It’s in doubt by you, which is exactly what I said. “Isaacson reports as blandly as Jammer does, as blandly as your chosen website does. He blandly reports it like, AFAICT, damn near everyone does – 'cepting you.” You’re merely repeating me.
So in 1930 he said we’re like a child who dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is – and, as per your quote, he later reported the un-rosy picture of saying his religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Man, the contrast is breathtaking.
And then, as per your chosen site, by '54 his report sank to this level of un-rosy: “My feeling is insofar religious as I am imbued with the consciousness of the insufficiency of the human mind to understand deeply the harmony of the Universe” – wow, that’s a looooong way from being like unto the insufficiency of a human mind that can but dimly suspect a mysterious order, ain’t it? Worlds apart, I tell ya. Worlds apart.
Albert Einstein, letter to Guy H. Raner Jr, July 2, 1945, responding to a rumor that a Jesuit priest had caused Einstein to convert from atheism; quoted by Michael R. Gilmore in Skeptic, Vol. 5, No. 2
Yes, I’m aware of that quote; you should bold the key part, where he prefaces it with “From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest,” before quoting what else he wrote to Raner in 1945: “You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.” Albert Einstein to Guy H. Raner Jr., Sept. 28, 1949, quoted by Michael R. Gilmore in Skeptic magazine, Vol. 5, No. 2
And it demonstrates that Einstein knew the difference from a zealot to a more humble non believer.
Einstein did consider a “professional atheist” as not being worthy of respect, clearly he is talking about the "militant"ones that are a nuisance even to him.
But plain soft atheists? He did not consider them to be outside his sphere.
But plain agnostics, he considered them – something Raner could call him, as per the quote on the site you first cited. (As opposed to the later quote on the site you later cited, where he considered “an agnostic” to be, well, something he could call himself: “My position concerning God is that of an agnostic.” Because of course he got quoted as saying that in the '50s; it logically follows, from someone who got quoted as saying “You may call me an agnostic” in the '40s – after, y’know, getting quoted as saying “I’m not an atheist and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist” in the '30s.)
If he says to Call Him An Agnostic, and helpfully adds that His Position Concerning God Is That Of An Agnostic, then I’m going to – agree with him, I guess?
It is clear to me that Einstein also did think that a soft atheist was a definition he would prefer too, indeed not a militant one. In previous discussion about definitions for non believers of mainstream religion it was clear that there is very little difference from a soft atheist to a hard agnostic.
What I guess is that Einstein, for all his disdain he had for Heisenberg, was uncertain about how soft an atheist or how how hard an agnostic he was.
But the point, going forward, is that clearly Einstein would not be welcomed as a “man of faith” as the ones defending Christianity in this thread are. (Yeah, not sure how we got here but pointing at a man that did consider himself a Jew by his culture and a non-militant atheist by his science and philosophy was not a good idea considering the subject).
It’s clear to you he would prefer that too? Fine. But he said that his position “is that of an agnostic” and said to “call him an agnostic”. If someone says it’s clear to them that Einstein also did think ‘a Catholic’ was a definition he would prefer too – well, then, I’d raise an eyebrow and refer them to what he said, same as I’m doing here.
I’d love to see a link. But, again, if he declares his position agnostic and says to call him an agnostic, I’m not going to say “it’s clear to me you’re an atheist” – or, at that, “it’s clear to me you’re a theist” – because if he says he’s an agnostic, I’m already shrugging in agreement even before mulling his “I’m not an atheist” quote.
Again it is clear that Einstein also did said that: “From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest** I am, of course, and have always been an atheist. **” He then makes the point that indeed he would not be welcomed among the faithful because:
“It is always misleading to use anthropomorphical concepts in dealing with these outside of the human sphere - childish analogies.”
Very uncertain if he was a soft atheist or a hard agnostic, but the point stands once again, Mainstream religion would not accept Einstein as one of their own.
And, again – as his correspondence with that guy then specifies – from the viewpoint of Einstein, he is, of course, an agnostic. And, again, I’d bold the part where he says “From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest,” because, when he puts no modifier in front of it, he declares that his position concerning God is that of an agnostic.
An agnostic isn’t among the faithful? I’m not among the surprised.
If a man says he’s an agnostic and not an atheist, I don’t tend to be very uncertain whether he was an agnostic or an atheist; I likewise don’t tend to be very uncertain about whether he believes in the Greek gods or the Norse gods; I just don’t see the point, is all; I merely relay his remarks on the matter.
about how soft an atheist or how how hard an agnostic he was.