read that quote in context it is clear that he is using “atheist” to mean someone who is totally certain that there are no gods. Under the more accepted definition of “atheist” as someone who lacks belief in gods, Einstein was clearly an atheist, as the above compilation of quotes shows.

  14. Roo Bookaroo

    It is clear from all the discussion on this page that Einstein’s position and thinking are very close and similar to those of Richard Feynman, and Carl Sagan.

  15. Pingback: Einstein was misrepresented as a Pantheist | endlessjune

  16. Bill Baker

    Jammer was personal friends with Einstein, were you? This means they also had personal conversations about the subject. So Jammer extrapolates from that and Einsteins public and private letters musings on the subject. Everything he said on it makes it clear he was not just speaking metaphorically when he spoke of a superior reasoning power and superior illimitable spirit, etc. And his harsher pronouncements against atheism and atheists who quote him in support of their view, harsher than his pronouncements against religion and even personal theism. Though he denied the latter and affirmed the former(just not REVEALED religion). His one time condemning the word *god*(compared to his many times using it positively) he is clearly only referring to the word of it..not the spirit of it, and against personal anthropomorphic/centric theism.
    His reference to Spinozas and his god was only to identify with a fellow rationalistic secular jewish thinker. But Spinoza was a pantheist, pantheism is a Theism…pan(or all)theism resting on the idea of a static universe without beginning or end being the same as *God*. Einstein spoke of a pre-existing spirit or mind or reasoning power that makes itself manifest in its creation but not identical with the creation. IE…Deism(perhaps even pandeism or panendeism). He explicitly denies pantheism and atheism as well as personal theism.
    He said one could call himself agnostic but suggested that misses the mark a bit as well. He never explicitly said he was agnostic, and he never explicitly said he was a deist either. However taking everything he said on the subject into account, he clearly was agnostic with deistic inclinations or agnostic-deist, leaning strongly towards a deist view. And his personal friend Jammer said he was inclined towards deistic ideas.
    He most certainly was no atheist in any sense, as he also was most certainly not a theist in any sense.
    Deist(or…Agnostic-Deist. Agnostic leaning strongly towards a form of deism).
    Case closed.

    1. Coel Post author

      Everything he said on it makes it clear he was not just speaking metaphorically when he spoke of a superior reasoning power and superior illimitable spirit, etc.

      That’s not at all clear to me.

  17. Bill Baker

    How can it be any clearer? Apart from him coming out and using the label *deist* that is.
    Have you read Jammers book? Have you read professor Antony Flews book *there is a God. How the worlds most notorious atheist changed his mind* in which he devotes a part of the book to Einstein and the relevant quotes?
    Everything Einstein said on the subject, along with his friend Jammers biography said on him and his views, makes it as clear as day that while he never used the label *deist* his views were far more than mere poetic atheist metaphors, that he was inclined heavily towards deistic ideas. He used the label *agnostic* a couple times which makes it clear he was open to it at the very least, and his vehement denial if being atheist and his vehement words against atheism and atheists coupled with the afforementioned and the way he spoke on the subject makes it clear to anyone being intellectually honest that he was not just speaking metaphorically.

    1. Coel Post author

      Hi Bill,

      Have you read Jammers book? Have you read professor Antony Flews book …

      Yes I’ve read Jammer’s book. It was as a response to reading that that I wrote the piece. Jammer doesn’t hide his agenda, an attempt to “rescue” Einstein for Judaism.

      As for Flew’s book, it wasn’t written by him, it was ghost-written by Roy Varghese and Bob Hostetler. As for relevant quotes from Einstein, I deal with them all in the article. (Are there relevant ones that I have not addressed?)

      Everything Einstein said on the subject, along with his friend Jammers biography said on him and his views, makes it as clear as day that while he never used the label *deist* his views were far more than mere poetic atheist metaphors, that he was inclined heavily towards deistic ideas.

      As I said, that’s not at all clear to me. Anyhow, “deism” is a rather vague label, what is the actual content of deism?

      and his vehement denial if being atheist and …

      What vehement denial are you thinking of? As quoted in the piece: “From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.”

  18. Pingback: The God of Spinoza, Einstein - wasmormon.org

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s