Talk:Religious and philosophical views of Albert Einstein

Shouldnt this page be renamed to Religious and philosophical views of Albert Einstein?

After all it does include both his religious and philosophical views. Apollo The Logician Apollo The Logician (talk) 10:31, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

(I corrected the section header, hoping you don't mind the wp:TALKO.)

I would not object to that. - DVdm (talk) 10:38, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Einstein denying atheism

Einstein had said explicitly "I am not an atheist". He has also claimed to believe in a god. He clearly denies atheismApollo The Logician (talk) 21:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC) Apollo The Logician (talk) 21:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

He did not deny atheism per se, but disliked fanatical atheists. He also said that the religious would regard his views as atheist. He was not going to assert something that cannot be proved or disproved, ie the non existence of some universal creating force.Charles (talk) 21:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

There are multiple sources in the article proving Einstein believed in a god. There is also a quote from him where he outright says "I am not an atheist". Apollo The Logician (talk) 21:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

According to these multiple sources in the article, which god did he believe in? Please answser that question, keeping in mind that the article shows that he said: "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." So, which god did he believe in? - DVdm (talk) 22:08, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I never denied he didnt believe in a personal god, he even called the idea of a personal god naïve.

""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"

"This firm belief, a belief bound up with a deep feeling, in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God. In common parlance this may be described as "pantheistic" (Spinoza)."

"Your question 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."

He clearly denied atheism and believed in the pantheistic/Spinozan god.Apollo The Logician (talk) 22:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

(Fixed indent)

Right, so the article can—as it currently does— say that he was "disassociating himself from the label atheist". I see no problem with that. - DVdm (talk) 22:33, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Disassociating is far more ambiguous. Rejection is a much less ambiguous word, he did more than just disassociate. Apollo The Logician (talk)

I don't find it ambiguous. Fairly clear and neutral. - DVdm (talk) 22:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Pantheism is the belief everything is God as described in John 1:1 of the Bible. Spinoza said Jesus was the same God who spoke to Moses. Spinoza and Einstein specifically said they believe in the Christian God. All other views or opinions are outside of Einstein and Spinoza's. Sfbmod (talk) 14:27, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Obviously it is ambiguous if you thought that "dissociating himself from the label athest" didn't mean he denied it. Apollo The Logician (talk) 11:31, 30 December 2016 (UTC) Apollo The Logician (talk) 11:31, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

The current phrase "'disassociating himself from the label atheist" makes it sound as if he merely disliked the term "atheist" while nonetheless identifying as an atheist. I would suggest changing it to something like: "...stating that he was not an atheist" This is far more clear, and consistent with what the rest of the article says. GBRV (talk) 22:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

That would be better.Apollo The Logician (talk) 22:22, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

What are people's objections to GBRV's proposal? Apollo The Logician (talk) 17:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Really? Nobody?Apollo The Logician (talk) 13:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC) Apollo The Logician (talk) 13:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

How about people actually comment instead of just reverting edits? Apollo The Logician (talk) 19:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

People who have already commented should not have to repeat themselves just because you will not let it go. Push your POV elsewhere.Charles (talk) 20:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Considering its pretty damn clear he denounced atheism (it's even mentioned in the article) it's obvious you are the one who's pushing an agenda. Anyway who says I was specifically asking people who had already commented? Why should it be mentioned in the body of the article but not the lead? It makes zero sense. Apollo The Logician (talk) 20:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I think it's clear that there is wp:NOCONSENSUS to make the change, which "commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." So, let's just drop it for now. - DVdm (talk) 20:46, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I am well are there is no consensus, obviously I am asking wby people object to it.Apollo The Logician (talk) 20:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

DVdm - "Consensus" is supposed to be determined by discussion, whereas neither you nor Charlesdrakew have given any reasons for opposing my proposed wording. Your previous comments were made to ApolloTheLogician before I proposed my version, so how can you claim there's a consensus against the latter? In any event, my version just summarizes the article in clear language, rather than the fuzzy, confusing language in the current version. We're supposed to avoid ambiguous weasel language. GBRV (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Note that I did not revert the last two changes. Justing pointing to the policy. I think that a little wp:rfc will help here. Should be straightforward. - DVdm (talk) 22:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

The actual policy is that consensus has to be established by discussion. The only person here who has discussed my proposed change is Apollo, and he agreed with it. So how do you figure that there's no consensus in support of it? The people who have avoided the debate do not magically establish a consensus in favor of their point of view, they are simply avoiding the debate entirely. And since the current version of the lede contradicts the body text of the article, it needs to be changed in one fashion or another (if you don't like my suggestion, then offer a different one). The body text says that Einstein bluntly said he was not an atheist, so this needs to be stated accurately in the introductory paragraph. Frankly, the phrase about his alleged agnosticism is also misleading, because the only actual quote mentioning agnosticism is a statement in which he uses that word in the very unusual sense of believing that the issue of God is beyond human intellect but while also believing that God does exist nonetheless. That's not how the word "agnostic" is normally understood, since it actually means someone who is skeptical or undecided, therefore Einstein appears to have been using it only for lack of any better word. Whatever his intention may have been, it's misleading to use the word "agnostic" here without qualification by placing it in proper context.

