Who put anti-religious fighting words in Einstein's mouth?

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 01:26 PM
link   
Einstein got that knowledge from the jewish kabbalah, thats why you see so many jewish physicists. They harnessed that power for evil




posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 01:48 PM
link   
Thanks to all who've written so far, On a few of the points arising:


The deist-pantheist-atheist question

As mentioned in the OP article, there is a pdf of three or four pages of Einstein source material available at that site,

uncertaintist.files.wordpress.com...

In brief, Einstein was an admirer of Spinoza since he was in high school. He liked the word "pantheism," the usual description of Spinoza's opinion about the question of God. However, Einstein thought of God as being some kind of creative intelligence separate from the creation, which is not the usual interpretation of pantheism. Also, Einstein himself acknowleged that pantheism might not be the best description of his views. Deism would be a more accurate description, based on what Einstein said about himself.

He specifically denied being atheist. Most people, including Dawkins, distinguish atheism from either pantheism or deism, although none of the three is "religious."


buster


I wouldn't say who put these words in his mouth more like what put these words in his mouth. And that would be his enormous intellect.


I don't think calling somebody else's personal opinion "childish" represents any enormity of intellect. Yet another reason to doubt that Einstein actually wrote that.


baruch


Arguing over whether Einstein believed in God, or said this or that about God, is futile.


Well, that depends on your purpose in investigating Einstein's words. For example, somebody paid $400,000 for this letter, and hopes that somebody else will pay them at least $ 3,000,000 for it. I guess you're not in the market, then
.

Also, I see where Richard Dawkins is coming from. A common atheist fantasy is that their personal opinion about the question of God is "more scientific" than anybody else's. If that's where your ego is invested, then you could easily become very interested in which high-profile scientists were atheists. Apparently, there are also some theists who have the same idea as Dawkins as far as Einstein goes, just involving the opposite opinion about God.

On the other hand, if you mean that Einstein didn't know much more about it than other thoughtful people, then I agree. The question of God is entirely a matter of personal opinion, and Einstein, just like everybody else, had one. Einstein would probably have agreed with that.
-
edit on 3-9-2012 by eight bits because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


no, i am not agreeing, being something of a pantheist myself.

just pointing out that your definition
of what constitutes religion is a narrow one

one might even say its the religiosi who've put the
"anti-religious fighting words in Einstein's mouth"


I didn't define religion.


sigh.


Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Einstein was a deist, he was not religious in any way.



Originally posted by NOTurTypical

And that is a definition of religion??


what? you strung out [on spirit]?

your saying deists and pantheists are not religious isn't drawing a line/defining?

cheez... :shk:
edit on 3-9-2012 by DerepentLEstranger because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


no, i am not agreeing, being something of a pantheist myself.

just pointing out that your definition
of what constitutes religion is a narrow one

one might even say its the religiosi who've put the
"anti-religious fighting words in Einstein's mouth"


I didn't define religion.


sigh.


Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Einstein was a deist, he was not religious in any way.


And that is a definition of religion??



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 07:57 PM
link   
Einstein wasn't the only anti-religious, God himself is anti-religious. Have you ever read how many times he dogs out "immoral women" and "fornication" and "Mystery Babylon the Mother of Harlots" in the OT and NT? In prophet language women are not women, theyre religions and he hates them with a passion to the point the 144k he chooses in the end will not be tainted by religion so they won't be 144k super jews like some people think because judaism is a religion.



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Einstein was a deist, he was not religious in any way.


false he was a pantheist


False, Einstein was a deist. He admired Spinoza, but that doesn't make him a pantheist -- I admire Richard Feynman, but that doesn't make me an atheist (or much of a physicist, either, lol).

A deist believes that there is a god, outside of reality, and unapproachable and incomprehensible by anything within the reality, and the statements that Einstein made about god reflect that view, not a pantheistic one.



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Einstein was a deist, he was not religious in any way.


false he was a pantheist


False, Einstein was a deist. He admired Spinoza, but that doesn't make him a pantheist -- I admire Richard Feynman, but that doesn't make me an atheist (or much of a physicist, either, lol).

A deist believes that there is a god, outside of reality, and unapproachable and incomprehensible by anything within the reality, and the statements that Einstein made about god reflect that view, not a pantheistic one.



