"Einstein's letter makes view of religion relatively clear"

[Pawn Power]

Here is an artcile about a relativly unknown letter expressing Einstein's views on religion.

Childish superstition: Einstein's letter makes view of religion relatively clear


Some of the intresting bits.


In the letter, he states: "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."


His parents were not religious but he attended a Catholic primary school and at the same time received private tuition in Judaism. This prompted what he later called, his "religious paradise of youth", during which he observed religious rules such as not eating pork. This did not last long though and by 12 he was questioning the truth of many biblical stories.
"The consequence was a positively fanatic [orgy of] freethinking coupled with the impression that youth is being deceived by the state through lies; it was a crushing impression," he later wrote.


article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/12/peopleinscience.religion

[eyedrop]

I've read about that newly in a mag. I don't really see what the point of it is. A physisist meant that religion is a childish belief, although I agree I don't see what difference it makes even if he had been religious. You can find religious physisists to if one wants to.

Still its good to know that those who know the most of how the basics of the world works, ie the physisists, are largely not religious. If only the rest of the population could catch up.

[pusher robot]

I've read about that newly in a mag. I don't really see what the point of it is. A physisist meant that religion is a childish belief, although I agree I don't see what difference it makes even if he had been religious. You can find religious physisists to if one wants to.

Still its good to know that those who know the most of how the basics of the world works, ie the physisists, are largely not religious. If only the rest of the population could catch up.

It's also interesting because Einstein wasn't a pompous asshole who mocked and put down others for having different beliefs. That's one of the things that made him an outstanding human being.

[eyedrop]

In the letter, he states: "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. Isn't this mocking? Not publicly but still mocking in my view. He calls all religious ideas childish, what would that make religious persons?

[pusher robot]

Isn't this mocking? Not publicly but still mocking in my view. He calls all religious ideas childish, what would that make religious persons?

That would make them people who have childish beliefs. My point is that this was a private letter. Einstein was certainly enough of a celebrity that he could have made these views public if he wanted to. He could have used his status to promote these views. That he did not is to is credit.

[eyedrop]

I have a rather more pragmatic view of why he didn't promote those views. His career and economic funds for his research. He just didn't say them to the public because of marketing reasons. He would have said them to the public if it had been publicly accepted and in this society I live in it is largely accepted. Fundamentalists don't exist in everyday life, I think I've met 1 young person who said he believed in creation theory. I think he was more interested in discovering the nature of the universe than in human society, or rather an area he could do more in and should concentrate his energy on.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Maybe the Godsuckers will stop mis-quoting Einstein for their own ends. But if only it were that simple.

[Dean]

It's also interesting because Einstein wasn't a pompous asshole who mocked and put down others for having different beliefs. That's one of the things that made him an outstanding human being.

That, and his extremely socialist - humanist ideology. It doesn't matter if you don't mock or insult others if you are calling for masss genocide and oppression :)

http://marxists.org/reference/archive/einstein/index.htm Here Einstein goes over ideas on Socialism and Palestine specifically.

[IcarusAngel]

I regard Einstein as perhaps the most humane socialist around, with some of the more plausible ideas.

I think he knew plenty about philosophy to talk about it, and he had proven he had an ability to think abstractly and logically about things.

[Plagueround]

I've always admired Einstein for his humanitarian views, but never delved that deeply into them, so I had no idea about his views on socialism. After reading them I respect him even more.

[Dystisis]

Still its good to know that those who know the most of how the basics of the world works, ie the physisists, are largely not religious. If only the rest of the population could catch up.
Why is that good to know? Wouldn't that just mean the (apparent) laws of the universe could coincide with religious philosophy? Or are you of the opinion that religious philosophy is wrong no matter what physics says, and that it should be fought in and of itself even if it was correct?

[eyedrop]

Why is that good to know? Wouldn't that just mean the (apparent) laws of the universe could coincide with religious philosophy? Or are you of the opinion that religious philosophy is wrong no matter what physics says, and that it should be fought in and of itself even if it was correct?

Science has shown itself to be a more useful way to investigate reality than philosophy. I'm fine with religious philosophy as it don't contradict what science tells us. Even though I think it's close to quessing without any ways to find out if you are right. I still think it's good to wonder whats outside what we "know" (a bunch of it is likely wrong) now. But one can discuss it to infinity without coming to an answer. The old greeks got a few ones right but the ball didn't really start rolling before the scientific method was developed. Look at how the atom idea dissappeared from public sphere even though it was more right than the other ideas regarding matter at the time. (not 100% sure on this)
The earliest references to the concept of atoms date back to ancient India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_India) in the 6th century BCE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BCE).[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom#cite_note-5) The Nyaya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyaya) and Vaisheshika (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaisheshika) schools developed elaborate theories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaisheshika#The_atomic_theory) of how atoms combined into more complex objects (first in pairs, then trios of pairs).[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom#cite_note-6) The references to atoms in the West emerged a century later from Leucippus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leucippus) whose student, Democritus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democritus), systemized his views. In approximately 450 BCE, Democritus coined the term átomos (Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language) ἄτομος), which means "uncuttable" or "the smallest indivisible particle of matter", i.e., something that cannot be divided. Although the Indian and Greek concepts of the atom were based purely on philosophy, modern science has retained the name coined by Democritus.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom#cite_note-Ponomarev-4)



I greatly respect philosophers such as Arne Næss who learns the bascis of physics before they philosophy on top of that.