# Albert Einstein believed in God **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 29, 2009, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/albert-einstein-believed-in-god/483623 "2009-01-29T22:09:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/albert-einstein-believed-in-god/483623/101 "2009-01-30T18:52:33Z")
Agnostics aren’t people who don’t know whether or not a god or gods exist. Agnostics are people who say it’s impossible to know whether a god or gods exist. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/albert-einstein-believed-in-god/483623/102 "2009-01-30T19:02:55Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > But they do, to the same extent they don’t (or rather, they do as agnostics overall). The amount of belief is the same as the amount of unbelief, and by that point, it makes as much sense to say they are believers as it does to say they are unbelievers. I’ll object to this, too. If the agnostics that you describe lack a belief in a god, then they are atheists. That’s the definition of “atheist” that seems to be most useful - someone who lacks a belief in a god. > [@DrDeth](#): > > No, they [agnostics] accept that there may be a god, they simply have no belief in a god. As do pretty much all atheists. > [@](#): > > Atheists are sure there’s no god, and strive constantly to convert others to their beleif, mostly by ridiculing believers. Many threads here in GD and the PIT show this clearly. Christians are people who knock on my door and try to convert me. Since no one on this board has done that, there are no Christians here. Again, I know quite a few people who are atheists, and none of them are sure there’s no god. If you’re using that definition, it’s not very useful because it doesn’t fit the vast majority of people who self-identify with that term. ---
**Author:** ![Discordia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Discordia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Discordia)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/albert-einstein-believed-in-god/483623/103 "2009-01-30T19:03:05Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > Agnostics aren’t people who don’t know whether or not a god or gods exist. Agnostics are people who say it’s impossible to know whether a god or gods exist. It used to be mean that, but it doesn’t seem to anymore. Rather irritating, there isn’t another word for it. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/albert-einstein-believed-in-god/483623/104 "2009-01-30T19:13:14Z")
Would it really matter if every genius in history believed in God? When one provides some testable evidence, then I’ll be impressed. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/albert-einstein-believed-in-god/483623/105 "2009-01-30T19:32:37Z")
I find myself convinced by your points, **Discordia** (et al). I think you’re right. > [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > Look at it this way: most atheists (those that are not explicitly anti-theistic) would acknowledge that there’s a possibility of god’s existence, while to the theist, god’s non-existence isn’t an option. I’m not sure i’d go that far, however. You’re right about atheists, but i’d say there are plenty of theists (or pantheists, or whatever) who’d be happy to admit to the potential they’re wrong, too. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/albert-einstein-believed-in-god/483623/106 "2009-01-30T19:41:52Z")
> [@Lightnin](#): > > I think I see **ITR Champion** ’s confusion, here. He thinks that atheists blindly follow others, as theists do, instead of thinking for themselves. If he can prove that Albert Einstein was secretly a theist, then we’ll be forced to admit to ourselves that we secretly believe in God, as well. > > That about cover it, **ITR**? Nothing in that post is remotely similiar to anything I believe, which is not surprising, given that you made it all up. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/albert-einstein-believed-in-god/483623/107 "2009-01-30T19:44:37Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > I believe it’s this particular one. Given his past threads (the Darwin one immediately springs to mind) I suspect he starts from the position that any good things must come from Christianity (and that which comes from Christianity is good), and that bad things must come from any “threats” to Christianity. It’s not enough that Dawkins, Darwin, or evolutionary psychology (to give another example) are wrong; they must be deliberately wrong, or perverse, or evil in some way. Not simply incorrect, but malignant. Again, a completely incorrect statement of my beliefs. If you want to know what I believe, read my posts. Making up fictional versions of my beliefs is not going to lead to correct conclusions. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/albert-einstein-believed-in-god/483623/108 "2009-01-30T19:47:08Z")
> [@Ruminator](#): > > This is a juvenile retort. Einstein’s view’s in and of itself do not matter but _your misinterpretations_ of them do. So what you’re saying is that if Einsten said “I’m not an atheist” but other people insist that he was an atheist, that does not matter. But if I insist that Einstein was not an atheist, that’s a misinterpretation that does matter. What’s your reasoning here? How do you classify certain things as mattering and others as not mattering? ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/albert-einstein-believed-in-god/483623/109 "2009-01-30T19:47:51Z")
