# Einstein's atheism - help me parse some of his letter **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 13, 2008, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/einsteins-atheism-help-me-parse-some-of-his-letter/449164 "2008-05-13T14:18:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2008, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/einsteins-atheism-help-me-parse-some-of-his-letter/449164/21 "2008-05-13T20:19:25Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] He didn’t like the word, but that’s what he was, by strict definition. [/QUOTE] After Terry McAuliffe’s and James Carville’s, yours is the most ballsy spinmeistering I’ve ever seen, especially in matters of religion where you routinely invoke jabberwockial declarations of fiat with such sweeping devastation that they can paint Einstein as an idiot who doesn’t know what an atheist is and can’t communicate what he himself is. I would salute you, but I can’t find my hand and I define salute to mean tofu salad. > [@Captain Amazing](#): > > Most definitions of theism involve not just belief in a god, but belief in a personal god…a god with a personality who can interact with his or her worshipers. This excludes both deism and pantheism. Theism includes Deism, Misotheism, Henotheism, Monotheism, Cosmotheism, Panentheism, Pantheism and others. “Theism” is the broadest term that applies to the philosophical examination of deity. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2008, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/einsteins-atheism-help-me-parse-some-of-his-letter/449164/22 "2008-05-13T20:49:37Z")
[QUOTE=Liberal] It’s ridiculous to call Einstein an atheist. He said specifically that he was not. [http://www.ctinquiry.org/publications/reflections\_volume\_1/torrance.htm](http://www.ctinquiry.org/publications/reflections_volume_1/torrance.htm) [/QUOTE] Can you quote the section that says that so we don’t have to read that very lengthy article to find what you are talking about? ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2008, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/einsteins-atheism-help-me-parse-some-of-his-letter/449164/23 "2008-05-13T20:53:06Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] Can you quote the section that says that so we don’t have to read that very lengthy article to find what you are talking about? [/QUOTE] The article quotes heavily from various sources, including Einstein, and in particular a book by Max Jammer. However, in the article linked from my link, it seems this 1954 letter was not available to Jammer, and presumably to the author of that article, as it has only just come to light. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2008, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/einsteins-atheism-help-me-parse-some-of-his-letter/449164/24 "2008-05-13T20:57:23Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] Can you quote the section that says that [he said specifically that he was not an atheist] so we don’t have to read that very lengthy article to find what you are talking about? [/QUOTE] Sure. “I’m not an atheist and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist.” ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2008, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/einsteins-atheism-help-me-parse-some-of-his-letter/449164/25 "2008-05-13T20:59:12Z")
[QUOTE=jjimm] The article quotes heavily from various sources, including Einstein, and in particular a book by Max Jammer. However, in the article linked from my link, it seems this 1954 letter was not available to Jammer, and presumably to the author of that article, as it has only just come to light. [/QUOTE] There are lots of us who don’t view God in the stereotypical manner of most churches, synagogs, and mosques, including me. Would you say that I’m an atheist? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2008, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/einsteins-atheism-help-me-parse-some-of-his-letter/449164/26 "2008-05-13T21:17:22Z")
[QUOTE=Liberal] After Terry McAuliffe’s and James Carville’s, yours is the most ballsy spinmeistering I’ve ever seen, especially in matters of religion where you routinely invoke jabberwockial declarations of fiat with such sweeping devastation that they can paint Einstein as an idiot who doesn’t know what an atheist is and can’t communicate what he himself is. I would salute you, but I can’t find my hand and I define salute to mean tofu salad. [/QUOTE] He explicitly denied a belief in a “personal god.” That, by definition, made him an atheist whether he wanted to admit it or not. And even if he DID believe in some other sort of God, he was wrong. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Tabula\_Rasa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a9adbd/32.png) [@Tabula\_Rasa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tabula_Rasa)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2008, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/einsteins-atheism-help-me-parse-some-of-his-letter/449164/27 "2008-05-13T21:23:26Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] He explicitly denied a belief in a “personal god.” That, by definition, made him an atheist whether he wanted to admit it or not. And even if he DID believe in some other sort of God, he was wrong. 