If you read the God Delusion excerpt in context, you’ll see that he’s responding to efforts by what he calls “supernaturalists” to misappropriate quotes from illustrious thinkers like Einstein and Hawkings to contrive their own appeals.
Atheism is not a “theory,” by the way, and Dawkins would never do something as unscientific and patently fallacious as trying to appeal to authority to prove the non-existence of God (and even Dawkins himself stops short of making any categorical assertions that God does not exist. He likes to say that “God almost certainly does not exist,” but allows that non-existence cannot be stated as an absolute fact). The OP’s highly selective quotes regarding Einstein were not written by Dawkins as an attempt to prove anything about the existence of God, but to critique both the strategy of quote-mining and the fallacy of appeals to authority.
But why is Christianity even brought into this discussion? The question is simply whether Einstein believed in a higher being. The flavor of the God is a subsequent step. I think everyone can safely say that he didn’t believe in the Christian God. What is not clear is whether he believed the universe has a Creator-God.
Oh, I don’t know. Certainly Einstein would never have referred to what he believed in as “the Christian God.” And traditionally, the Christian God is a personal God. But Christians don’t all hold the same beliefs about God and even one Christian’s beliefs can change from time to time. Maybe Einstein would have related to what I have referred to many times as “the great cosmic glue.” It’s a silly name, but the idea of the mind behind the structure of the universe is not so far removed from that.
“In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.”
That is not the statement of an atheist, but it is also not the statement of a person who would choose to limit and define the source of this cosmic harmony very much.
It’s just good to be reminded sometimes that science and reason are not all that there is.
Because this sort of discussion is ( at least in America and on American dominated message boards ) is virtually always about attempts to justify the Christian religion, whether people choose to pretend otherwise or not. Not some generic God that very few people actually believe in or care about.
What it boils down to (for me anyway) is this: whether Einstein was an atheist, a pantheist, or some kind of vague deist, he was definitely NOT a theist, and his comments quoted out of context by theists are usually done as an appeal to authority for theism.
So not only is the appeal to authority fallacious, that appeal doesn’t even work anyway because Einstein wasn’t a theist.
If you arrange the differing views of religion on a map or Venn diagram, I consider atheism and pantheism to be very close and largely overlapping. Deism is right there next to both of them. Then the various forms of theism are way over that-a-way, some in different directions, but all of them very far from the atheism/pantheism/deism cluster. Showing that Einstein might have been a deist is doesn’t come close to supporting the idea of theism.
It comes from the book Einstein and Religion. Dawkins proudly explains that he got his information about Einstein’s religious views from that same book. (Same chaper, in fact.) So Dawkins knew full well that Einstein said “I am not an atheist”, yet he still chose to tell his readers that Einstein was an atheist. Judging by the responses in this thread so far, no one is going to defend what Dawkins said. (And DMC has already provided a longer text containing the quote.)
So far everyone in the thread but you IS backing up what Dawkins said, which is that Einstein was quite clear in stating that he was not a theist. He didn’t like the word “atheist,” but that’s what he was, by strict definition.
I find it is brought up more often in discussion concerning cosmology, akin as to the way Sagan is brought up. The most basic question in those discussions goes to whether or not there is a Creator-God. Certainly, if Einstein has ANY authority on the discussion it is the degree to which the complex universe might argue for a Creator and NOT if that Creator is the source of our moral code or is interventionist or any sort of personal God. Using him to support an argument beyond a Creator-God is wrongheaded. Those who do it to support a personal God are guilty of a flagrant appeal to authority. But I see him brought up more as a strawman by the atheistic side. While one is arguing for a Creator-God, an atheist-type will define that Creator-God as one that is more theistic, if not outright religious. Since that claim is easier to disprove, whether one is talking about what Einstein believed or not, they erect that strawman in order to more easily slay it.
Dawkins may have misnterpreted Einstein’s views (indirectly calling him an “atheistic thinker”) but you yourself also add to the confusion by editorializing Einstein’s quotes incorrectly.
Well, it would have been helpful in trying to guess the exact nature of this debate if you actually had included a quote where Dawkins calls Einstein an atheist, and maybe you should also have given the thread a different title, instead of one that commits the same kind of faux pas you attribute to Dawkins.
Einstein never expressed any belief in a “creator”, nor did he ever indicate that he saw any evidence for one. What part of “I am a nonbeliever,” or “I am an agnostic” or “I don’t believe in a personal God,” do you people not understand? He didn’t believe in any kind of theistic entity. The most he ever did was use the word “God” metaphorically to describe the grandeur of the material universe and physical laws, but he never believed in any kind of non-material or supernatural “Creator” and he called such beliefs “childish” and “naive.”
Dawkins doesn’t say that agnosticism equals atheism. Why don’t you actually READ the linked page, then come back and tell us one think Dawkins says that isn’t true.