Pantheism

Pantheism is a word derived from the Greek (pan) meaning "all" and the Greek (theos) meaning "God". It is the view that everything is part of an all-encompassing immanent God,[1] or that the Universe (or Nature) and God (or divinity) are identical.[2] Pantheists thus do not believe in a personal, or anthropomorphic god. Pantheism denotes the idea that every single thing is a part of one Being ("God") and that all forms of reality are either modes of that Being or identical with it.[3]

There are a variety of definitions of pantheism. Some consider pantheism to be a theological and philosophical position concerning God.[4] As a religious position, Pantheism is often described as the polar opposite of Atheism.[5] From this standpoint, Pantheism is the view that everything is part of an all-encompassing immanent God.[6] Others hold that pantheism is a philosophical position closely related to Atheism. From that standpoint, Pantheism is the view that the Universe and God are identical.[7]

Pantheism was popularized in the modern era as both a theology and philosophy by the work of Baruch Spinoza,[4] whose treatise, Ethics, was an answer to Descartes' famous dualist theory that the body and spirit are separate.[5] Spinoza held that body and spirit are the same. This is technically known as monism, a fundamental quality of what is often referred to as pantheism. Spinoza was described as a "God-intoxicated man" who used the word God to describe the unity of all substance.[5] The word pantheism was born out of the philosophy of Spinoza.[8]


Albert_Einstein's_religious_views


Albert Einstein's religious views have been studied due to his sometimes apparently ambiguous statements and writings on the subject. He believed in the god of Baruch Spinoza, but not in a personal god, a belief he criticized. He also called himself an agnostic, and criticized positive atheism, preferring he said "an attitude of humility."[1]
***
On 22 March 1954 Einstein received a letter from J. Dispentiere, an Italian immigrant who had worked as an experimental machinist in New Jersey. Dispentiere had declared himself an atheist and was disappointed by a news report which had cast Einstein as conventionally religious. Einstein replied on 24 March 1954:

"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."[7]

In a letter to Beatrice Frohlich, 17 December 1952 Einstein stated, "The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naïve."[8] And to Eric Gutkind he wrote, "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text."[9]

On 24 April 1929, Einstein cabled Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein in German: "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."[10]






posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by DerepentLEstranger
 


Yeah, what part of "not a personal god" do you think doesn't apply to deists?

If Einstein was truly a pantheist, don't you think that this would have played something of a role in what he reported on his observations of the universe, as well as how they were portrayed?

As I said, Einstein's writings are those of a deist, not a pantheist, regardless of what mouldy old quotes one might dredge up. Not that it really matters -- he wasn't a Christian, so people can't be hatin' on him, and he wasn't an atheist, so Dawkins can't be pointing to him as the ultimate "social intellectual" role model.



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 


You can't 'know' what any god said based on a book, especially the OT and NT.

You might as well say "according to the bible, Luke said that Jesus said that he is the light"...

Do you see how it begins to reveal itself as just RUMOR?


Originally posted by NOTurTypical
So you're agreeing with me then? A deist doesn't believe in a personal god who concerns himself with the day to day affairs of men.


Just because two things are similar, that does not make them the same.

A deist is not a pantheist, nor is a pantheist a deist just because they both happen to believe in an "impersonal" god...



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by arpgme
A deist is not a pantheist, nor is a pantheist a deist just because they both happen to believe in an "impersonal" god...


Technically, I think that a pantheist would have to accept a "personal god", in that they themselves were a part of reality, no?



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 05:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by DerepentLEstranger
 


Yeah, what part of "not a personal god" do you think doesn't apply to deists?

If Einstein was truly a pantheist, don't you think that this would have played something of a role in what he reported on his observations of the universe, as well as how they were portrayed?

As I said, Einstein's writings are those of a deist, not a pantheist, regardless of what mouldy old quotes one might dredge up. Not that it really matters -- he wasn't a Christian, so people can't be hatin' on him, and he wasn't an atheist, so Dawkins can't be pointing to him as the ultimate "social intellectual" role model.



lol you are truly barking up the wrong tree or chasing your own tail poochy

what part of einstein being a religious man and not an atheist
[my argument vs notyurtypical's claim that he wasnt religious,
and that probably because he did not belong to any Organized, institutional Cult ]


are YOU failing to comprehend?

pugnacious much?