😛 [/QUOTE] So, I take it you’re not really interested in doing philosophy about this. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2008, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/einsteins-atheism-help-me-parse-some-of-his-letter/449164/28 "2008-05-13T21:25:47Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] He explicitly denied a belief in a “personal god.” That, by definition, made him an atheist whether he wanted to admit it or not. [/QUOTE] Why does that make someone an atheist? I’m unclear on the difference between a “personal god” and a “god”. I’d be surprised if he was actually an atheist. Most scientists who are non-believers would probably call themselves agnostic. A lot of use those terms interchangeably, but I would think someone as thoughtful as Einstein would be more careful. ---
**Author:** ![bonzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/45deac/32.png) [@bonzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bonzer)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2008, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/einsteins-atheism-help-me-parse-some-of-his-letter/449164/29 "2008-05-13T21:26:38Z")
[QUOTE=jjimm] However, there’s once segment that neither of us have been able to parse. It is therefore with embarrassement on both our parts that I ask someone else to interpret what the hell he’s saying. Bolded by me:WTF, Albert? [/QUOTE] I may have just already read a fair amount of Einstein’s writing, but - with due reservations about whether the Bloomsbury Auction translation is nuanced and acknowledging that nobody has recently read Gutkind’s book, so we don’t know the exact context - his point seems reasonably clear to me. He’s noting that Gutkind is claiming free will “as a man”. (And Gutkind’s title for his book, _Choose Life_, does support this.) Einstein is then rejecting free will on the basis that it implies a universe that is partially deterministic (presumably applying to individual protons, the planet Mars and rabbits) and partially non-deterministic (humans and, er, that’s it). For Einstein, the universe is completely determinstic and hence there is no room for non-causal processes. He then, slightly clumsily, acknowledges Spinoza as a forerunner of this sort of position. On his views about the subject of religion in general, it’s worth noting that he _tended_ to talk about religion - and be fairly specific about what he meant by that term - without defining or even referring to “God” in doing so. He was simultaneously usually quite clear about the types of “God” he was rejecting: the personal Judeo-Christian God and other similar conceptions. Personally, the resulting ambiguity about what he possibly believed “God” to be means that the religious or non-religious positions people co-opt him for almost invariably tell us far more about the particular interpreter than about Einstein himself. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2008, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/einsteins-atheism-help-me-parse-some-of-his-letter/449164/30 "2008-05-14T02:08:23Z")
I do not believe in the immortality of the individual… I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it. Albert apparently saw god as a something remote and far away from man. It seems to be what exists somewhere beyond our knowledge and reach. Apparently he would not figure in the life of man. Did he think god exists?. I am not sure but he certainly felt if he did he had nothing to do with us. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2008, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/einsteins-atheism-help-me-parse-some-of-his-letter/449164/31 "2008-05-14T02:38:09Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] Why does that make someone an atheist? I’m unclear on the difference between a “personal god” and a “god”. [/quote] > [@](#): > > The broadest definition of this term is a god who is a personal being, i.e. a being with a personality, including the capacity to reason and feel love, as in the cases of Zeus, Apollo and Athena and other deities common to European Pagan polytheism. > **[Personal god](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_God)** > > A personal god, or personal goddess, is a deity who can be related to as a person (anthropomorphic), instead of as an impersonal force, such as the Absolute. In the context of Christianity and the Baháʼí Faith, the term "personal god" also refers to the incarnation of God as a person. In the context of Hinduism, "personal god/goddess" also refers to Ishtadevata, a worshipper's personal favorite deity. > In the scriptures of the Abrahamic religions, God is described as being a personal creator, s... [QUOTE=John Mace] I’d be surprised if he was actually an atheist. Most scientists who are non-believers would probably call themselves agnostic. [/quote] Why do you think this? From what I’ve read about scientists that talk about their belief, those that are non-believers would call themselves atheists, as that’s how most of us, as far as I can tell, define ‘atheist’. DtC already mentioned that this isn’t about what Einstein would have called himself, but whether or not he was an atheist by definition. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2008, 7:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/einsteins-atheism-help-me-parse-some-of-his-letter/449164/32 "2008-05-14T07:32:16Z")