How about we use direct quotes for both phrases rather than trying to summarize? Surely you can't object to direct quotes? GBRV (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the edits or the subsequent reverts. But if the issue is whether Einstein "denied" atheism, I suppose that's true, though only in the same sense that he "denied" theism, Christianity, or Islam. Personally I think the word deny sounds strange in this context. If Einstein was accused of an indiscretion, saying he "denied it" would sound natural. If he refused to admit the truth of an incontrovertible proposition (like heliocentrism, evolution, or the Holocaust); or "denied someone access to personal private documents," the word deny would be grammatically appropriate. But to say he "denied atheism" sounds to my ear like: "Einstein denied abortion," or "Einstein denied war." It sounds weird. Just say, "Einstein did not believe in war," or "Einstein was against abortion." Maybe it's just an Americanism, but it hits the ear wrong. In any case it seems this issue has been satisfactorily resolved as an editor simply incorporated Einstein's exact words. Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 11:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

---

Einstein claimed Jesus as God when agreeing with Spinoza. I've included this fact with primary source on the page. Sfbmod (talk) 01:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

"We may be able quite to comprehend that God can communicate immediately with man, for without the intervention of bodily means He communicates to our minds His essence; still, a man who can by pure intuition comprehend ideas which are neither contained in nor deducible from the foundations of our natural knowledge, must necessarily possess a mind far superior to those of his fellow men, nor do I believe that any have been so endowed save Christ. To Him the ordinances of God leading men to salvation were revealed directly without words or visions, so that God manifested Himself to the Apostles through the mind of Christ as He formerly did to Moses through the supernatural voice. In this sense the voice of Christ, like the voice which Moses heard, may be called the voice of God, and it may be said that the wisdom of God (i.e. wisdom more than human) took upon itself in Christ human nature, and that Christ was the way of salvation."

- Baruch Spinoza, Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, 1677, p. 12

Einstein told a diplomat that it made him "angry" when others labeled him as an atheist, describing how hostile he was to their religious position. This should end all debate on his view. He also labeled atheism as a "fanatical religion."

"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognise, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views."

- Albert Einstein, statement to German anti-Nazi diplomat and author Prince Hubertus zu Lowenstein in 1941, as quoted in his book Towards the Further Shore : An Autobiography (1968) (verified on Wikiquote)

You were answering to a very old thread that should likely have been archived. However, if we based articles on quote mining of primary sources, it would not result in an encyclopedia but in confusing essays. If someone quoted from material I wrote more than 15 years ago, it would likely no longer reflect my views. Please see WP:RS and WP:PRIMARY in relation to using primary sources. To shed light on the primary material, we use secondary (ideally) and tertiary reliable sources from mainstream scholars, instead of trying to interpret ourselves (WP:SYNTH). We should also avoid connecting sources of various people together to make our own conclusions and present that in Wikipedia's voice (WP:OR). —PaleoNeonate – 15:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Adding: If someone quoted from material I wrote more than 15 years ago, it would likely no longer reflect my views - And if you quoted only part of one of my works, they may not represent the work's conclusions (how many have quoted Darwin out of context in attempt to pretend that he himself doubted his discoveries?). If you quote someone else about my views, they may never have been my views (depending on their understanding and familiarity with them). If you quote someone else about their own views and by inference attempted to say that they also were my views, this would also be misleading (like quoting Spinoza above and inferring that they were Einstein's). —PaleoNeonate – 16:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Quotes Missing

I recently read a page Did Einstein Believe In God? and then based upon it made a very small edit. DVdm was kind enough to tell me the edit I made wasn't a proper reference. Now, the link itself wasn't a proper reference but it does contain proper references, and think those quotes (with refernces) SHOULD be a part of this page! If anyone else agrees, then can someone add them with proper sourcing? Here are the quotes with their proper reference (at the end):

1. "Everyone 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.”
2. “I want to know how God created this world. I want to know his thoughts.”
3. “My God created laws… His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking but by immutable laws.”
4. “This firm belief in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God.”
5. “In the view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who says there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views.”

The source is Max Jammer, in the book “Einstein and Religion: Physics and Theology”, (Google Books Link: https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=TnCc1f1C25IC) Why aren't these quotes added on the main page?? They seem to be very relevant to the topic Hdaackda (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Number 5 and 4 is already in the article. If you copy and paste the quotes in to Google you should find reliable sources Apollo The Logician (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Hdaackda: You said those quotes came from "Einstein and Religion: Physics and Theology", in which case you can add them by citing that book as the source, since it was published by Princeton University Press and therefore counts as an RS. GBRV (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Please, be bold. But honestly Einstein said so much on religion it would be tedious to include everything. Just keep in mind many of the quotations you cite reflect his special use of the word God, which differs considerably from the colloquial use of the word. For instance, the first quotation you cite is a case in point. Einstein was answering a letter from a young girl who had asked if scientist pray. Einstein replied:

“ 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, everyone 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. ”