I guess we’re just mattering mabobs of megativity. ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/albert-einstein-believed-in-god/483623/110 "2009-01-30T19:51:28Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Again, a completely incorrect statement of my beliefs. If you want to know what I believe, read my posts. Making up fictional versions of my beliefs is not going to lead to correct conclusions. As opposed to making up fictional versions of Einstein’s beliefs. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/albert-einstein-believed-in-god/483623/111 "2009-01-30T19:56:36Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Again, a completely incorrect statement of my beliefs. If you want to know what I believe, read my posts. Making up fictional versions of my beliefs is not going to lead to correct conclusions. You might be interested in taking your own advice, since you seem to be assuming I am simply making up fictions out of whole cloth, rather than genuinely thinking it. If anything, I believe your version is worse, since while I believe your opinions are considerably biased by your initial premises, I at least honestly believe that you believe them. You apparently believe my opinions are the result of just making things up. Who is it that needs to trust who’s posts? I believe that my interpretation of your views is a reasonable one, based upon reading your posts. If i’m wrong, then I will gladly change my opinions, and can at least point to things that lead me to believe them. Might I ask back to you what it is you’re basing your opinion that I am a liar upon? What leads you to believe that I am specifically making up things, rather than being genuinely mistaken? ---
**Author:** ![Ruminator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Ruminator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruminator)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/albert-einstein-believed-in-god/483623/112 "2009-01-30T20:28:26Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > > [@Ruminator](#): > > > > This is a juvenile retort. Einstein’s view’s in and of itself do not matter but _your misinterpretations_ of them do. > > So what you’re saying is that if Einsten said “I’m not an atheist” but other people insist that he was an atheist, that does not matter. But if I insist that Einstein was not an atheist, that’s a misinterpretation that does matter. What’s your reasoning here? How do you classify certain things as mattering and others as not mattering? You missed my point completely. In both of your examples, it would matter (to me) if it was a 3rd party’s misinterpretation of his belief. If he’s truly atheist and people misinterpret him to be theist – it matters. If he’s truly theist and they misinterpret him to be atheist – it matters. It works both ways. What I meant by saying “why does any of this Einstein trivia matter” is the following: Einstein’s religious theories, wife beating, masturbation habits, etc are not relevant to the equation E=MC2. Isaac Newton’s belief in God’s grace, alchemy, doomsday interpretations of Book of Revelation is irrelevant to “force = mass times acceleration” To be fair, it’s possible to say you were _only_ trying to respond to Dawkin’s possible misinterpretation, but IMO, you didn’t just stop there — you also layered Einstein’s vague quotes with the notion of a Christian God. When you editorialize like that, it undermines any pure motives of textual criticism and the longtimers on SDMB see right through it. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/albert-einstein-believed-in-god/483623/113 "2009-01-30T20:30:07Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Just to be clear, atheism is defined as an absence of theism, not as a categorical denial of theism, but just a lack of belief. Einstein had no theistic beliefs and said so clearly and repeatedly _ergo_ he was an atheist. QED. And the usual dancing area is laid out where strong and weak atheism can be interchanged at will, except when doing so doesn’t serve your purpose. Give me a break. And I’ve no need to read the link: IF, as one poster offered, Dawkins or anyone equates Atheism with Agnosticism, he or she is an idiot. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/albert-einstein-believed-in-god/483623/114 "2009-01-30T20:40:06Z")
> [@Discordia](#): > > Agnosticism is a subset of atheism. Or all agnostics are atheists, but not all atheists are agnostics. Or however you wish to put it. This is not true. There are two strains of Atheism, weak and strong. Strong is the affirmative belief that there is no God(s). Weak is the mere absence of belief in God(s). Agnosticism is the belief that whether or not God(s) exist is unknowable. Remove those distinctions and you’re not talking about what the words mean. And some people are [Agnostic Theists](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theist) (as well as Agnostic Atheists.) But that does not mean that Agnosticism is a subset of Atheism. It is not. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/albert-einstein-believed-in-god/483623/115 "2009-01-30T20:48:52Z")
