# 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:** 14\ **Page:** 5
**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 15, 2008, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/einsteins-atheism-help-me-parse-some-of-his-letter/449164/81 "2008-05-15T00:02:16Z")
[QUOTE=Tabula Rasa] Can you provide me an example or a deeper explanation of how one can, technically, be an agnostic theist? I ask because I’m trying to get at the crux of the biscuit and here’s where my mind is going as I try to understand you: A theist believes in a God with (according to your definition) a personality. [/quote] Let;s just tighten this up to say that a theist believes in a god (or gods) with the proviso that any defintion of “god” necessarily includes a personality (unless you can provide an example of a god _without_ a personality/consciousness, whatever you want to call it. > [@](#): > > An agnostic philosophical view questions the truth or falsity of (in this case) a deity 's existence is either unknown or fundamentally unknowable. Agnosticism is the position that it’s impossible to know whether gods exist. It doesn’t necessarily involve actively “questioning” anything. > [@](#): > > A deist believes in a God with (according to your definition) no personality. No. If I’ve given that impression, then that’s my mistake. Deism is belief in a God who created. but no longer intervenes in, the universe. It does not deny that such a god has a personality/consciousness. > [@](#): > > An atheist either denies or does not embrace as true the existence of a God with (according to your definitions) a personality. Close enough. An atheist lacks belief in gods. Your qualification of “a god with a personality” is redundant, though. > [@](#): > > So, an agnostic theist would question the truth or falsity of the deity or deities with personality he believes in; Not necessarily “question” it in an active sense, just would not allege that his belief is the same as knowledge or that such a thing was knowable for sure. > [@](#): > > an agnostic deist (and I’m still not sure where you’re willing to file “deist” - -as a subset of “theist”, a subset of “atheist”, or something else) would question the truth or falsity of the existence of the deity or deities without a personality he believes in We can call it a subset of theism (just to make things easier) and the answer would essentially be the same as for a theistic agnostic. A theistic deist would believe in the existence of a creator god who no longer intervenes in the universe, but woul not allege that his belief was the same as knowledge, or that such a thing was knowable for sure. > [@](#): > > and an agnostic atheist would question the truth or falsity of the deity or deities (with personality?) whose existence he either denies or does not embrace? An agnostic theistic does not have a belief in gods but also believes that the non-exisence of gods cannot be knowable for sure. ---
**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 15, 2008, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/einsteins-atheism-help-me-parse-some-of-his-letter/449164/82 "2008-05-15T00:04:44Z")
[QUOTE=Tabula Rasa] Ooh, good one! But, what 's the standard for doubting or admitting of the possibility of doubt? How much may one wonder before falling off the back of the theist truck (which really ought to be a pear truck, I now see)? [/QUOTE] You stop being a theist when you stop believing. It’s pretty simple. Nothing has to be static. You can waver back and forth. ---
**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 15, 2008, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/einsteins-atheism-help-me-parse-some-of-his-letter/449164/83 "2008-05-15T00:25:43Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] I’m not sure I understand your confusion. Atheism is an absence of theistic belief – absence of a belief in “god” or “gods.” What definition of theistic belief exists which does not conceptulize gods as sentient personalities? [/QUOTE] From the wikipedia artilce on atheism: > [@](#): > > Some of the ambiguity and controversy involved in defining atheism arises from difficulty in reaching a consensus for the definitions of words like deity and god. The plurality of wildly different conceptions of god and deities leads to differing ideas regarding atheism’s applicability. In contexts where theism is defined as the belief in a singular personal god, for example, people who believe in a variety of other deities may be classified as atheists, including deists and even polytheists. In the 20th century, this view has fallen into disfavor as theism has come to be understood as encompassing belief in any divinity.[25] > > With respect to the range of phenomena being rejected, atheism may counter anything from the existence of a god, to the existence of any spiritual, supernatural, or transcendental concepts, such as those of Hinduism and Buddhism.[26] The word has evolved over time, and I think we can assume that it’s first use was to mean someone who did not believe in the Judeo-Christian God (also per that wikipedia article). ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2008, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/einsteins-atheism-help-me-parse-some-of-his-letter/449164/84 "2008-05-15T00:29:59Z")
To my mind, if one defines “atheism” as simply a lack of belief in a transcendent deity with personality, it is a term meaningful only in relation to those religious traditions which _have_ a transcendent deity with personality. Otherwise, one has the absurd position of being able to say, “I’m an Atheist. But I believe in Taoism, Pantheism, Buddhism, Shamanism and Deism” - the latter either having an immanent deity, a supernatural state of existence, a belief in supernatural sppirit-worlds, or a transendant diety without personality. This strikes me as very limited to a Judeo-Christian context. Much more useful, and generally accurate, is to hold “atheism” as a philosophical position of skepticism vs. any unfalsifiable supernatural or deity-claims. ---