Also the full quotation for 3. is: "I cannot prove to you that there is no personal God, but if I were to speak of him, I would be a liar. I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil. My God created laws that take care of that. His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking but by immutable laws." The context sort of changes the meaning, doesn't it? Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 23:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the God he was referring to who does not punish nor reward based on individual merit but grants forgiveness through grace alone. "My religion is based on Moses: Love God and love your neighbor as yourself. And for me God is the First Cause. David and the prophets knew that there could be no love without justice or justice without love. I don't need any other religious trappings." (Albert Einstein, Third conversation (1948): William Hermanns, Einstein and the Poet: In Search of the Cosmic Man (1983), p. 108) Einstein was an Enneagram type 5 personality type so was a very private person. He tried to keep his controversial Christian views non-controversial as much as possible during the height of the "Progressive Era" that was more hostile towards religious liberties then than those with the same anti-science anti-religious views have today. Einstein dared to tell the world "religion and science go together." That "science is lame" or useless "without religion." Sfbmod (talk) 14:47, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Misquote Correction

Someone copied back in a misquote of Einstein stating, "I don't think I can call myself a pantheist" in February. Alice Calaprice's book "The Ultimate Quotable Einstein" stated it differently, as did the actual source, Viereck's "Glimpses of the Great". The actual quote is "I do not know if I can define myself as a pantheist." This changes the meaning and I will correct parts of this article. It seems to be a quote translated into another language and translated back to English incorrectly and spread around. But the source material was in English so there is no doubt of the actual quote. NaturaNaturans (talk)

God or god

See https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza/ : Spinoza's God is written with a capital letter. Also per https://books.google.nl/books?id=G_iziBAPXtEC&pg=PA325&redir_esc=y we write God, not god. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:54, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Verify?

User:Tgeorgescu Your edit summary is unintelligible, what are you saying?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.114.118.154 (talk • contribs)

See #God or god. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

"Einstein was a theist" is preposterous. Please undo your edit. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:14, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

The lead makes it pretty clear he was a believer in the pantheistic god.45.114.118.154 (talk) 20:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

It's not sure that Einstein believed in any sort of God, he just talked about Spinoza's God in order to formulate (kind of) what he had to say. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:18, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Let me give you a tip. If somebody says things like "I am not an Atheist.....I am fascinated by Spinoza's Pantheist" and "This firm belief, a belief bound up with a deep feeling, in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God. In common parlance this may be described as "pantheistic" (Spinoza)." Just assume they are a theist. 45.114.118.154 (talk) 20:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

It's not sure because Einstein described himself as agnostic on several occasions. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:26, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

See agnostic theism45.114.118.154 (talk) 20:30, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

As hinted in our article, when Einstein was asked "Do you believe in God?" or something of that sort, he replied with something like "Neither yes nor no, it's complicated...". Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:35, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Right.....so agnostic theism. He wasn't confidant enough to answer with a simple yes or no.45.114.118.154 (talk) 20:38, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Most Christians I know are agnostic theists, and when you ask them, they reply that they do believe in God. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:41, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Most Africans I know are black, and when you look at them they do look black therefore there are no white people in South Africa.45.114.118.154 (talk) 20:44, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Besides, all this is in vain: Einstein was surely secular, he was one of the most prominent secularist thinkers of the 20th century, his cosmic religion was purely secular. Secular does not mean "atheist", it is in fact the opposite of "theocratic" or "clerical". Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Tgeorgescu Please keep your original research out of the article. Wikipedia is based on Reliable sources. Please see WP:RS169.239.20.27 (talk) 19:39, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Einstein was never a secular thinker. He in fact said religious thinkers are humanity's only hope. Please stop lying for Atheist dogma. Sfbmod (talk) 01:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

"Our time is distinguished by wonderful achievements in the fields of scientific understanding and the technical application of those insights. Who would not be cheered by this? But let us not forget that human knowledge and skills alone cannot lead humanity to a happy and dignified life. Humanity has every reason to place the proclaimers of high moral standards and values above the discoverers of objective truth. What humanity owes to personalities like Buddha, Moses, and Jesus ranks for me higher than all the achievements of the enquiring and constructive mind. What these blessed men have given us we must guard and try to keep alive with all our strength if humanity is not to lose its dignity, the security of its existence, and its joy in living."

- Albert Einstein, Written statement (September 1937), Albert Einstein: The Human Side (1979), p. 70

Molotov

Einstein was on good terms with Molotov, the Politburo member in charge of science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C0:FCF6:4801:A5BE:30E2:60C:4B87 (talk) 07:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

See https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Albert_Einstein/Archive_11#Show_trials — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C0:FCF6:4801:A5BE:30E2:60C:4B87 (talk) 07:41, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Einstien and Eastern Thought

It is very interesting that there is no mention of any of Einstein's interactions with Indian thought! Wonder what biases and complexes of wikipedia's contributors have caused that....Not even a mention of the dialogue of Einstein and Tagore? https://www.brainpickings.org/2012/04/27/when-einstein-met-tagore/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.25.158.112 (talk) 07:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Bizarre views

described his professional scientific conclusion that Atheists could not be scientists is an extremely bizarre view, see WP:Editorializing. Conflating science with religion is just lame epistemology. "Science, thus religion" is how to flunk an epistemology class. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:33, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

@Tgeorgesscu: Scientists like Einstein directly contradict your religious view, especially of their own. Your are silencing Albert Einstein's religious views, not anyone else's. "Religion and science go together. As I've said before, science without religion is lame and religion without science is blind. They are interdependent and have a common goal—the search for truth. ... And it is equally absurd when scientists say that there is no God." (Albert Einstein, Third conversation (1948): William Hermanns, Einstein and the Poet: In Search of the Cosmic Man (1983), p. 94)