ASSumptions, ASSumptions :shk:



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 05:21 AM
link   
Greetings, adj. Nice to have you aboard as always.

DerepentLEstranger

The difficulty with your approach is that pantheists and deists are in many ways similar. So, we need to try differential diagnosis, asking How are they different?

As ususal with Wikipedia on many controversial subjects, it simply is not a reliable guide. You have to look at context and primary sources. You would do well to look at the pdf from the OP website, already linked,

uncertaintist.files.wordpress.com...

Einstein clarified his literally telegraphic statement of belief in Spinoza's God in an interview shortly thereafter. The pdf does not address Einstein's remark about agnosticism, but obviously, Wiki's report contradictis itself. Believing in any conception of God excludes agnosticism in the modern sense of the word. When Einstein used the word agnostic, he was probably referring to his belief that God is ineffable. There is ample support for his ineffabilism in the pdf.

Also, what Einstein denied being was not just "positive atheist" but rather "atheist." The supporting remark is is in the pdf, and is part of the same interview where he clarifies what he thinks about Spinoza's God. Apart from his own beliefs in God, he did on at least one occasion criticize the demeanor of some atheists he had encountered (which. of course, would be uninformative about whether or not he agreed with them about the question of God, and as it happens, he did not).

Wikipedia is to be commended, however, since its translated quotation from the Einstein-Gutkind letter doesn't include the disputed "childish" name-calling phrase. I am unsure that being a more reliable source than Richard Dawkins is much of an achievement, but I am happy to acknowledge that on this point, Wiki is.
-
edit on 4-9-2012 by eight bits because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 07:37 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


That's the thing. The word "God" can be a bit ambiguous.

If by "personal God" you mean a superior being directing their lives, I'd say no.

In Pantheism - all is God - so there can be no spiritually "superior" being directing your life. Since all are on equal grounds - since all is God

Now, if it were PanENtheism - then it can be a personal (or impersonal) God..



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by arpgme
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 


You can't 'know' what any god said based on a book, especially the OT and NT.

You might as well say "according to the bible, Luke said that Jesus said that he is the light"...

Do you see how it begins to reveal itself as just RUMOR?


Originally posted by NOTurTypical
So you're agreeing with me then? A deist doesn't believe in a personal god who concerns himself with the day to day affairs of men.


Just because two things are similar, that does not make them the same.

A deist is not a pantheist, nor is a pantheist a deist just because they both happen to believe in an "impersonal" god...


Yes you can know what God said in the Holy Bible, all the answers are there and he gives his people gifts of discernment so they can "read the writing on the wall", a valuable lesson learned in Daniel. That's the whole point of having a personal relationship with him, he makes these things known because he wants us to know them. Regardless of what Luke said, or John said, or Matthew these were Apostles who were closest to Jesus and they too could prophecy. The rest comes down to faith and you either have it, or you don't.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by arpgme
reply to post by adjensen
 


That's the thing. The word "God" can be a bit ambiguous.

If by "personal God" you mean a superior being directing their lives, I'd say no.

In Pantheism - all is God - so there can be no spiritually "superior" being directing your life. Since all are on equal grounds - since all is God

Now, if it were PanENtheism - then it can be a personal (or impersonal) God..



In that case Pantheism is easy to refute, I'm certainly not God.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 03:45 PM
link   
There is now an unabridged German transcription and English translation of the Einstein-Gutkind letter available from the Uncertaintist blog,

uncertaintist.wordpress.com...

If nothing else, the pdf is three million dollars cheaper than buying the letter itself. Or, maybe it will persuade you that you simply must have the letter.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 06:47 PM
link   
A seccod story about the Einstein-Gutkind letter has been posted on the blog

uncertaintist.wordpress.com...

Not only were "fighting words" added, but a critical narrowing word was left out of the older translations.In the first post here. when I said in the OP


critical of revealed religion, maybe to the point of calling it primitive superstition


this statement was based on the first blog post, and they hadn't yet put up the unabridged transcription or translation they had made available separately (see my previous post).