**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 15, 2008, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/einsteins-atheism-help-me-parse-some-of-his-letter/449164/85 "2008-05-15T00:58:06Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] I’m not sure I understand your confusion. Atheism is an absence of theistic belief – absence of a belief in “god” or “gods.” What definition of theistic belief exists which does not conceptulize gods as sentient personalities? [/QUOTE] Yes, but when Einstein says, “From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.”, clearly that leaves some wiggle room for interpretation. Why qualify his atheism? May be meant, “I’m not an athiest, but my beliefs are far enough outside what a Jesuit would define as theism that from his viewpoint, I’m an athiest.” Kind of like a Mormon saying, “From the viewpoint of a born-again religious right person, I’m not a Christian.” It’s not that the Mormon does not believe he’s a Christian, but that he believes that the other person thinks he is not. That said, I don’t think Einstein can simply be called ‘agnostic’, either. At least not in the pop sense of an agnostic not being willig to take any sides of the religion debate. Clearly, Einstein thought typical theist beliefs were ‘childish’, so he was totally willing to call out some religious beliefs as being wrong. Here’s what I get from Einstein’s statements - He thought that the universe was awe-inspiring and beautiful, and had deep emotions regarding it and the insignificance of his place in it. However, he saw no reason to invoke a God to describe it or its creation or existence. He wasn’t an athiest in the sense that he was ready to confront people for their religious beliefs and carry the mantle of athiesm, because he felt that the whole issue was so far beyond our comprehension that it was silly to make hard declarative statements about anything. Thus, people who claimed that our universe must have been created by a supernatural being were being childish and silly. He might have also described the claim of knowledge of God as arrogance. The universe was vast and we should be humble when we claim to understand it. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2008, 9:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/einsteins-atheism-help-me-parse-some-of-his-letter/449164/86 "2008-05-15T09:46:08Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] I think we can assume that it’s first use was to mean someone who did not believe in the Judeo-Christian God (also per that wikipedia article). [/QUOTE] First was the Greek Gods, as per the trial & execution of Socrates, unless you mean strictly the English version of the word. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2008, 10:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/einsteins-atheism-help-me-parse-some-of-his-letter/449164/87 "2008-05-15T10:06:34Z")
[QUOTE=Malthus] Otherwise, one has the absurd position of being able to say, “I’m an Atheist. But I believe in […] Buddhism[…]” [/QUOTE] There’s nothing absurd about that statement. There’s no necessarily supernatural or theistic element to Buddhism. ---
**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 15, 2008, 10:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/einsteins-atheism-help-me-parse-some-of-his-letter/449164/88 "2008-05-15T10:20:02Z")
[QUOTE=MrDibble] First was the Greek Gods, as per the trial & execution of Socrates, unless you mean strictly the English version of the word. [/QUOTE] I meant the English word, which comes from French (per the wikipedia article) in the 1500s. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2008, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/einsteins-atheism-help-me-parse-some-of-his-letter/449164/89 "2008-05-15T22:28:10Z")
[QUOTE=Malthus] To my mind, if one defines “atheism” as simply a lack of belief in a transcendent deity with personality, it is a term meaningful only in relation to those religious traditions which _have_ a transcendent deity with personality. Otherwise, one has the absurd position of being able to say, “I’m an Atheist. But I believe in Taoism, Pantheism, Buddhism, Shamanism and Deism” - the latter either having an immanent deity, a supernatural state of existence, a belief in supernatural sppirit-worlds, or a transendant diety without personality. This strikes me as very limited to a Judeo-Christian context. Much more useful, and generally accurate, is to hold “atheism” as a philosophical position of skepticism vs. any unfalsifiable supernatural or deity-claims. [/QUOTE] The term you’re looking for is “skeptic”. Atheists can believe in an