Ironically Albert Einstein explicitly said science is "lame" or useless without theistic science. And contrasted that with how "religion without science" which he also clarified saying "it is absurd for any scientist to say there is no God" as "blind" faith religion. Your religious opinion is not only exactly the opposite of Herr Einstein's but irrelevant on a wiki page regarding Einstein's own personal religious views that you wish to believe are wrong. Please stop removing direct primary sourced quotes from Professor Einstein because they do not suit your personal religious position. It further proves Einstein was also correct how "fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics and comes from the same source." (Albert Einstein, Aug.7, 1941. Einstein Archive, reel 54-927, quoted in Jammer, p. 97) @Tgeorgesscu: Scientists like Einstein directly contradict your religious view with their own. Your are silencing Albert Einstein's religious views, not anyone else's. "Religion and science go together. As I've said before, science without religion is lame and religion without science is blind. They are interdependent and have a common goal—the search for truth. ... And it is equally absurd when scientists say that there is no God." (Albert Einstein, Third conversation (1948): William Hermanns, Einstein and the Poet: In Search of the Cosmic Man (1983), p. 94) Sfbmod (talk) 21:28, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Professor Einstein also directly contradicted your religious belief by teaching the only purpose for science is to better understand God, and that the rest are details. "I want to know how God created the world, ... I want to know His Thoughts. The rest are details." (Albert Einstein, The Expandable Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, p. 202) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfbmod (talk • contribs) 01:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@Sfbmod: If you write WP:CB into Wikipedia articles you'll get blocked and eventually banned as WP:NOTHERE. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: You just threatened me that if we directly quote a scientist like Albert Einstein verbatim, with primary source references, that disagrees with your opinion we will be silenced. Sfbmod (talk) 20:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

It's unclear to me why Tgeorgescu self-reverted but the influence of Spinoza is indeed what I remember the most about Einstein's religious views (with his references to "God" usually meaning the universe or the unknowable, rather than the concept of a personal or anthropomorphic one). I'm sure that we can find more sources about this if necessary... On the other hand, it's not the first time that I see Christian apologetic arguments about his beliefs either. If there's a very notable person who popularized such, with independent sources discussing it, a mention with attribution as that person's opinion, along with the independent source's criticism, may be WP:DUE somewhere. —PaleoNeonate – 05:31, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

That Einstein's professional scientific conclusion was that atheists could not be scientists is patent nonsense, absurd and extremely bizarre. That is trolling stuff, not fit for an article. Besides, neither Einstein nor Spinoza were Christians, they were apostate Jews, i.e. not even believers of Judaism. They did not believe in a personal god. Characteristic for Spinoza were a rationalistic rejection of revealed religion and the conclusion that God cannot be similar to man. Both Einstein and Spinoza did not believe that humans were made in the image and likeness of God. Every Jew, Christian or Muslim would have considered them unbelievers. How was God for them? Totally unlike humans. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

That Einstein's professional scientific conclusion was that atheists could not be scientists is patent nonsense absolutely. —PaleoNeonate – 06:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

It's irrelevant how it seems. Einstein explicitly and specifically said Atheists cannot be scientists as directly quoted multiple times in multiple venues. He said it was "absurd for scientists to say there is no God." (Third conversation (1948): William Hermanns, Einstein and the Poet: In Search of the Cosmic Man (1983), p. 94) Atheists claim there is no God therefore Einstein emphatically and publicly testified putting his scientific credentials on the line to declare that scientists cannot believe in Atheism. That it seems "nonsense" to anyone is irrelevant given the fact it is what the scientist specifically said. This dispute is proving why most college professors warn that relying on Wikipedia sources guarantees automatic failing grades given the extreme bias placed on such articles by those who wish to ignore and silence critical information to skew and hide primary source material to promote personal fraudulent narratives that directly contradict available publicly verifiable material. Sfbmod (talk) 20:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: Einstein specifically and directly contradicted your personal view of himself. Why are you trying to burn what Einstein wrote? Einstein was such a fanatical Christian he said we can feel the "actual presence of Jesus" by just reading a Bible. Why can't this be allowed to be shared in your little controlled world of Wikipedia? It's already common knowledge among the science community, outside of academia. Why do people such as yourself need to hide these views by famous scientists? "No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life." - Albert Einstein, "What Life Means to Einstein: An Interview by George Sylvester Viereck" The Saturday Evening Post (26 October 1929), p. 17.

I invite those who see Einstein's references to a divinity as anything more than metaphorical poetic license or sop to troublesome bigots (he advised a European colleague to claim religious belief, purely as a tactic to obtain an academic position), to read the following external links:

• "Einstein's "I don't believe in God" letter has sold on eBay...", 23 October 2012
• Albert Einstein's "God Letter" fetches US $2,400,000 at Christie's New York auction house on 4 December 2018 [1]

Thank you.

Nihil novi (talk) 16:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@Nihil: Einstein said people who try to claim he was an Atheist did made him angry.

"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognise, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views."