The new story shows that instead of

" For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstition."

what Einstein wrote was, (emphasis added to the previously omitted word),

".For me, the unadulterated Jewish religion, like every other religion, is an incarnation of primitive superstitions"

Einstein wasn't talking about revealed religions in general, or even about Judaism in general. He was talking specifically about the idealized form of Judaism praised and extolled throughout Gutman's book, which Gutman contrasted with "watered down" versions of Judaism. Einstein didn't subscribe to either form of religious Judaism, whether watered down or unadulterated.

Thus the way in which "every other religion" is like Judaism is that all of them have an unadulterated original or ancient version that, for Einstein, is not anything idealized, but rather an incarnation of primitive superstitions. His famous 1940 Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion essay put his theory of ancestral religions this way:


During the youthful period of mankind’s spiritual evolution human fantasy created gods in man’s own image, …Man sought to alter the disposition of these gods in his own favor by means of magic and prayer. The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old conception 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 fulfillment of their wishes.


describing the ancient ways as based upon "fantasy" and "magic" rather than "superstition."



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by eight bits
 


Interesting. So, I take it that Gutkind was making a case that his "unadulterated" Judaism was superior to all others, and Einstein was simply saying "no, it's all nonsense"? That certainly would fit with his deistic views, to be sure. Not sure how Dawkins gets "atheist" out of that (apart from wanting to see it there, I suppose.)



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 11:01 AM
link   
Hi, adj


Not sure how Dawkins gets "atheist" out of that


Apparently, RD was ready and willing to bid tens of thousands of dollars in 2008 for a piece of paper, on the strength of the sellers' representation about what the marks on the paper meant in English.

The 2008 auction catalog is still online

www.bloomsburyauctions.com...

Everything the lot # 303 entry quotes is from the second paragraph, beginning with

The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses

The preceding sentence is omitted. Without the preceding sentence, there is no way to tell what Einstein meant by "The word God."

So, if you didn't know that anything important was missing, doesn't that clause sound atheist? "The word God," out of context sounds like "The very idea of God..." and "the expression and product of human weaknesses" sure sounds like the writer doesn't believe in what "The word God" refers to, and outrightly believes it to be false.

The widely quoted worldwide Guardian abridgement, which first ran a few days before the 2008 London sale, also omitted the sentence preceding "The Word God."

www.guardian.co.uk...

And, um, then there's the upcoming sale

einsteinletter.com...

Notice there's no mistranslation in that clause. The whole effect is achieved simply by ignoring the preceding sentence. It's a teaching example of quote mining. Naturally, the subsequent addition, omission and dicey rendering of key words surely contribute to the overall tone, but the atheist meme was successfully transmitted before these other things occur.

All that, and maybe some readers very much wanted the clause to mean something different than it actually does. To his credit, RD does frequently acknowledge that atheists also need to watch out for the same cognitive illusions that beset lesser mortals.


BTW, Bloomsbury's current disclaimer, fairly standard, and probably similar to what governed the 2008 sale. Bold and underline are in original.


7. Any representation or statement by the Auctioneer in any catalogue, brochure or advertisement of forthcoming sales as to authorship, attribution, genuineness, origin, date, age, provenance, condition or estimate selling price is a statement of opinion only. Every person interest should exercise and rely on his own judgement as to such matters and neither the Auctioneer nor his servants or agents are responsible for the correctness of such opinions. No warranty whatsover is given by the Auctioneer or the seller in respect of any lot and any express or implied warranties are hereby excluded.

-
edit on 14-9-2012 by eight bits because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by eight bits
 


Well, it's all in the marketing, isn't it? lol


est. £6000 – £8000

Einstein’s view of God and Judaism.
Eric B. Gutkind (1877-1965), philosopher; author of Choose Life: The Biblical Call to Revolt, 1952.
Albert Einstein - see also lot 497

Sold for £170000
Sale 649, 15th May 2008


They got a pretty nice bump out of the first auction. And now the opening bid is $3,000,000?

They'd best hope for a wealthy, non-German speaking atheist, who doesn't mind overlooking evidence in favour of something that bolsters their position. I wonder how sales of Lawrence Krauss' A Universe from Nothing are doing?





top topics
 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join