afterlife, spirits, ghosts, fairies, leprachauns, unicorns, aliens, honest politicians - _anything_ except gods. By definition. If you don’t like the definition, find another word. Now, athests do _tend_ not to believe in several of the aforementioned things, but that’s just a side effect of the sorts of thinking processes that tend to lead to atheism. It’s not part of atheism itself, regardless of any correlations. You don’t have to be black to be a professional basketball player, and you don’t have to be a general skeptic to be an atheist. (PS: Small detail: by my understanding, deism is a belief in a god, by definition. Ergo, by my thinking atheists are not deists - if you manage to define yourself a critter such that it satisfies atheism, I think it stops satisfying deism, since it can’t be a deity. I think.) ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2008, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/einsteins-atheism-help-me-parse-some-of-his-letter/449164/90 "2008-05-15T23:29:25Z")
[QUOTE=begbert2] The term you’re looking for is “skeptic”. Atheists can believe in an afterlife, spirits, ghosts, fairies, leprachauns, unicorns, aliens, honest politicians - _anything_ except gods. By definition. If you don’t like the definition, find another word. Now, athests do _tend_ not to believe in several of the aforementioned things, but that’s just a side effect of the sorts of thinking processes that tend to lead to atheism. It’s not part of atheism itself, regardless of any correlations. You don’t have to be black to be a professional basketball player, and you don’t have to be a general skeptic to be an atheist. (PS: Small detail: by my understanding, deism is a belief in a god, by definition. Ergo, by my thinking atheists are not deists - if you manage to define yourself a critter such that it satisfies atheism, I think it stops satisfying deism, since it can’t be a deity. I think.) [/QUOTE] Actually, going by oroginal definitions, the term “atheist” inwas in English a perjorative term (no-one called _themselves_ an “atheist”), and later in the 18th century it meant very specifically “lack of belief in the Abrahamic God” and was used for self-description by some. Point is, that use is somewhat outdated these days; it is too specific to Western culture. In its broader sense, nowadays it means lack of belief in any particular deity - in which category I’d add various Eastern religions which propose immanent deities, as well as supernatural beings with deity-like characteristics (such as Buddhas in some varieties of Buddhism): > [@](#): > > Even though an Absolute Creator God is absent in most forms of Buddhism, veneration and worship of Gautama Buddha (and other Buddhas) do play a major role in both Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism. Another difference is that all have the opportunity to strive for Buddhahood, whereas in Abrahamic version of theism, it is impossible to strive to become the God due to a strict separation between man and God. Although it should be mentioned that the doctrine of Theosis has played an important role in Christian thought. However, there are number of theistic variations of Hinduism where a man can strive to become the Godhead. Similarly, in some major traditions of Mahayana Buddhism (the Tathagatagarbha and Pure Land streams of teaching) there is the notion of the Buddha as the omnipresent, omniscient, liberative essence of Reality, and the idea of the Buddhas as generators of vast “pure lands”, “Buddha lands” or Buddha Paradises, in which beings will unfailingly attain Nirvana. > **[Creator in Buddhism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Buddhism)** > > Generally speaking, Buddhism is a religion that does not include the belief in a monotheistic creator deity. As such, it has often been described as either (non-materialistic) atheism or as nontheism. However, other scholars have challenged these descriptions since some forms of Buddhism do posit different kinds of transcendent, unborn, and unconditioned ultimate realities (e.g., Buddha-nature). > Buddhist teachings state that there are divine beings called devas (sometimes translated as 'gods')... Lack of belief in Pure Land Buddhism, for example, strikes me as “atheistic”, even though Buddhism lacks anything like an Abrahamic creator deity. I personally think it is still more useful to extend its meaning still further to embrace a consistent lack of belief in _any_ unfalsifiable supernatural phenomina, since as you note the same thought process is generally involved in not believing in ghosts as in not believing in the Holy Ghost. But I concede that this latter is _not_ part of the generally accepted definition. ---
**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 15, 2008, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/einsteins-atheism-help-me-parse-some-of-his-letter/449164/91 "2008-05-15T23:46:53Z")
You can be an atheistic Buddhist. Some varieties of Buddhism recognize deities (and those varieties would be theistic), but those deities are non-authoritative and non-essential to the religion as a whole. The core goals and tenets of Buddhism are essentially nontheistic – not in a sense that deities are necessarily rejected or denied, but that they are irrelevant. Buddhism doesn’t even have to encompass any supernatural beliefs at all. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2008, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/einsteins-atheism-help-me-parse-some-of-his-letter/449164/92 "2008-05-16T00:35:33Z")