- Albert Einstein, statement to German anti-Nazi diplomat and author Prince Hubertus zu Lowenstein in 1941, as quoted in his book Towards the Further Shore : An Autobiography (1968)

Einstein never said he didn't believe in God as proven by the multiple examples to the contrary. This is proof Wikipedia is full of verified willful fraud to push bigoted agendas. Sotheby is currently auctioning a Bible Einstein personally autographed with the inscription, "This book is an inexhaustible source of living wisdom and consolation." These disputes have proven Einstein was correct that "fanatical Atheists" are "from the same source" as any other religious fanatic. (Albert Einstein, Aug.7, 1941. Einstein Archive, reel 54-927, quoted in Jammer, p. 97) That an apparent moderator is violating Wikipedia policy to censure confirmed primary source information proves this website is pure propaganda. We can only hope this is able to be further reviewed as I'm sure this dissent and appeal to truth, fact, and accuracy will be further violated. Sfbmod (talk) 20:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

As I've been trying to add the reference to clarify these positions, when Einstein testified he agrees with the God of Spinoza he was showing his agreement in the Christian God. He further expressed that fact multiple times throughout his life including in a personal interview with the Saturday Evening Post that is also being censured here for obvious nefarious anti-free speech purposes. It is an irrefutable fact that Albert Einstein and Spinoza were Messianic Jews.

"We may be able quite to comprehend that God can communicate immediately with man, for without the intervention of bodily means He communicates to our minds His essence; still, a man who can by pure intuition comprehend ideas which are neither contained in nor deducible from the foundations of our natural knowledge, must necessarily possess a mind far superior to those of his fellow men, nor do I believe that any have been so endowed save Christ. To Him the ordinances of God leading men to salvation were revealed directly without words or visions, so that God manifested Himself to the Apostles through the mind of Christ as He formerly did to Moses through the supernatural voice. In this sense the voice of Christ, like the voice which Moses heard, may be called the voice of God, and it may be said that the wisdom of God (i.e. wisdom more than human) took upon itself in Christ human nature, and that Christ was the way of salvation."

- Baruch Spinoza, Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, 1677, p. 12

It's a shame anti-free speech abusers won't allow basic common public fact to be shared on alleged public forums because it disagrees with their personal religious or political opinions. Especially when they directly contradict the views and opinions of the people of the article topic in particular. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfbmod (talk • contribs) 22:31, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

"Atheists cannot be scientists" and "Einstein and Spinoza were Christians", "Einstein and Spinoza were theists" or something like that is preposterous trolling. Admins will take action according to WP:CIR and WP:NOTHERE if this is repeated. Both Einstein and Spinoza rejected Yahweh and the Holy Trinity. So, yes, your contrived WP:OR/WP:SYNTH cannot be employed to add WP:CB to the article. If you won't desist, you'll get blocked. If theism means belief in one or more personal deities, then Einstein and Spinoza were definitely not theists. That's a fact. Also, the implication that Einstein would have flunked an epistemology class is appalling. Ascribe a statement so utterly inane as that cited in the beginning of this topic to Einstein is character assassination. Then Sfbmod went into a wild tangent about John 1:1. WP:AGF does not require us to allow other editors to insert inane rants into Wikipedia articles. "Einstein and Spinoza were Christians" is stuff for Uncyclopedia. If your citations show anything, that is your poor reading with comprehension skills. This is not the venue to push the POV that Einstein and Spinoza were Christians. So, seek another venue, perhaps Conservapedia would accept such rubbish. Here your POV is not welcome. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: You are indeed the only one trolling here, you are editorializing and imposing your own religious biasing on this scientist's words. You are refusing to examine anything said that goes outside of your own beliefs here. You have threatened contributors for trying to add relevant and verifiable content as Wikipedia claims to support. The views and opinions of Albert Einstein and Spinoza are in direct contradiction to what you have claimed they are. You are only attempting to silence Albert Einstein to support your own religious views. Sfbmod (talk) 12:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

To clarify for those interested in the truth, Einstein and Spinoza both claimed Jesus was God by saying only Jesus had the "Mind of God" who directly told humanity the "way to salvation" and how Einstein specifically said Christ's "actual presence" can be experienced in the modern era by simply "reading the Gospels." Einstein was very hostile towards atheism calling it "from the same source as" fanatical religion. He said it made him "very angry" when people tried to label him as an atheist. Einstein only associated with other Christians such as Godel, Planck, and Heisenberg and was very hostile in his debates with atheists like Bohr. Einstein said is is "absurd when scientists say that there is no God". Scientists cannot be atheist in Albert Einstein's beliefs. Which is the only logical conclusion since to believe anything can be true or false based on a lack of evidence as the Atheist "religious position" Merriam-Webster calls it, is defined as making an argument from ignorance logical fallacy. Which is the exact opposite of the Scientific Method which was originally derived from Sir Francis Bacon's inductive reasoning set first published to test the scientific study of God called Theology. Anyone's religious opinions to the contrary are further proof to Einstein's claim that "fanatical atheists" are the same as religious fanatics, as demonstrated here. Sfbmod (talk) 12:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Einstein specifically said he did not believe in "personal gods" which is when someone creates their own version of a god or gods to suit their own personal benefit or gain such as how atheists will create their own versions of their "personal gods" in order to erect Straw Man arguments to support their anti-God religion. Einstein described God as a "Librarian" and "invisible Player" who keeps the universe in tune. He takes a phrase from G.K. Chesterton when expressing that to the media.