Right. Just like there are strong a-leprechaunists and weak a-leprechaunists. :rolleyes: It’s all sophistry. Atheism means you don’t believe in gods. It’s pretty simple, yet there is a certain subset of theists that somehow can’t understand it. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/albert-einstein-believed-in-god/483623/116 "2009-01-30T20:49:35Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > Because ITR is Christian. That certainly doesn’t imply alone that he must think Einstein’s god is therefore the same as his own, but I believe that it is reasonable to think that that is what he is suggesting, based upon his past threads, as well as his use of “a God” in his final paragraph in the OP, rather than “a god”. > > Like I said, I wouldn’t be hugely surprised if a letter turned up where Einstein explicitly spelled out his Deism; that seems to me to be the furthest we can go as far as putting belief in his mouth. OTOH, the furthest away would seem to be agnosticism; he says too much about the possibilities of some force working behind the scenes and the inability to fully understand the universe for him to be an atheist, I would say. To me, it rather seems as if what he sees is the effects, rather than the cause; that is, he himself does not appear to have any kind of personal relationship with God (or any god), some actual belief in a particular being, but he does see interesting things about the universe for which a god or powerful force of some kind might well be behind. Something that might have created, might simply be maintaining, but overall is unknowable. The question is what is meant by “god”? Is it a Creator God, a Prime Mover, or more. Like the Christian interventionist God. By assuming the latter and attacking it unnecessarily you ignore the possibility of the former. If Einstein was a novelist or poet concerned with human feelings, motives, and emotions, I think it would be sensible to talk about God in the Christian sense, as a source of our morality. But he wasn’t a novelist, he was a physicist/cosmologist. It should therefore be assumed that he was talking about a “God’s” role in the cosmos" it’s creation and operation. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/albert-einstein-believed-in-god/483623/117 "2009-01-30T20:52:14Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > Right. Just like there are strong a-leprechaunists and weak a-leprechaunists. > > :rolleyes: > > It’s all sophistry. Atheism means you don’t believe in gods. It’s pretty simple, yet there is a certain subset of theists that somehow can’t understand it. I LOVE THIS. As if I invented these terms. I was introduced to them on these very boards by Atheists. And if you can’t see from what I posted, or a tour of Wiki or countless other sources, that there are, at least, the three distinct groups I mentioned, my explaining it to you again will hardly break through. ---
**Author:** ![Discordia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Discordia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Discordia)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/albert-einstein-believed-in-god/483623/118 "2009-01-30T21:01:00Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > This is not true. There are two strains of Atheism, weak and strong. Strong is the affirmative belief that there is no God(s). Weak is the mere absence of belief in God(s). Agnosticism is the belief that whether or not God(s) exist is unknowable. Remove those distinctions and you’re not talking about what the words mean. And some people are [Agnostic Theists](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theist) (as well as Agnostic Atheists.) But that does not mean that Agnosticism is a subset of Atheism. It is not. You can define things however you like, I don’t mind. The only common factor between all self-described atheists, however, is an absence of a belief in a god. Thus, I think that would be the most useful definition. Is there some point in making atheist = strong atheist instead of weak atheist? After all, the vast majority of atheists are the weak sort. There aren’t even the terms “weak theist” or “strong theist”, so I see no need for them for atheism. Just call all types of atheist “atheist”. If you want to elaborate you can just use more words. And yes, under the old definition of agnostic I am myself an agnostic atheist, I know the old definition. Hardly anyone uses it like that anymore however, sadly. Perhaps because most people have probably never even heard of the word epistemology, let alone given it any thought. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/albert-einstein-believed-in-god/483623/119 "2009-01-30T21:11:05Z")
> [@Discordia](#): > > You can define things however you like, I don’t mind. The only common factor between all self-described atheists, however, is an absence of a belief in a god. Thus, I think that would be the most useful definition. Is there some point in making atheist = strong atheist instead of weak atheist? After all, the vast majority of atheists are the weak sort. There aren’t even the terms “weak theist” or “strong theist”, so I see no need for them for atheism. Just call all types of atheist “atheist”. If you want to elaborate you can just use more words. It does make sense because there is a difference that is meaningful. One person, based on either paucity of evidence or an agnostic bent simply not adopt a belief in God. Others take more of a position with the affirmative claim, “there is no God”. So, the distinction can be quite meaningful, as I learned on these boards. ---
**Author:** ![Gymnopithys](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/fbc32d/32.png) [@Gymnopithys](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gymnopithys)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/albert-einstein-believed-in-god/483623/120 "2009-01-30T21:16:40Z")
Read this somwhere long ago - and saved: Only a man’s arrogance and pride forces him to invent God because he can’t accept the fact that neither his life nor his death are of importance or significance. Einstein [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/albert-einstein-believed-in-god/483623.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/albert-einstein-believed-in-god/483623.md?page=7)