[QUOTE=Malthus] Actually, going by oroginal definitions, the term “atheist” inwas in English a perjorative term (no-one called _themselves_ an “atheist”), and later in the 18th century it meant very specifically “lack of belief in the Abrahamic God” and was used for self-description by some. Point is, that use is somewhat outdated these days; it is too specific to Western culture. In its broader sense, nowadays it means lack of belief in any particular deity - in which category I’d add various Eastern religions which propose immanent deities, as well as supernatural beings with deity-like characteristics (such as Buddhas in some varieties of Buddhism): > **[Creator in Buddhism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Buddhism)** > > Generally speaking, Buddhism is a religion that does not include the belief in a monotheistic creator deity. As such, it has often been described as either (non-materialistic) atheism or as nontheism. However, other scholars have challenged these descriptions since some forms of Buddhism do posit different kinds of transcendent, unborn, and unconditioned ultimate realities (e.g., Buddha-nature). > Buddhist teachings state that there are divine beings called devas (sometimes translated as 'gods')... Lack of belief in Pure Land Buddhism, for example, strikes me as “atheistic”, even though Buddhism lacks anything like an Abrahamic creator deity. [/QUOTE] You’re correct that the archaic definitions are outdated - so much so, in fact, that they’re irrelevent to the discussion. The only two meanings of the word that matter are its modern meaning, and the meaning it had in Einstein’s time (to make sure we interpret his statements about it correctly). The question of whether Buddha counts as a god (or rather, whether any specific version and state of Buddha counts as a god) is relevent to the question of whether believing in Buddha disqualifies you from the atheist label - and it’s something I’m not qualified to answer, which my ignorance of Buddhism in general. However I don’t believe in any supernatural or abnormal incarnation of any Buddha, so I’m still good regardless. 🙂 [QUOTE=Malthus] I personally think it is still more useful to extend its meaning still further to embrace a consistent lack of belief in _any_ unfalsifiable supernatural phenomina, since as you note the same thought process is generally involved in not believing in ghosts as in not believing in the Holy Ghost. But I concede that this latter is _not_ part of the generally accepted definition. [/QUOTE] I think that using words in ways that are inconsistent with their common meaning is not useful at _all_. If you don’t like the meaning of the word ‘atheism’, don’t use the word. Heck, I don’t even think this is a _good_ “extension of meaning”, since it doesn’t add anything constructive - it just modifies the set of things disbelieved in from one moderately clear set to an even less clearly defined set, which unlike the original has no relation whatsoever to the root or historical meanings of the word. Ick. The language will evolve quickly enough without deliberate misuse - just use other words that actually mean what you want to say. When you do use “atheism”, use it only to refer to disbelief in gods, all gods, and only gods. Please. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2008, 12:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/einsteins-atheism-help-me-parse-some-of-his-letter/449164/93 "2008-05-16T12:35:48Z")
[QUOTE=begbert2] You’re correct that the archaic definitions are outdated - so much so, in fact, that they’re irrelevent to the discussion. The only two meanings of the word that matter are its modern meaning, and the meaning it had in Einstein’s time (to make sure we interpret his statements about it correctly). The question of whether Buddha counts as a god (or rather, whether any specific version and state of Buddha counts as a god) is relevent to the question of whether believing in Buddha disqualifies you from the atheist label - and it’s something I’m not qualified to answer, which my ignorance of Buddhism in general. However I don’t believe in any supernatural or abnormal incarnation of any Buddha, so I’m still good regardless. 🙂 I think that using words in ways that are inconsistent with their common meaning is not useful at _all_. If you don’t like the meaning of the word ‘atheism’, don’t use the word. Heck, I don’t even think this is a _good_ “extension of meaning”, since it doesn’t add anything constructive - it just modifies the set of things disbelieved in from one moderately clear set to an even less clearly defined set, which unlike the original has no relation whatsoever to the root or historical meanings of the word. Ick. The language will evolve quickly enough without deliberate misuse - just use other words that actually mean what you want to say. When you do use “atheism”, use it only to refer to disbelief in gods, all gods, and only gods. Please. [/QUOTE] My point is that it can be awfully difficult to determine, in a non-Western context, what qualifies as a “god” for the purpose of disbelief and what doesn’t; as the Buddhist example demonstrates. The issue with Buddhism is that, while