"Atheism is indeed the most daring of all dogmas, more daring than the vision of a palpable day of judgment. For it is the assertion of a universal negative; for a man to say there is no God in the universe is like saying there are no insects in any of the stars." - G. K. Chesterton, Charles II, the Twelve Types, 1906, p. 95

"I claim credit for nothing. Everything is determined, the beginning as well as the end, by forces over which we have no control. It is determined for the insect as well as for the star. Human beings, vegetables or cosmic dust, we all dance to a mysterious tune, intoned in the distance by an invisible player." - "What Life Means to Einstein: An Interview by George Sylvester Viereck" The Saturday Evening Post (26 October 1929), p. 17

Pantheism is defined as saying all things are God, as specifically said in John 1:1 of the Bible. As well as in Planck's testimony that quantum physics proves all of creation is held together by a "matrix" he claimed was the "Mind of God." So when someone claims to be a Pantheist that is their expression of agreeing with the Bible and Planck's conclusions of quantum physics, specifically.

Einstein was strongly anti-atheist and claimed Jesus's presence can be "actually" felt today agreeing with Spinoza that only Jesus had the "mind" and "voice" of God as verified by primary source referencing those hostile towards science needed to deny as demonstrated here. Sfbmod (talk) 13:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I read today an article on Einstein in another encyclopedia (not user generated). It mentioned his pacifist views and that he was Jewish (left then returned at an epoch he was more concerned with politics). It mentioned the metaphoric quote "God does not play dice" (in relation to his pessimistic view of Copenhagen's interpretation of quantum theory). That was all about his religious views; perhaps that it could give us a tertiary's view of the topic (that it's not necessary to expand unduly on that either; he's not notable for his religious views, but for his scientific work and pacifist views). —PaleoNeonate – 13:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: I will tell you how many WP:RS are there that Einstein was a Christian: zero. Prove me wrong if you can. I have opened a WP:ANI thread. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:53, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: Nobody should care that you think Einstein's religious views are "bizarre". This page is about his views, not yours. Please stop giving your biased editorialization or the external non-primary source opinions that directly contradicts Einstein's Christian views that agree with Spinoza that Jesus was the same God who spoke to Moses as proven in the above primary source you are ignoring for obvious nefarious purposes. Einstein and Spinoza's own directly quoted words speak for themselves, no matter how desperately people with your religious biasing may wish they were not published to argue this strongly against primary sources. These references of Einstein's Christian faith are verified on [2] including his Saturday Evening Post interview demonstrating you not only disagree with Einstein's own religious views to supplant them with your own, but that you willfully ignore much less check references that Wiki itself is verifying. Please stop violating free speech and every rule you pretend to follow here because it doesn't agree with your religious views. You are proven wrong by Einstein and Spinoza themselves. Sfbmod (talk) 14:00, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@Sfbmod: Wikipedia isn't an experiment in unlimited free speech, see WP:NOTFREESPEECH. You have the rights stated at WP:FREE, no more, no less. Your own misreadings count as zero sources. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:47, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: Then why are you trying to use Wikipedia to silence Albert Einstein and Spinoza's own words to force your religious views over theirs? You have proven to be in direct violation of every Wiki rule you've tried to claim I have been. Why do you need to burn Einstein and Spinoza's books publicly? Why are you so religiously intolerant to be so hostile towards the fact Einstein said he agreed with Spinoza that Jesus spoke to Moses in their own personal religious views together? Sfbmod (talk) 15:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@Sfbmod: WP:EXTRAORDINARY and WP:OR apply to your misreadings. So, unless you could quote several high-quality WP:SECONDARY sources, you have lost this dispute. No scholar worth his salt agrees with you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:57, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: Cited both Einstein's own interview with Hermanns which is cited several times in this article already, Spinoza's own primary source reference, and the Saturday Evening Post interview where Einstein said "no one can deny that Jesus was real" and that Christ's presence can be "actually" felt today reading a Bible which, for the 3rd time now, is also directly cited on Wikiquote itself as well. It must be concluded now that your own religious indoctrination effort has blinded you to the facts that you need to shield your own extreme religious confirmation bias from. You have proven Einstein correct that "fanatical atheists" are "from the same source as the religious fanatics." Sfbmod (talk) 15:58, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not give a rat's ass about WP:OR performed upon WP:PRIMARY sources (quote mining). Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:04, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

You just proved you cannot read Wikipedia rules. "The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source, even if not actually attributed." You said Einstein's own primary sources in his own biographies with Hermanns, his publicly archived public record with the Saturday Evening Post, and Spinoza's own primary source material written in his own hand that Jesus is God whom Einstein said he agrees with are not "reliable sources." Your repetitive religiously biased and bigoted views of Einstein's religious views you've called "bizarre" proves him correct that atheists are religious fanatics. Sfbmod (talk) 16:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Let's tone it down, everyone. Sfbmod, these quotes simply do not prove your claims. You are drawing your own conclusions with regards to your premise, which you need to better substantiate (no walls of text, just direct quotes from reliable, mainstream sources will do). And also with regards to other editors, which you should not be doing at all. This counts as a final warning about the latter, and a strong caution about the former. Thanks in advance. El_C 16:09, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@El C: Let's hear how feeling the "actual presence of Jesus" by reading a Bible or that Jesus spoke to Moses as Spinoza said should be better interpreted. The ancient Vatican was famous for hoping to enforce public opinion through "mainstream sources" and "peer review" appeal to popularity fallacy. I'd prefer to rely on primary sources and thinking for ourselves rather than follow your and the Vatican's tactics. Sfbmod (talk) 16:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not giving you a choice here. We have a policy on original research, which we enforce strictly. You are the one advancing the view, so the onus is on you to depict that such a view is representative of due weight in the scholarship and the mainstream. El_C 16:19, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

