Comments on: I’m not an atheist and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist

By: Jools

Jools — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 11:07:12 +0000

“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.”

- Albert Einstein, letter to an atheist (1954), quoted in Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas & Banesh Hoffman

“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.”

- Albert Einstein, responding to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein’s question “Do you believe in God?” quoted in: Has Science Found God?, by Victor J Stenger

Sounds like a pantheist to me. Whether he thinks he can call himself one or not, he fits the definition.

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Wed, 13 May 2009 00:12:58 +0000

Locozuna: I can only claim to have skimmed it. I was arguing the validity of the quote, not any meaning associated with it or whether the man was this or that. I don’t really care what Einstein was or wasn’t. I don’t deify him. I think he was a really interesting cat with great quotes.

People are often misquoted or quoted out of context. Is this quote true? Beats me, I never heard the man say it. But it is attributed to him from numerous sources. So it is either something he said or revisionist history. Either way it is from him now. He owns it. It is part of his dynasty.

I didn’t post this to illustrate any point. I find it kind of interesting that you make that claim. What point was I trying to make exactly? That he was in awe of the universe? Anyone who isn’t is a fool, because they aren’t paying much attention.

I do love that it has generated so much discussion though.

Thank you for recognizing everyone’s right to believe what they will. That is a sign of wisdom. Panthesism is a very commendable point of view. And yes, zomies are kinda silly to me too.

By: Locozuna

Locozuna — Tue, 12 May 2009 23:22:09 +0000

Uh, Jeremy?
Did you bother to read either?
The article quote is a small fraction of a much larger text. As usual it was sectioned from the larger to illustrate a point of view that I believe inaccurate and misleading. Believe what you will and what makes your life easier and more full. Personally I lean towards Panthesism as I’m not a big fan of zombie stories.

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 23:11:43 +0000

Uh, Jack? You can read it here too. And here. And more ad nauseam if you try google. You call us fools?

By: Jack

Jack — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 23:00:00 +0000

He didn’t say this. This quote is untrue. Are you people idiots? I think so yes. You probably believe this now too, you fools.

By: Brad Horner

Brad Horner — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 16:37:46 +0000

The Universe is absurd. Omg you didn’t get the memo?

By: Ian

Ian — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 23:53:51 +0000

‘Shopped.

By: Paul Fox

Paul Fox — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 23:07:03 +0000

Einstein in his own words:
“What really makes me angry is that they (people who say there is no God) quote me for support of their views”. There is a God,by Anthony Flew, 2007 p 100

“Everyone who is seriously engaged in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble” There is a God, by Anthony Flew p 102

By: casey

casey — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 23:38:31 +0000

Einstein is just saying that he believes in *something*–something, perhaps, “that does not play dice with the universe.” As has been noted, he used the term “God” in a special sense. I think Einstein’s belief was irrational, as Phil E. pointed out, and it seems he was fumbling for a way to rationalize it. This is, of course, assuming he really held it and wasn’t just speaking in this way to please his audience (as often occurs when great men must engage with the public). But if irrational, it is certainly excusable–not just because knowledge of the universe has progressed since his time, but also because this belief (a kind of impersonal–perhaps even non-supernatural–Deism) arises from his appreciation of the mysterious–a strongly felt emotional whiff of the numinous–and (most importantly) does not directly contradict any acknowledged facts. I have no beef with this kind of Deism, but being a (relatively) thorough rationalist and empiricist (no emotional urge to believe in something) I must remain myself both an atheist and an a-deist. Show me some evidence, Albert!

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 01:41:01 +0000

“conclude” not *”say”