it contains within it a purely non-theistic philosophy of personal liberation (no gods or supernatural elements are strictly necessary for the Four Noble Truths or following the Eightfold Path), some mainstream varieties of Buddhism early developed into religion in which buddha-figures are seen as presiding over heavens, and Arhats act much as saints do in Catholicism; and in which figures recognizable as priests tend to temples in which statues and relics are venerated, and incense burned. According to some (see **Diogenes** above) Buddhism is still in essence “non-theistic”, and thus a Buddhist is an atheist. But this to my mind makes no sense. Person A goes forth to a temple, woships a giant seated idol of the Pure Land Buddha, burns incense, offers prayers in the hopes of gaining a happy afterlife - to call that person an “atheist” seems to me to stretch the meaning of the word to the breaking-point. Now, I suppose some may argue that this isn’t the original concept of Buddhism; but it, or some variant of it, is the form of Buddhism that most actual Buddhists actually practice. Buddhists themselves traditionally have not been terribly concerned about the distinction between theism and atheism - early Buddhism accepted the existence of the Hindu gods no problem (just felt sorry for 'em as they were bound to the wheel of samsara). It wasn’t the sort of big wrench for Buddhists to accept Buddhas as essentially gods, as it would be for modern Westerners (who tend in consequence to be attracted to the more esoteric varieties of Buddhism such as Zen). The point? That outside the easy dichotomies we are used to - philosophy/religion, or Abrahamic God/Atheism, the familiar categories of label aren’t terribly useful. The Einstein case is illustrative of this. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2008, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/einsteins-atheism-help-me-parse-some-of-his-letter/449164/94 "2008-05-16T17:37:27Z")
[QUOTE=Malthus] My point is that it can be awfully difficult to determine, in a non-Western context, what qualifies as a “god” for the purpose of disbelief and what doesn’t; as the Buddhist example demonstrates. The issue with Buddhism is that, while it contains within it a purely non-theistic philosophy of personal liberation (no gods or supernatural elements are strictly necessary for the Four Noble Truths or following the Eightfold Path), some mainstream varieties of Buddhism early developed into religion in which buddha-figures are seen as presiding over heavens, and Arhats act much as saints do in Catholicism; and in which figures recognizable as priests tend to temples in which statues and relics are venerated, and incense burned. According to some (see **Diogenes** above) Buddhism is still in essence “non-theistic”, and thus a Buddhist is an atheist. But this to my mind makes no sense. Person A goes forth to a temple, woships a giant seated idol of the Pure Land Buddha, burns incense, offers prayers in the hopes of gaining a happy afterlife - to call that person an “atheist” seems to me to stretch the meaning of the word to the breaking-point. Now, I suppose some may argue that this isn’t the original concept of Buddhism; but it, or some variant of it, is the form of Buddhism that most actual Buddhists actually practice. Buddhists themselves traditionally have not been terribly concerned about the distinction between theism and atheism - early Buddhism accepted the existence of the Hindu gods no problem (just felt sorry for 'em as they were bound to the wheel of samsara). It wasn’t the sort of big wrench for Buddhists to accept Buddhas as essentially gods, as it would be for modern Westerners (who tend in consequence to be attracted to the more esoteric varieties of Buddhism such as Zen). The point? That outside the easy dichotomies we are used to - philosophy/religion, or Abrahamic God/Atheism, the familiar categories of label aren’t terribly useful. The Einstein case is illustrative of this. [/QUOTE] So the definition of “god” is a little fuzzy, and that fuzziness carries over to the defintion of atheist. This is a common condition of categorization words; even simple color words like “red” and 'blue" have it. I think most people don’t see this as a problem. For example, in the atheist case, either the person doesn’t believe in any thing that’s even _close_ to being a god, or (as you mention) they don’t worry about the question at all. And, how is the Einstein case illustrative of this? It takes tortured wordplay to even begin to classify him as a pantheist. He himself, reluctantly, classified himself as an atheist, -and his reluctance pretty clearly seems to be because he didn’t like the company that the classification put him in. So he was in awe at the workings of the universe. Myself, I’m in awe of the awesome range and scope of gameplay available in the Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas computer game. But that doesn’t mean I _worship_ the game, it certainly doesn’t make the game a god (and wouldn’t even if I _did_ worship it), and it’s beyond doubt that my awe of the game doesn’t make me a theist. And from what I can see the same applies to Einstein and his awe of the workings of the universe. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/einsteins-atheism-help-me-parse-some-of-his-letter/449164.md?page=4)