This includes it being represented as a fringe view — we can present that, too, if it's supported by high-quality 2ndry sources Which is to say: a mention in the historiography — someone who is not you interpreting the primary source material). El_C 17:08, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Which has been done repeatedly and ignored. Notice how these users refuse to even obey the rules they themselves wish to highlight. This is proof Wikipedia is used to silence and censure primary source references to push biased religious and political agendas and can never be relied on for critical thinking or academic source material. Users are purposefully and repeatedly committing fraud by never discussing Einstein's direct quotes based on verified sources that are being purposefully silenced for personal private political and religious agendas. This verified source material proving he agreed with Spinoza's Christian God will continue to be sourced elsewhere since Wikipedia does not enforce it's own rules to protect source integrity by extremely biased hypocrites. This article needs to be listed as verified fraud based on primary source material that directly contradicts the editorialized opinions of users who they themselves prove violate published rules. Sfbmod (talk) 17:19, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

So, that's a no, you can't provide such 2ndry sources? El_C 17:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

There is a wealth of non-primary source references describing Spinoza's claim that Christ was the only man on Earth who had the Mind of God because He was God who spoke directly to humans without the Mind of God instead of indirectly to people like Moses. They are all irrelevant given the primary source, Spinoza himself, wrote in his own book that Jesus spoke to Moses as God in the citation above being ignored and refused to being discussed. Spinoza and Einstein's religious conclusions are that Jesus Christ is divine, their God. All other opinions of their own self-published views are irrelevant and if contrary, should be rejected as fraud. Sfbmod (talk) 17:38, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

"The eternal wisdom of God … has shown itself forth in all things, but chiefly in the mind of man, and most of all in Jesus Christ." - Spinoza, sourced by Wikipedia through Wikiquote. (https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Baruch_Spinoza) And the fanatical atheists will refuse to allow Wiki to verify itself in opinion articles such as these to commit academic fraud for religious bigotry purposes. Sfbmod (talk) 17:24, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay, if you're unwilling or unable to provide these 2ndry sources, your position here is going to be viewed as tendentious. El_C 17:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

How is providing Wiki itself as a 2ndry source not providing a 2ndry source? A cursory Internet search finds other institutions as Hoover.org or Quora sharing opinions of the primary material as well. To clarify, you're wishing to publish here that Wikipedia is not it's own reliable source. Sfbmod (talk) 17:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikiquote is not a 2ndry source — you the one doing the interpreting of primary source material here. El_C 17:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Notice how whom Einstein said it was "absurd for scientists to say there is no God" are being tedentious by never discussing the facts of what Einstein and his own biographers published about his own views and only want to talk about and force their own religious views onto articles such as these to directly contradict scientists such as Einstein. Sfbmod (talk) 17:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Steven Nadler; Steven M. Nadler (23 April 2001). Spinoza: A Life. Cambridge University Press. p. 291. ISBN 978-0-521-00293-6. shows what Spinoza thought of Christianity. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:47, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu Spinoza shows what Spinoza thought of Christianity more specifically without the original research source you shared. That book you shared does not give any explanation why the author alleged Spinoza didn't agree Jesus was the Son of God. It just makes the assumption without reason or explanation why.

"But, you will say, all the Apostles thoroughly believed, that Christ rose from the dead and really ascended to heaven: I do not deny it." - Spinoza, same reference letter from Oldenburg used from above, p. 303

Every Christian believer talks about how the resurrection of Christ and everyone on the "last day" has both physical and spiritual meanings. Spinoza is a common Christian. Sfbmod (talk) 18:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

"We may be able quite to comprehend that God can communicate immediately with man, for without the intervention of bodily means He communicates to our minds His essence; still, a man who can by pure intuition comprehend ideas which are neither contained in nor deducible from the foundations of our natural knowledge, must necessarily possess a mind far superior to those of his fellow men, nor do I believe that any have been so endowed save Christ. To Him the ordinances of God leading men to salvation were revealed directly without words or visions, so that God manifested Himself to the Apostles through the mind of Christ as He formerly did to Moses through the supernatural voice. In this sense the voice of Christ, like the voice which Moses heard, may be called the voice of God, and it may be said that the wisdom of God (i.e. wisdom more than human) took upon itself in Christ human nature, and that Christ was the way of salvation."

- Baruch Spinoza, Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, 1677, p. 12 - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfbmod (talk • contribs) 19:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

User Sfbmod, please indent your talk page messages as outlined in wp:THREAD and wp:INDENT — See Help:Using talk pages. Thanks.