[QUOTE=jjimm] My brother has pointed me to a [letter from Einstein](http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/13/peopleinscience.religion) published today in the Guardian that lays out the great man’s atheism once and for all. No more “God does not play dice” misinterpretations allowed. However, there’s once segment that neither of us have been able to parse. It is therefore with embarrassement on both our parts that I ask someone else to interpret what the hell he’s saying. Bolded by me:WTF, Albert? [/QUOTE] > [@](#): > > In general I find it painful that you claim a privileged position and try to defend it by two walls of pride, an external one as a man and an internal one as a Jew. He doesn’t like this person claiming to have some enlightened position better than others. As part of the chosen ones or the ‘true believers’ > [@](#): > > As a man you claim, so to speak, a dispensation from causality otherwise accepted, as a Jew the priviliege of monotheism. But a limited causality is no longer a causality at all, as our wonderful Spinoza recognized with all incision, probably as the first one. I’m not sure precisely what he was responding to, but he could mean that if you believe in the power of prayer or otherwise believe that God will intercede on your behalf, yet still claim to have free will over other things, Einstein is pointing out that if God chooses what you get to have free will over or not, you don’t have free will. > [@](#): > > And the animistic interpretations of the religions of nature are in principle not annulled by monopolisation. I gather he’s responding to the claim that monotheism is somehow an advanced religion, whereas pantheistic religions are primitive and animistic. Einstein is saying that there’s nothing special about having one God that makes a monotheistic religion any more rational or advanced than a pantheistic religion - they’re all rubbish." As for Einstein’s own belief, he basically said “My sense of God is my sense of wonder about the Universe.” In other words, he was awed and humbled by the magnitude of the construct around him, and felt it was arrogant and childish to claim some special knowledge about what it all meant, or to claim some privileged position within it. Our search for God is our search for understanding of the universe. It never ends. And science, reason, logic, and empiricism are the appropriate tools for the quest. I think that’s a statement Einstein would have been comfortable with. That also pretty much mirrors my own viewpoint. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2008, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/einsteins-atheism-help-me-parse-some-of-his-letter/449164/33 "2008-05-14T12:55:19Z")
[QUOTE=x-ray vision] > **[Personal god](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_God)** > > A personal god, or personal goddess, is a deity who can be related to as a person (anthropomorphic), instead of as an impersonal force, such as the Absolute. In the context of Christianity and the Baháʼí Faith, the term "personal god" also refers to the incarnation of God as a person. In the context of Hinduism, "personal god/goddess" also refers to Ishtadevata, a worshipper's personal favorite deity. > In the scriptures of the Abrahamic religions, God is described as being a personal creator, s... [/quote] I don’t get your point. You quoted wikipedia about the “broadest” definition of God. But that clearly isn’t the only or the definitive definition. > [@](#): > > Why do you think this? I can’t explain myself any better than I did. A thoughtful scientist will not say something has been proven to be non-existent (atheist) but that there is no evidence for its existence (agnostic). A subtle but important difference for a thoughtful person. > [@](#): > > DtC already mentioned that this isn’t about what Einstein would have called himself, but whether or not he was an atheist by definition. Good for **DtC**. But this thread is about Einstein. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2008, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/einsteins-atheism-help-me-parse-some-of-his-letter/449164/34 "2008-05-14T14:05:31Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] I don’t get your point. You quoted wikipedia about the “broadest” definition of God. But that clearly isn’t the only or the definitive definition. [/quote] Sorry, but I don’t get your point. There’s no such thing as “an only or definitive definition” of any word. I linked to the Wikipedia article because that’s the definition of “personal god” I’m familiar with and the only context I’ve heard it used in. The Wikipedia article also includes more narrow definitions if that makes a difference to you: > [@](#): > > A narrower interpretation of a personal god is a deity who takes a personal interest in the world in general and worshippers in particular. This view is intended to challenge a deistic outlook. > > A still narrower definition would be a god whose personal interest in worshippers is so great that the deity communicates directly with them and actively intervenes in their lives through miracles. I think the broad definition would be the best to quote. It’s a god with a personality. It doesn’t include “I think the Universe is God” or “God is nature”. [QUOTE=John Mace] I can’t explain myself any better than I did. A thoughtful scientist will not say something has been proven to be non-existent (atheist) [/quote] And I wouldn’t think I’d have to explain myself better than I did. Most atheists don’t confine the word for only those who believe gods have been proven not to exist. Being without theism is all that is necessary. [QUOTE=John Mace] but that there is no evidence for its existence (agnostic). [/quote] Being agnostic says nothing about one’s belief. Most Christians that I know admit that there’s no evidence for God’s existence, yet believe in him based on faith. Some are even “thoughtful scientists”. [QUOTE=John Mace] Good for **DtC**. But this thread is about Einstein. [/QUOTE] Yes, it is about Einstein. It’s about the long-lived debate about whether or not Einstein was an atheist. It’s never been about what Einstein would have called himself, how he defined ‘atheist’ or if he liked the term. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2008, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/einsteins-atheism-help-me-parse-some-of-his-letter/449164/35 "2008-05-14T14:22:51Z")
Anyone get the impression that Einstein was being deliberately obfuscatory in all of these statements? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2008, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/einsteins-atheism-help-me-parse-some-of-his-letter/449164/36 "2008-05-14T15:18:18Z")
[QUOTE=Mangetout] Anyone get the impression that Einstein was being deliberately obfuscatory in all of these statements? [/QUOTE] I think it was just hard for him to clearly communicate what he felt. He was atheistic (no matter what he said), but he wasn’t really areligious and he didn’t like nihilsm. He obviously felt a sense of mystery and awe for the universe, and he sensed a transcedent quality, but that transcendence was not a deity in his mind (a concept which he found simplistic and “childish”). He didn’t know what to call it, pantheism wasn’t quite right. He referenced Spinoza, but that wasn’t quite right either. Some of what he’s saying actually reminds me of Lao Tzu’s “Tao,” or the Hindu Brahaman. I wonder if he ever studied Eastern traditions. He might have found a better vocabulary for nontheistic religious feeling in those philosophies. ---
**Author:** ![Tabula\_Rasa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a9adbd/32.png) [@Tabula\_Rasa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tabula_Rasa)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2008, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/einsteins-atheism-help-me-parse-some-of-his-letter/449164/37 "2008-05-14T15:30:23Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] I wonder if he ever studied Eastern traditions. He might have found a better vocabulary for nontheistic religious feeling in those philosophies. [/QUOTE] Or Judaism. There was a formally non-theistic line of Judaic thinking by the mid-nineteenth century. I’d like to hear from people educated in Judaism about the extent to which the you-with-the-face, personal-relationship-havin’ kind of God was one you came to expect. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2008, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/einsteins-atheism-help-me-parse-some-of-his-letter/449164/38 "2008-05-14T20:07:51Z")
**x-ray** : I just don’t understand where you are going with this discussion. I asked why non-belief in a “personal god” = atheist. If someone believes in God, but not a “personal God”, then that person is not an atheist. That’s is all. ---
**Author:** ![Tabula\_Rasa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a9adbd/32.png) [@Tabula\_Rasa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tabula_Rasa)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2008, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/einsteins-atheism-help-me-parse-some-of-his-letter/449164/39 "2008-05-14T20:32:44Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] **x-ray** : I just don’t understand where you are going with this discussion. I asked why non-belief in a “personal god” = atheist. If someone believes in God, but not a “personal God”, then that person is not an atheist. That’s is all. [/QUOTE] Eggs-zackly. Oh, yes, and in my last post, I used “theistic” in this new, made-up sense of pre-stuffing the rabbit into the magic hat. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2008, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/einsteins-atheism-help-me-parse-some-of-his-letter/449164/40 "2008-05-14T21:10:40Z")
An interesting [exchange of letters here](http://ffrf.org/fttoday/2004/nov/raner.php) between Einstein and a Navy officer named Guy Raner (an Ensign serving in the Pacific theater at the time) who asked him some questions about this issue. Raner (6/10/1945): > [@](#): > > I had quite a discussion last night with a Jesuit-educated Catholic officer . . . [in] which he made certain statements regarding you which I tend to doubt. To clear my mind on the subject I would appreciate it a great deal if you would comment on the following points: > > He said that you were once an atheist. Then, said he, you talked with a Jesuit priest who gave you three syllogisms which you were unable to disprove; as a result of that you became a believer in a supreme intellect which governs the universe. The syllogisms were: A design demands a designer; The universe is a design; therefore, there must have been a designer. On that point I questioned the universe being a design; [laws of nature account for observed natural phenomena and the vastness of the universe for its complexity]. Anyway, he said that was enough to convince you of the existence of a supreme governor of the universe. Point two was: “Laws” of nature . . . exist; if yo have a law you must have a law giver; the law-giver was God. Sounds like an exercise in semantics to me. . . > > He could not remember the third syllogism; however if the story is accurate you probably do. . . . I would greatly appreciate a short letter clarifying the situation. . . Einstein responds (7/2/1945) > [@](#): > > Dear Mr. Raner: > > I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. > > From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist. Your counter-arguments seem to me very correct and could hardly be better formulated. It is always misleading to use anthropomorphical concepts in dealing with things outside the human sphere–childish analogies. We have to admire in humility the beautiful harmony of the structure of the world–as far as we can grasp it. And that is all. > > With best wishes, > yours sincerely, > /s/ A. Einstein. > Albert Einstein Raner writes again 4 years later (9/25/1949): > [@](#): > > Dear Dr. Einstein: > > [The letter begins with a recapitulation of the prior correspondence.] I considered your letter . . . strictly personal . . . and have never permitted any of it to get into any publication, although I have showed it to a few personal friends. Last summer, [a classmate in a historiography seminar at the University of South California] remarked that such a letter is of historical value, and that I should get your permission to publish it at some future date . . . Have you any objection to its future publication, if an occasion should arise making publication possible. > > [In your letter,] You say that “From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, and have always been, an atheist.” Some people might interpret that to mean that to a Jesuit priest, anyone not a Roman Catholic is an atheist, and that you are in fact an orthodox Jew, or a Deist, or something else. Did you mean to leave room for such an interpretation, or are you from the viewpoint of the dictionary an atheist; i.e., “one who disbelieves in the existence of a God, or Supreme Being”? . . . . . . polls taken in high schools have indicated that about 95% of the students held orthodox religious opinions, reflecting . . . general opinion, which indicated a long, uphill climb before the mists of superstition give way to a more humanistic outlook. Einstein (9/28/1945): > [@](#): > > Dear Mr. Raner: > > I see with pleasure from your letter of the 25th that your convictions are near to my own. Trusting your sound judgment I authorize you to use my letter of July 1945 in any way you see fit. > > I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. 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. 4 I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being. > > Sincerely yours, > /s/ A. Einstein. > Albert Einstein. To me, this exchange spells out an even more explicit atheism (as much as he may have resisted the label) than the one in the OP. By the way, kudos to Raner for making exactly the correct responses to the Priest’s proffered syllogisms and to asking the exact same follow up questions I would ask. This guy would have been a good Doper. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/einsteins-atheism-help-me-parse-some-of-his-letter/449164.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/einsteins-atheism-help-me-parse-some-of-his-letter/449164.md?page=3)