By the way, regarding your remark about "Wikipedia is not it's own reliable source". Indeed, see wp:CIRCULAR. - DVdm (talk) 17:53, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

To clarify, it's being stated here that Wikipedia's policy is anti-academic by saying secondary sources using original research are more reliable than primary sources. And my non-indented comments were starting a new context. And if Wikipedia can't be relied on for a self-reliable self-reference, why are there any reasons to rely on anything ever published here at all. Sfbmod (talk) 18:32, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Why do you keep misindenting? Anyway, we attempt to gauge the scholarly and mainstream consensus, which you are failing to do. If you want to challenge Wikipedia policy, the place to do so is on that particular policy page, not here. El_C 18:35, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, like the Vatican, already discussed that too. Appealing to popularity logical fallacy and group-think is anti-academic and anti-scientific which further explains why Albert Einstein published his view that it is "absurd when scientists say there is no God." Sfbmod (talk) 18:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Notice those who disagree with Einstein who said he agreed with Spinoza's Christian God never talk about what's said or asked outside of their agenda. Sfbmod (talk) 18:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

That does not respond to what I have said and, in this context, is tendentious. El_C 18:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Sfbmod, don't you get it? El C was prepared to give you a second chance. Don't spoil it. It's not the mistake that gets one blocked, it's the stubbornness. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:38, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Please show where in Wikipedia self-contradictory secondary sources that purposefully leave out primary source information as demonstrated above is more important than validated primary source references. Why is this group putting secondary opinions ahead of primary source facts. Sfbmod (talk) 23:06, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

It was pointed out where policy can be read and discussed already (WP:RS, WP:PRIMARY). I have deleted an unconstructive attack against the other editors (please see WP:PA). —PaleoNeonate – 23:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

What do Jews when they convert to Christianity? They get baptized. What else do they do? They publicly tell that Jesus is their Savior and tell the good news unto others. Einstein and Spinoza did none of that. Spinoza would have had much to gain and little to lose by getting baptized. About Wikipedia's refusal of original research see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. There is of course a difference between bona fide original research and theses so preposterous that no scholar worth his salt would dare to publish, see WP:1DAY. To be sure: Wikipedia has rejected WP:OR (when performed by Wikipedia editors without passing through the proper academic publication venues)—such original research is rejected and will remain rejected. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:49, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Einstein's confirmation of his statement regarding "the courageous stand of a part of the protestant church in Germany against Nazism"

In 1942 (several years after the Time article with that statement), my father was in Washington DC as a Brookings Institute fellow, and had the same question regarding attribution of the statement to Einstein. He was going to write to Einstein, and his advisor George F Zook (head of the American Council on Education) offered to write the letter instead, thinking that Einstein would be more likely to reply to a question from someone well-known (Zook had been Commissioner of Education under Franklin D Roosevelt, and was head of the American Council on Education at the time). Einstein wrote back, confirming that he had made that statement. Zook gave the original of the letter to my father. I've tried to preserve the oddities in the typing in the original, but not the exact spacing:

[embossed stamp reading:]
A. EINSTEIN
112 MERCER STREET
PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY U.S.A.

Mr.George F.Zook,President
American Council on Education
744 Jackson Pl. 
Washington, D.C. 

My dear Mr.Zook:

         I remember very well to have made the 
statement concerning the courageous stand of a part 
of the protestant church in Germany against Nazism 
and that this steadfastness is sharply contrasting with 
the lack of character and intellectual courage shown by 
nearly all the German scientists in our time. But I made 
this statement orally to a newspaperman who wrote it down; 
I myself have no copy of it.

                Sincerely yours,
                [Einstein's signature]
                Professor Albert Einstein.

New quote

All the quote as it is now has to stay completely or be removed completely. Suggesting through omission that he toed the line of the Abrahamic God is not done. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:05, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

What is the theory of relativity

What is the theory of relativity? 2600:1012:B16D:1D0B:859E:24A7:D866:6CF7 (talk) 01:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

We have an article about it: Theory of relativity. I don't know why you needed to ask this on a talk page. Koopinator (talk) 06:36, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Very complex sentence

quoting the article -- "Einstein declared that he was no positivist, and maintained that [:]

we use

( with a certain right )

concepts

to which

there is no access from

the materials of sensory experience."

My line breaks and brackets. This sentence is in the article totally unpunctuated. *I* can just about parse it, but it must be difficult to read for the vast majority of people. If it's a quote, then I think it needs to be refactored or simplified from the original text. If the grammar has come from a quote, it should not be included transposed into a new sentence. I realise the readers of this article will be intellectual and have very good English, but it should not be as tough as this. I am happy for the article to use conservative or even archaic grammar, especially as Einstein himself did, but it must not become alienating to readers. I could have edited in my own commas, but I wanted to ask first. Elmeter (talk) 18:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Just be WP:BOLD.

IMO the section containing this sentence has issues. Mach was both a positivist and a considerable voice in relativity. The paragraph does not distinguish what part of "Mach's" Einstein is agreeing/disagreeing with. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I have been WP:BOLD as Johnjbarton suggested and re-written it a bit in what I think is a clearer way to be less alienating (good word usage by the by Elmeter). If you wish to change it further please do so. I did split it up into two little sections as I think the important thing is what Einstein thought and what it means, and the further section with Mach is very useful but it blended together a bit too much and obscured the point. Vyselink (talk) 21:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

You might like to read the first page of

• Miller, Arthur I. “On Einstein’s Invention of Special Relativity.” PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, vol. 1982, 1982, pp. 377–402. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/192432. Accessed 13 Feb. 2024.

I think it reflects Einstein's point of view on Mach's philosophy of science. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)